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

Each of the undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted  pursuant  to  Section  906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that this
Quarterly  Report  on  Form  10-Q  for  the  quarter  ended March 31, 2006 fully
complies  with  the  requirements  of  Section  13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange  Act  of 1934, as amended, and the information contained in such report
fairly  presents,  in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of  operations  of  the  Company.


This 5th day of May, 2006.


/s/ R. Daniel Blanton
-----------------------------
R. Daniel Blanton
President &
Chief Executive Officer
(Principal executive officer)


/s/ Darrell R. Rains
-----------------------------
Darrell R. Rains
Group Vice President &
Chief Financial Officer
(Principal financial officer)
Exhibit 99.1

AMERICAN PHARMACEUTICAL PARTNERS, INC.

CERTIFICATION

In connection with the periodic report of American Pharmaceutical Partners, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q
for the period ended September 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Patrick Soon-Shiong, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title
18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, that to the best of my knowledge:

|                        | (1)  the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 at the dates
and for the periods indicated.
|                        |                                                                                                                                                                                                     
|Date: November 13, 2002 | /s/ PATRICK SOON-SHIONG                                                                                                                                                                             
|                        |                                                                                                                                                                                                     
|                        | Patrick Soon-Shiong Chief Executive Officer                                                                                                                                                         
|                        |
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 127 (Wednesday, September 19, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Page S6446]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                           MEASURES REFERRED

  The following bills were read the first and the second times by 
unanimous consent, and referred as indicated:

       H.R. 6213. An act to limit further taxpayer exposure from 
     the loan guarantee program established under title XVII of 
     the Energy Policy Act of 2005; to the Committee on Energy and 
     Natural Resources.
       H.R. 6365. An act to amend the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 to replace the 
     sequester established by the Budget Control Act of 2011; to 
     the Committee on the Budget.

                          ____________________
```
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 128 (Thursday, September 20, 2012)]
[House]
[Page H6233]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

            By Mr. YOUNG of Alaska:
        H.R. 6478.
        Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant 
     to the following:
       Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1 of the United States 
     Constitution.
```
**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 September 30, 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 |   |
| November 19, 2008                                   |   |

 

----
<PAGE>
                                                                               .
                                                                               .
                                                                               .
                                                                    Exhibit 12.1

Northern Border Partners, L.P.
Ratio of earnings to fixed charges

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                         Year ended December 31,
                                             -----------------------------------------------
                                               2001      2002      2003      2004      2005
                                             -------   -------   -------   -------   -------
<S>                                          <C>       <C>       <C>       <C>       <C>
Fixed charges:
Interest expensed and capitalized             91,653    83,227    79,159    77,346    86,903
Estimate of interest within rental expense     1,091     1,112     1,210     1,192     1,522
                                             -------   -------   -------   -------   -------
Total fixed charges                           92,744    84,339    80,369    78,538    88,425
                                             =======   =======   =======   =======   =======

Earnings:
Pretax income from continuing operations      88,332   112,625   (92,444)  146,057   152,299
Minority interest in net income               42,138    42,816    44,460    50,033    45,674
Equity earnings from equity investees         (1,697)  (12,983)  (18,815)  (18,015)  (24,736)
Distributed income of equity investees         7,083    10,820    17,672    12,536    16,440
Interest capitalized                            (834)     (304)     (117)     (366)     (787)
Fixed charges                                 92,744    84,339    80,369    78,538    88,425
                                             -------   -------   -------   -------   -------
Total earnings                               227,766   237,313    31,125   268,783   277,315
                                             -------   -------   -------   -------   -------
Ratio of earnings to fixed charges              2.46      2.81      0.39      3.42      3.14
                                             =======   =======   =======   =======   =======
</TABLE>
Exhibit 21.1**List of Subsidiaries**C & C Vision International Limited
Kranem Corporation: Exhibit 10.8 - Filed by newsfilecorp.com






Confidential Treatment Requested. Confidential portions of
this document have been redacted and have been separately filed with the SEC.







Confidential Treatment Requested.
Confidential portions of this document have been redacted and have been
separately filed with the SEC. 




The symbol ___
in this exhibit indicates places where information has been omitted pursuant to
a request for confidential treatment and filed separately with the SEC.
Faulk, Scott (OST) 

From: 

Sent: 

To: 

Subject: 

Aloha, 

Patrick Boland <boland@lava.net> 

Wednesday, October 30, 2013 8:03 PM 

EAS (OST) 

EAS service for Kalaupapa, Molokai, Hawaii 

I have been traveling between Honolulu and Kalaupapa for more than 40 years. Currently I go to Kalaupapa about twice 

a month, where I am one of the tour drivers for Damien Tours, the only tour in the settlement/National Park. 

I strongly support the service provided by Makani Kai. The entire operation is reliable and professional. The schedule is 

structured around the needs ofthe residents and visitors. The prices are reasonable. The pilots and other staff are not 

only professional, they are family. 

The previous provider was a disaster, with prices and "service" that made Kalaupapa almost inaccessible. It has been a 

great relief these past few years to have the solid and quality service provided by Makani Kai. 

I certainly recommend that Makani Kai continue as the EAS provider for Kalaupapa. 

Thank you, 

Patrick Boland 

1
#### MOULTON v. STATE.

No. A-11856.

Criminal Court of Appeals of Oklahoma.

July 1, 1953.

O. C. Lassiter, Tulsa, for plaintiff in error.

Mac Q. Williamson, Atty. Gen., Sam H. Lattimore, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Lewis J. Bicking, County Atty., Tulsa County, Tulsa, for defendant in error.

POWELL, Presiding Judge.

The appeal of William v. (Bill) Moulton from a judgment entered by Judge Edmister, Judge of the court of common pleas of Tulsa County, after a plea of guilty on the charge of unlawful possession of intoxicating' liquor and assessing a fine of $150 and sixty days imprisonment in the county jail,' must fail.

The sole ground for reversal in the petition in error is that the judgment and sentence is excessive.

No brief has been filed, and no appearance was made on the 10th day of June, 1953, when the case came on for oral argument. No error is apparent.

The judgment and sentence appealed from is affirmed.

JONES and BRETT, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS RESTATED SCHED. CONTAINS SUMMARY FINAN. INFO. EXTRACTED FROM THE CO.'S
CONSOLIDATED BAL. SHEET AT DEC. 26, 1998 AND FROM THE CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT
OF OPS. FOR THE YEAR ENDED DEC. 26, 1998 CONTAINED IN THE CO.'S ANNUAL REPORT
ON FORM 10-K FOR THE YEAR ENDED DEC. 26, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY
BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINAN. STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-26-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-28-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-26-1998
<CASH>                                           19996
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      26847
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 62187
<PP&E>                                           54355
<DEPRECIATION>                                    6870
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  115492
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            51996
<BONDS>                                           9900
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            96
<OTHER-SE>                                       53500
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    115492
<SALES>                                         218730
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                218730
<CGS>                                           143798
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   143798
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 61677
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (519)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  13774
<INCOME-TAX>                                      5372
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               8402
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      8402
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.89
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.81


</TABLE>
# C_2009055EN.01003503.xml

| 7.3.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 55/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.3.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 55/35

---

Action brought on 18 December 2008 — mPAY24 v OHIM — Ultra (MPAY)

(Case T-557/08)

(2009/C 55/65)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: mPAY24 GmbH (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: H. Z. Zeiner, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Ultra d.o.o. Proizvodnja elektronskih naprav (Zagorje ob Savi, Slovenia)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 30 September 2008 in case R 221/2007-1 to the extent that the opposition filed by the applicant has been rejected; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 30 September 2008 in case R 221/2007-1 to the extent that the opposition filed by the applicant has been rejected; and

| — | Order the defendant and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Applicant for the Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘MPAY’, for goods and services in classes 9, 35, 36, 37, 38 and 42 — application No 3 587 896

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Mark or sign cited: Community trade mark registration No 2 061 656 of the word mark ‘MPAY24’ for goods and services in classes 9, 16, 35, 36 and 38; Austrian trade mark registration No 200 373 of the word mark ‘MPAY24’ for goods and services in classes 9, 16, 35, 36 and 38.

Mark or sign cited:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the trade mark application in its entirety

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Partial dismissal of the appeal

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1) and (4) of Council Regulation 40/94 as the Board of Appeal wrongly assessed the likelihood of confusion between the trade marks concerned.

Pleas in law:

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-6393

JAMES M. DEBARDELEBEN,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

BILL HEDRICK, Warden; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF

VIRGINIA,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (CA-97-661-AM)

Submitted: October 8, 1998 Decided: November 16, 1998

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James M. DeBardeleben, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
* DeBardeleben’s conviction became final in 1990, and he did

not file his initial § 2254 petition until April 29, 1997 -- more

than one year after the date the conviction became final and more

than one year after the effective date of the Antiterrorism and

Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat.

1214.

2

PER CURIAM:

James M. DeBardeleben appeals from the district court’s order

denying his motion for reconsideration filed pursuant to Fed. R.

Civ. P. 59(e) of the court’s order denying relief on his petition

filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We

have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find

no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny DeBardeleben’s motion to

proceed in forma pauperis, deny his motion for a certificate of

appealability, and dismiss the appeal, although on the alternative

ground that DeBardeleben’s initial petition was filed outside the

one-year limitations period imposed by 28 U.S.C.A. § 2244(d)(1)

(West 1994 & Supp. 1998).* DeBardeleben’s motions “to disqualify

Judges Russell, Phillips, and Murnaghan,” “for hearing of appeal on

original record without appendix,” and “to waive 50 page brief

limit” are denied as moot. DeBardeleben’s motions “for decision by

unbiased judge due to Clerk Connor’s harassment” and “for Clerk

Connor to acknowledge pleadings and terminate conspiracy to sabotage appeal” are denied as baseless. We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in
3

the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
August 23 , 2016



### JUDGMENT



## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

CARLOS GALLEGO S

- PIEDRA , Appellant

NO. 14

- 14

- 01026

- CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

________________________________ This cause was heard on the transcript of the record of the court below. Having considered the record, this Court holds that there was no error in the judgment. The Court orders the judgment AFFIRMED

.
We further order appellant pay all costs expended in t he appeal.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

No. 20

- 20477

**Richard Winfrey, Jr.,**

Plaintiff

— Appellee **,**

versus
**San Jacinto County,**

Defendant **,**

**Megan Winfrey,**

Plaintiff

— Appellee **,**

versus
**Lenard Johnson,** Former San Jacinto County Sheriff ’ s Department Deputy **,** Defendant

— Appellant

**.**

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC Nos. 4:10

- CV

- 1896, 4:14

- CV

- 448

Before **Clement, Southwick,** and **Willett,** Circuit Judges

**.** United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED November 12, 2021 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 20-20477 Document: 00516091772 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/12/2021No. 20

- 20477

2 **Per Curiam :**  *
This is the fourth appeal in this § 1983 malicious

- prosecution case. 1 Having heard oral argument and reviewed the brief ing, record, and applicable law, w e find no reversible error and **AFFIRM** , thus upholding the jury
verdict in favor of Plaintiffs.

* Pursuant to **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  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 cuit**  **R ule**  47.5.4.

1 See Winfrey v. San Jacinto Cnty. ( Winfrey I ), 481 F. App’x 969 (5th Cir. 2012); Win frey v. Rogers ( Winfrey II ), 901 F.3d 483 (5th Cir. 2018); Winfrey v. Johnson ( Winfrey III ), 766 F. App’x 66 (5th Cir. 2019). Case: 20-20477 Document: 00516091772 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/12/2021
Exhibit 99.1
 
 Grubb & Ellis Company
1551 N. Tustin Avenue, Suite 300
Santa Ana, CA 92705
714.667.8252 main
714.667.6860 fax
www.grubb-ellis.com
   Contact:
    
    Janice McDillPhone:
    

    312.698.6707Email:
    
    janice.mcdill@grubb-ellis.com
 Grubb & Ellis Company Extends 10-K Filing Beyond March 31, 2009
     About Grubb & Ellis
  www.grubb-ellis.com




---



##### 



2  2  2
03/31/09
Grubb & Ellis Company Extends 10-K Filing Beyond March 31, 2009
 Forward-Looking Statements
  ###
 Grubb & Ellis Company
1551 N. Tustin Avenue, Suite 300.
    
    Santa Ana, CA 92705
    
    714.667.8252
Exhibit 2.2


                              ARTICLES OF AMENDMENT
                                     TO THE
                            ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION
                                       OF
                      DIRECT WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS, INC.



         Pursuant to the provisions of Article 4.04 of the Texas Business
Corporation Act, the undersigned corporation adopts the following articles of
amendment to its Articles of Incorporation:

                                   ARTICLE ONE

         The name of the corporation is DIRECT WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS, INC.

                                   ARTICLE TWO

         The following amendments to the Articles of Incorporation were adopted
by the shareholders of the corporation on September 25, 2001, allowing the
corporation to change the share structure and to issue a new class of preferred
shares.

                                  ARTICLE THREE

         The amendment alters and changes Article Four. The numbering of the
other Articles remains unchanged. The full text of such amended provisions are
as follows:


                                   ARTICLE IV
                                  -----------
                                SHARES STRUCTURE
                                ----------------

         The Corporation is authorized to issue one class of shares to be
designated "common." The total number of shares that the corporation shall have
authority to issue is 200,000,000 and all such shares are without par value.

         ARTICLE FOUR

         The number of shares of the corporation outstanding at the time of such
adoption was 1000; and the number of shares entitled to vote thereon was 1000.

         ARTICLE FIVE

         The number of shares voted for such amendment was 1000 and the number
of shares voted against such amendment was zero (0).


<PAGE>


         ARTICLE SIX

         The amendment does not effect a change in the amount of stated capital

Dated September 25, 2001.


                                        DIRECT WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS, INC.




                                        /S/   Bill G. Williams
                                        BY:   Bill G. Williams
                                              Chief Executive Officer
##### 



Exhibit 32.1

Certification of Chief Executive Officer
Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002(subscription (a)
and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), the
undersigned officer of Vialta, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the Company),
does hereby certify, to such officers knowledge, that:

(1)   the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30,
2003 (the Form 10-Q) of the Company fully complies with the financial
requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
and

(2)   the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the
Company.

Dated: November 13, 2003
    
    By:
    
    /s/Didier PietriDidier PietriPresident & Chief Executive Officer


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