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

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Global  Innovative  Systems,  Inc. on
Form 10-QSB for the period  ending June 30, 2003,  as filed with the  Securities
and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I, Fraser  Lawrie,
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.

By: /s/ Fraser Lawrie
Fraser Lawrie, President and CEO
Date: August 14, 2003

A signed  original of this written  statement  required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the  electronic  version of this written  statement
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.
**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

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

The undersigned, Bondy Tan, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
| (1) | the quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Global Innovative Systems Inc. for the period ended December 31, 2006 (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 Global Innovative Systems Inc. |
|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

Dated: February 20, 2007

/s/ Bondy Tan

Bondy Tan

President and Chief Executive Officer

(Principal Executive Officer, Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer)

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Global Innovative Systems Inc. and will be retained by Global Innovative Systems Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

November 13, 2018

No. 04-18-00852-CV

IN RE ANDERSON COLUMBIA CO., INC.

Original Mandamus Proceeding1

ORDER

Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Irene Rios, Justice

On November 13, 2018, relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus and a motion for 

temporary relief pending final resolution of the petition for writ of mandamus. This court 

believes a serious question concerning the mandamus relief sought requires further 

consideration. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(b). The respondent and the real parties in interest may 

file a response to the petition in this court no later than November 29, 2018. Any such 

response must conform to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.4. 

Relator’s request for temporary relief is GRANTED. All proceedings in trial cause 

number 15-03-31056-MCV, styled Jerold Givens, et al. v. Salatiel Polanco, et al., pending in the 

293rd Judicial District Court, Maverick County, Texas, are STAYED pending final resolution of 

the petition for writ of mandamus.

It is so ORDERED on November 13, 2018.

PER CURIAM

 ATTESTED TO: _____________________________

 KEITH E. HOTTLE,

 Clerk of Court

 

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 15-03-31056-MCV, styled Jerold Givens, et al. v. Salatiel Polanco, et al., 

pending in the 293rd Judicial District Court, Maverick County, Texas, the Honorable Gloria Saldana presiding.
#### NATHAN ALTERMAN ELECTRIC COMPANY, Appellant, v. CITY OF SAN ANTONIO and Eramso F. McChanney, Appellees.

No. 14014.

Court of Civil Appeáls of Texas. San Antonio.

Nov. 21, 1962.

Rehearing Denied Dee. 19,1962.

*912Vaughan & Vaughan, San Antonio, for appellant.

Green, Green & Wiley, Robert B. Thornton, Preston H. Dial, Jr., San Antonio, for appellees.

POPE, Justice.

Nathan Alterman Electric Company sued the City of San Antonio for damages to its truck. In a trial before the court, judgment was rendered for the defendants. Electric Company urges that the trial court erred in failing to file its findings of fact and conclusions of law; that the judgment is not supported by any evidence, and is against the great weight of the evidence.

Electric Company requested findings and conclusions seventeen days after judgment. Rule 296, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, states that the request should be made within ten days after rendition of judgment. The statement of facts is short and we have examined it in its entirety. From the record, no prejudice to the plaintiff accrued by the mere failure to file findings. Tippit v. Tippit, Tex.Civ.App., 360 S.W.2d 177; McClendon v. McClendon, Tex.Civ.App., 289 S.W.2d 640; Brown v. Thrower, Tex.Civ.App., 256 S.W.2d 962.

The record discloses that the Electric Company’s pick-up truck was going north, followed by City’s garbage truck. In a sparsely settled area, the Electric Company’s truck turned to the left across the highway. The driver hesitatingly stated that he gave a signal with his hand, but stated that it would be seen with great difficulty because the vehicle was rigged with large bins on either side for carrying equipment. The driver of City’s garbage truck stated he was passing the pick-up, did not see a signal, and the pick-up turned across the road in front of him. A disinterested investigator stated that the Electric Company’s driver told him that he did not give a signal of his turn.

The evidence is full and complete in support of the Electric Company driver’s contributory negligence.

The judgment for defendants is affirmed.
#### Clarence W. SMITH, Appellant, v. Bruce HOBLITIZELL, Appellee.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Aug. 28, 1957.

*924Wilson K. Beatty, Louisville, for appellant.

A. Scott Hamilton, Commonwealth’s Atty., Lousiville, Jo M. Ferguson, Atty. Gen., Edward L. Fossett, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

STANLEY, Commissioner.

The appeal is from a judgment, rendered on the pleadings, denying the appellant, Clarence W. Smith, release from jail on a writ of habeas corpus.

The petition states that on May 22, 1957, the petitioner was convicted m the police court of Louisville of disorderly conduct and his penalty fixed at fifty days in jail and a fine of $100, with the added provision that he should execute bond in the sum of $1,000 that he would be of good behavior for one year; that his commitment to jail provided by a special endorsement thereon that he should be held a period of ninety days should he fail to give such security. The petition alleged the petitioner has served the jail sentence and paid his fine, and that since then he has been confined an additional thirty days. The petitioner charges that he is being unlawfully held in jail and is entitled to be released as a matter of right.'

The sheriff, in his capacity of jailer, answered that he was holding the prisoner under a judgment of the police court for a violation of General Ordinance 85-8 of the City of Louisville, covering the offense of disorderly conduct. The answer recites that an attested copy of the judgment and of the commitment were being filed. No copy of the judgment is in the original record, which has been filed in this court on the appeal.

The commitment is a printed form with the particulars typed in. It recites the defendant’s conviction as above stated and; adds the provision that the prisoner should be retained “for a period of twelve months-unless he shall in the meantime execute bond in the sum of $1,000 with good security to the Commonwealth of Kentucky, to keep the peace and be of good behavior for the said term of twelve months, as required by said judgment.” But there is stamped on the commitment, above the printed name of the clerk of the police court, this endorsement : “For failure to execute foresaid Real. Estate Bond, the defendant shall be held not to exceed (Three Months) or ninety days,, omitting fine or other penalties.”

There is an irreconcilable conflict between the two provisions of the commitment. The conflict cannot be resolved without an examination of the judgment upon: which the commitment issued. The burden, is upon the appellant to show that the judgment of the circuit court is erroneous. In, the absence from the record of an authenticated copy of the judgment of the police-court, we must assume that the judgment of the circuit court is proper.

The judgment is, therefore, affirmed.
EXHIBIT 23.1
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENTREGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-3 (No.333-76584, No. 333-69614, No. 333-52081, No. 333-72037, No. 333-48384 and No. 333-122223) ofAradigm Corporation and in the related Prospectus’ and the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (No.333-85244, No. 333-63116, No. 333-15947, No. 333-62039. and No. 333-92169) of our report datedFebruary 11, 2005, except for Note 11, as to which the date is February 25, 2005, with respect tothe financial statements of Aradigm Corporation included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for theyear ended December 31, 2004.
/s/ Ernst & Young LLP
Palo Alto, California
March 30, 2005
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Hiroaki Nishio 

COMPLAINANT 

v. 

Commonwealth Ports Authority 

RESPONDENT. 

Docket No. 16-13-03 

NOTICE OF EXTENSION OF TIME 

This matter is before the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) based on the above-referenced 

complaint, filed in accordance with FAA Rules of Practice for Federally-Assisted Airport 

Enforcement Proceedings, 14 CFR Part 16 (Rules of Practice). Pursuant to the Rules of Practice, 

· §16.11(a), the date by which the Director, FAA Office of Airport Compliance and Management 

Analysis will issue a Director's Determination in this matter is hereby extended to on or before 

July 28, 2015. 

1h-(1l~Jt fn 

R; ndall S. Fiertz 

Director, Office of Airport Compliance 

and Management Analysis 

ArJ z,Cj I Z615 

Date 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

00iv 

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on April.£1lL, 2015, I placed in the United States mail (first class, 

postage paid), a true copy of the Notice of Extension of Time addressed to: 

Hiroaki Nishio 

P.O. Box 5910 CHRB 

Saipan, MP 96950 

Complainant 

Maryann Q. Lizama 

Acting Executive Director 

Commonwealth Ports Authority 

Saipan International Airport 

P.O. Box 501055 

Saipan, MP 96950-1055 

Respondent 

Robert Tenorio Torres 

Attorney at Law 

P.O. Box 503758 CK 

Saipan, MP 96950 

Counsel to the Respondent 

Copy to: 

FAA Part 16 Airport Proceedings Docket 

Office of Airport Compliance and Management Analysis, AC0-1 00 

~~ J '' 

Clau ia Roberts 

Office of Airport Compliance and 

Management Analysis
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

MEMORANDUM OPINION

N o. 04

- 13

- 00296

- CV

Robert SOTO Jr. and Sylvia Soto,

Appellants

v.

WELLS FARGO BANK N.A. and George

WELLS FARGO BANK N.A. and George Paniagua,

Appellees

From the 73rd Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2012

- CI

- 04719

Honorable Barbara Hanson Nellermoe, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

Karen Angelini, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Delivered and Filed: July 10. 2013

MOTION TO DISMISS GRANTED; DISMISSED

Appellants filed a motion to dismiss this appeal. We grant the motion. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P.

42.1(a)(1). Because the motion does not disclose an agreement of the parties regarding the

assessment of costs, we order all costs assessed against appellants. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.1(d)

(absent agreement of the parties, costs are taxed against appellant).

PER CURIAM
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1257 

To require the President to recommend specific reductions in nonsecurity 

discretionary appropriations for fiscal year 2011 to offset the costs of 

Operation Odyssey Dawn. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 30, 2011 

Mr. BARTLETT (for himself and Mr. HARRIS) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on the Budget, and in addition to 

the Committee on Armed Services, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions 

as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To require the President to recommend specific reductions 

in nonsecurity discretionary appropriations for fiscal year 

2011 to offset the costs of Operation Odyssey Dawn. 

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 ‘‘Protect America from 

5 U.S. Military Expenses in Libya Act of 2011’’. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with BILLS

2 

•HR 1257 IH

1 SEC. 2. REDUCTIONS IN FY2011 NONSECURITY FUNDING TO 

2 OFFSET COSTS OF OPERATION ODYSSEY 

3 DAWN. 

4 (a) SUBMISSION OF RECOMMENDATIONS.—Not later 

5 than July 2, 2011, to ensure that the cost of Operation 

6 Odyssey Dawn does not increase the Federal deficit or re7 duce the capability of the United States Armed Forces, 

8 the President shall submit to the Congress a list of rec9 ommendations for specific rescissions of nonsecurity dis10 cretionary appropriations for fiscal year 2011, for reap11 propriation to accounts of the Department of Defense to 

12 replace the amounts obligated for Operation Odyssey 

13 Dawn for such fiscal year. 

14 (b) AGGREGATE AMOUNT OF RECOMMENDED RE15 SCISSIONS.—The aggregate amount of the rescissions rec16 ommended under subsection (a) shall be not less than the 

17 projected cost of Operation Odyssey Dawn for fiscal year 

18 2011 determined under subsection (c). 

19 (c) PROJECTION OF COST OF OPERATION ODYSSEY

20 DAWN.—Not later than June 1, 2011, the Secretary of 

21 Defense shall prepare and submit to the Congress and the 

22 President a report containing the projected cost of Oper23 ation Odyssey Dawn for fiscal year 2011, determined 

24 based on the cost of Operation Odyssey Dawn through 

25 May 15, 2011. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with BILLS

3 

•HR 1257 IH

1 (d) DEFINITIONS.—In this section, the term ‘‘non2 security discretionary appropriations’’ means discretionary 

3 appropriations other than appropriations made available 

4 for an account, program, project, or activity of the Depart5 ment of Defense, Department of Homeland Security, or 

6 Department of Veterans Affairs. 

Æ 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
#### CITY OF LOUISVILLE et al., Appellants, v. COMMONWEALTH of Kentucky, DIVISION OF UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE, et al., Appellees.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

May 22, 1959.

S. M. Russell, City Atty., Frances Thompson, Asst. City Atty., Louisville, Harris W. Coleman, Louisville, for appellant.

Paul E. Tierney and Patricia M. Hopkins, Frankfort, Charles Dobbins, County Atty., J. Leonard Walker, U. S. Atty., Morris B. Borowitz, J. Paul Keith, Jr., Louisville, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

The Jefferson Circuit Court adjudicated the priorities of various tax liens claimed against Greenwell Motors, Incorporated, now in receivership. The City of Louisville and its Sinking Fund Commission have moved for an appeal from that judgment.

Upon examination of the record we find no prejudicial error. The motion for appeal is denied and the judgment is affirmed.
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.                  

###### Federal Communications Commission

          - 47 CFR Part 1
          - [WC Docket No. 17-84; Report No. 3209; FR ID 201345]

# AGENCY:

Federal Communications Commission.

# ACTION:

Petition for Reconsideration; correction.

# SUMMARY:

                        The Federal Communications Commission published a document in the                         **Federal Register**                         on January 29, 2024, announcing the dates for filing oppositions and replies to a Petition for Reconsideration of Action in a Rulemaking Proceeding in WC Docket No. 17-84, adopted by the Commission on December 13, 2023. There is an error in the Dates section of this document, incorrectly setting the deadline for replies to oppositions as February 8, 2024 rather than February 23, 2024.                    

# DATES:

February 9, 2024.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        For further information, please contact Michael Ray, Competition Policy Division, Wireline Competition Bureau, at                         *Michael.Ray@fcc.gov,*                         202-418-0357.                    

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

## Correction

                    In the                     **Federal Register**                     of January 29, 2024, in FR Doc. 2024-01633, on page 5439, in the third column, fourth paragraph from the bottom, correct the “Dates” caption to read:                

**DATES:**                     Oppositions to the Petitions must be filed on or before February 13, 2024. Replies to oppositions must be filed on or before February 23, 2024.                

Federal Communications Commission.

Marlene Dortch,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2024-02624 Filed 2-8-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
II

Calendar No. 96

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 461

[Report No. 104–73]

To authorize extension of time limitation for a FERC-issued hydroelectric

license.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

FEBRUARY 22, 1995

Mr. GORTON introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred

to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

APRIL 27 (legislative day, APRIL 24), 1995

Reported by Mr. MURKOWSKI, without amendment

A BILL

To authorize extension of time limitation for a FERC-issued

hydroelectric license.

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

3 That notwithstanding the time limitation of section 13 of

4 the Federal Power Act, the Federal Energy Regulatory

5 Commission, upon the request of the licensee for FERC

6 Project No. 3701, is authorized, in accordance with the
2

S 461 RS

1 good faith, due diligence, and public interest requirements

2 of section 13 and the Commission’s procedures under such

3 section, to extend until May 31, 2001, the time required

4 for the licensee to commence the construction of such

5 project. This section shall take effect for the project upon

6 the expiration of the extension (issued by the Commission

7 under section 13) of the period required for commence8 ment of construction of such project. If the license for

9 FERC Project 3701 should expire prior to the date of en10 actment of this Act, the Commission is authorized and di11 rected to reinstate effective June 1, 1995, the license pre12 viously issued for such project, to extend until May 31,

13 2001, the time required for the licensee to commence the

14 construction of such project.

Calendar No. 96

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 461

[Report No. 104–73]

A BILL

To authorize extension of time limitation for a

FERC-issued hydroelectric license.

APRIL 27 (legislative day, APRIL 24), 1995

Reported without amendment
**Exhibit 31.1****CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**I, Marshall D. Sorokwasz, certify that:1. I have reviewed the quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarterended November 30, 2005 of Impreso, Inc. (the “Report”); 2. Based on my knowledge, the Report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by the Report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and otherfinancial information included in the Report, fairly present inall material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, theperiods presented in the Report; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsiblefor establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made knownto us by others within those entities, particularly during theperiod in which this report is being prepared;  b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in the Report ourconclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by the Reportbased on such evaluation; and  c) Disclosed in the Report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourthfiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect,the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting;5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed,based on our most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions): a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the designor operation of internal controls over financial reporting whichare reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s abilityto record, process, summarize and report financial information;and  b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting.6. Item 4 Controls and Procedures in the registrant’s Form 10-Q is incorporated hereinby reference.   Date: January 16, 2006 /s/ Marshall D. Sorokwasz     **Marshall D. Sorokwasz**  **Chief Executive Officer and President**