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





Certification of CEO and CFO

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 on Form 10-KSB of Drexel Burnham Lambert Real Estate Associates II (the "Partnership"), for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Martha L. Long, as the equivalent of the chief executive officer of the Partnership, and Stephen B. Waters, as the equivalent of the chief financial officer of the Partnership, each hereby certifies, 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 his knowledge:



(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 Partnership.



| |                        
| | -----------------------
| | /s/Martha L. Long      
| | Name: Martha L. Long   
| | Date: March 31, 2008   
| |                        
| | /s/Stephen B. Waters   
| | Name: Stephen B. Waters
| | Date: March 31, 2008   



This certification is furnished with this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Partnership for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 572 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 572

   To expand the authority for the export of devices, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 16, 1995

   Mr. Coats introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
         referred to the Committee on Labor and Human Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To expand the authority for the export of devices, and for other 
                               purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Medical Device Exportation Act of 
1995''.

SEC. 2 AUTHORITY.

    (a) Exportation of Devices.--
            (1) In general.--In the administration of section 801(e)(2) 
        of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 
        381(e)(2)), the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall 
        make the determination under such section, on the basis of a 
        notice described in paragraph (2) with respect to a medical 
        device, that the exportation of the device is not contrary to 
        public health and safety and has the approval of the country to 
        which the device is intended for export.
            (2) Notice requirement.--A determination made under 
        paragraph (1) shall be based on either of the following 
        notices:
                    (A) Notice to the Secretary by the exporting 
                company of approval for marketing or investigational 
                use of the device in the European Community (such 
                approval for marketing referred to as the ``CE'' mark).
                    (B) Notice to the Secretary by the exporting 
                company of approval for marketing or investigational 
                use of the device by the Ministry of Health and Welfare 
                of Japan or by another appropriate body in the 
                government of Japan.
    (b) Applicability.--
            (1) Investigational use.--In a case of a device approved 
        only for investigational use, subsection (a) shall not apply 
        unless the initial country of destination has also approved the 
        device for investigational use.
            (2) Banned device.--Subsection (a) shall not apply to any 
        device that has been banned by the Secretary of Health and 
        Human Services under section 516 of the Federal Food, Drug, and 
        Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 360f).
                                 <all>
```
* Circuit Judge of the Eighth Circuit, sitting by designation.

* * Pursuant to 5 T H C IR

. 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-51233

KEITH BROWNE,

Plaintiff - Appellee-Cross-Appellant,

versus

CITY OF SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS,

Defendant - Appellant-Cross-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas

(SA-97-CV-1245)

January 14, 2000

Before POLITZ, GIBSON * and HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

AFFIRMED. See 5th Cir. R. 47.6. **
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>    5
<LEGEND>
Exhibit 27
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
THE CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF SBI COMMUNICATIONS, INC. FOR
THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>  <C>                                         <C>
     <FISCAL-YEAR-END>                            DEC-31-1998
     <PERIOD-START>                               JAN-01-1998
     <PERIOD-END>                                 DEC-31-1998
     <CASH>                                                 0
     <SECURITIES>                                           0
     <RECEIVABLES>                                          0
     <ALLOWANCES>                                           0
     <INVENTORY>                                            0
     <CURRENT-ASSETS>                               3,940,000
     <PP&E>                                                10
     <DEPRECIATION>                                         0
     <TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 3,940,000
     <CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          1,853,879
     <BONDS>                                                0
     <PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                  0
     <PREFERRED>                                      765,000
     <COMMON>                                           5,570
     <OTHER-SE>                                     2,086,121
     <TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   3,940,000
     <SALES>                                                0
     <TOTAL-REVENUES>                                       0
     <CGS>                                                  0
     <TOTAL-COSTS>                                    258,069
     <OTHER-EXPENSES>                                       0
     <LOSS-PROVISION>                                       0
     <INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                40,000
     <INCOME-PRETAX>                               (3,836,348)
     <INCOME-TAX>                                           0
     <INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (3,836,348)
     <DISCONTINUED>                                         0
     <EXTRAORDINARY>                                        0
     <CHANGES>                                              0
     <NET-INCOME>                                  (3,836,348)
     <EPS-BASIC>                                      (0.69)
     <EPS-DILUTED>                                        (0)



</TABLE>
# Úřední věstník C 181/2010

| | ISSN 1725-5163
  doi:10.3000/17255163.C_2010.181.cze |
| --- | --- |
| Úřední věstník
  Evropské unie | C 181 |
| | |
| České vydání | Informace a oznámení | Svazek 536. července 2010 |

ISSN 1725-5163

doi:10.3000/17255163.C_2010.181.cze

Úřední věstník

Evropské unie

C 181

České vydání

Informace a oznámení

Svazek 536. července 2010

---

| Oznámeníč. | Obsah | Strana |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | |
| 2010/C 181/01 | Errata konsolidovaného znění Smlouvy o založení Evropského společenství pro atomovou energii (Úř. věst. C 84, 30.3.2010) | 1 |

Oznámeníč.

Obsah

Strana

2010/C 181/01

Errata konsolidovaného znění Smlouvy o založení Evropského společenství pro atomovou energii (Úř. věst. C 84, 30.3.2010)

1

| CS | |
| --- | --- |

CS

---

6.7.2010

| 6.7.2010 | CS | Úřední věstník Evropské unie | C 181/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

CS

Úřední věstník Evropské unie

C 181/1

---

ERRATA

konsolidovaného znění Smlouvy o založení Evropského společenství pro atomovou energii

(

  „Úřední věstník Evropské unie“ C 84 ze dne 30. března 2010

  )

(2010/C 181/01

Strana 4, obsah, hlava VI:

Místo:

| „HLAVA VI | Závěrečná ustanovení |
| --- | --- |

„HLAVA VI

má být:

má být:

| „HLAVA VI | Ustanovení o počátečním období (zrušena) |
| --- | --- |

„HLAVA VI

ZÁVĚREČNÁ USTANOVENÍ

Strana 14, čl. 17 odst. 1 písm. b) bod iv):

Poslední pododstavec („Členské státy nemohou pro uspokojení uvedených potřeb přijmout (...)“) posunout vlevo na úroveň prvního pododstavce, aby bylo zřejmé, že se jedná o samostatný pododstavec odstavce 1 a nikoli o součást písm. b) bodu iv).

Poslední pododstavec („Členské státy nemohou pro uspokojení uvedených potřeb přijmout (...)“) posunout vlevo na úroveň prvního pododstavce, aby bylo zřejmé, že se jedná o samostatný pododstavec odstavce 1 a nikoli o součást písm. b) bodu iv).

Strana 56, hlava VI:

Místo:

Místo:

„HLAVA VI

Články 209 až 223

(zrušeny)

ZÁVĚREČNÁ USTANOVENÍ“

má být:

má být:

„HLAVA VI

USTANOVENÍ O POČÁTEČNÍM OBDOBÍ

(zrušena)

Články 209 až 223

(zrušeny)

ZÁVĚREČNÁ USTANOVENÍ“

---
Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed December 11 , 2014

.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 14

- 00240

- CR

EX PARTE FORREST WAY NE

On Appeal from the 351st District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1419699

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant is charged with aggravated sexual assault of a child younger than fourteen years of age. After appellant was arrested, his bond was set at $500,000. Appellant filed a pre

- trial writ of habeas corpus seeking a reduction of bond.
F ollowing a heari ng, the trial court reduced appellant’s pre

- trial bond to $300,000. Appellant now appeals arguing that the trial court abused its discretion by setting
bail at that amount. The hearing record reflects two witnesses testified at the hearing, Joseph Mendez, an agent with Access Bail Bonds, and appellant’s mother. They both testified that appellant’s mother cannot post a bond higher than $30,000. Appellant’s mother also testified that appellant was arrested in Thailand, that appellant went to Thailand because “he was afraid of what was going to transpire,”2

and when he left she was concerned she would never see him again. There was no evidence about how much the ticket to Thailand cost or how appellant was able to pay for the ticket. The trial court determined t hat “Mr. Wayne is, in fact, a flight risk and did flee as a result of this situation . . .” Still, the trial court reduced appellant’s bond to $300,000. There was no evidence presented regarding appellant’s finances. Although appellant suggests that his sw orn Pre

- trial Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus Seeking Bail Reduction states that he has “little, if any, access to money,” the trial court was entitled to conclude from the testimony that appellant had access to
money. Appellant supplied no testimony that he is indigent, that he has made an attempt to secure a bond, or that he cannot afford a bond of $ 3 00,000. Before a complaint can be heard on appeal regarding the amount of bail, appellant must show he has made an effort to furnish bail in the set a mount. Ex parte Holden , 774 S.W.2d 957 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] 1989, no pet.). In the absence of some evidence that appellant has unsuccessfully attempted to secure a bond in the amount set by the court, no issue is presented for our review. Ex part e Williams , 467 S.W.2d 433, 434 (Tex. Crim. App. 1971). Appellant has failed to carry his burden of showing that his present bail is excessive

. See Roy v. State , 854 S.W.2d 931, 932 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] 1993 , pet. ref’d )

. Accordingly, we overrule appellant’s issue and affirm the judgment of the trial

court.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices McCally, Brown and Wise.

Do Not Publish

— Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
Exhibit
        23
  CONSENT
        OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING
        FIRM
  We
        consent to the
        incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form S-8) pertaining
        to the NVE Corporation 2000 Stock Option Plan (as amended by the shareholders
        on
        July 19, 2001) and the NVE Corporation 2001 Employee Stock Purchase Plan
        of our
        reports dated April 28, 2007, with respect to the financial statements of
        NVE
        Corporation, NVE Corporation management's assessment of the effectiveness
        of
        internal control over financial reporting, and the effectiveness of internal
        control over financial reporting of NVE Corporation, included in the Annual
        Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended March 31, 2007.
   /s/
                ERNST & YOUNG LLPMinneapolis,
                MinnesotaMay
                23,
                2007
#### Frank M. CONNELL, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Ronald J. ANGELONE, Director of the Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee. Frank M. Connell, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Ronald J. Angelone, Director of the Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee.

Nos. 02-6514, 02-6881.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 9, 2002.

Decided Sept. 3, 2002.

Frank M. Connell, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM.

Frank M. Connell, Jr., appeals the district court’s orders dismissing without prejudice his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition for faffing to file an amended petition within the time set forth in the court’s order permitting the amendment, and denying Connell’s motion for additional findings. After reviewing the record and the *724district court’s opinion, we conclude that Connell has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. Accordingly, we deny certificates of appealability and dismiss these appeals on the reasoning of the district court. *See Connell v. Angelone,*No. CA-01-806-2 (E.D. Va. Feb. 26, 2002 & May 8, 2002). 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.

*DISMISSED.*
Dtrr-OST .. 2DOO - G:t ":f15 

Randall Watanuki 

56-108 Damien Rd. 

1 J~N 2 I A q: ~ 5 

Kalaupapa Settlement, Hawai'i 96742-0121 

January 6, 2011 

Dear Mr.DeVany, 

Thank you for considering Kalaupapa as a candidate for an EAS subsidy. 

Currently, the only land-based link we have with the rest of the island of Moloka'i 

is by a steep 3 mile mule trail which winds its way up sea cliffs which are listed in 

the Guiness Book of World Records as the highest sea cliffs on the planet. The 

trail can be treacherous as evidenced by a recent landslide which washed out a 

section of the bridge between turns 2 and 3. 

The majority of the residents here are physically unable to hike the trail and are 

thankful for your consideration in granting a future carrier an EAS subsidy to serve 

Kalaupapa. 

Sincerely,
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6462

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus CLEVELAND MCLEAN, JR., a/k/a June, a/k/a Junior, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. J. Calvitt Clarke, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CR-90-105, CA-96-424) Submitted: June 18, 1998 Decided: July 8, 1998 Before MURNAGHAN and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Cleveland McLean, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Laura Marie Everhart, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* For the purposes of this appeal we assume that the date Appellant wrote on the notice of appeal is the earliest date it would have been submitted to prison authorities. See Houston v. Lack , 487 U.S. 266 (1988). 2 PER CURIAM: Appellant filed an untimely notice of appeal. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The time periods for filing notices of appeal are governed by Fed. R. App. P. 4. These periods are “mandatory and jurisdictional.” Browder v. Director, Dep’t of Corrections , 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S. 220, 229 (1960)). Parties to civil actions have sixty days within which to file in the district court notices of appeal from judgments or final orders. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1). The only exceptions to the appeal period are when the district court extends the time to appeal under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6).The district court entered its order on May 15, 1996; Appellant’s notice of appeal was filed on March 23, 1998. Appellant’s failure to file a timely notice of appeal * or to obtain either an extension or a reopening of the appeal period leaves this court without jurisdiction to consider the merits of Appellant’s appeal.We therefore deny Appellant’s motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in3 the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 492 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                 S. 492

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a certificate of 
                 documentation for the vessel INTREPID.

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

SECTION 1. AUTHORIZATION OF CERTIFICATE OF DOCUMENTATION.

    Notwithstanding sections 12106, 12107, and 12108 of title 46, 
United States Code, and section 27 of the Merchant Marine Act, 1920 (46 
App. U.S.C. 883), as applicable on the date of enactment of this Act, 
the Secretary of Transportation may issue a certificate of 
documentation for the vessel INTREPID, United States official number 
508185.

            Passed the Senate July 29, 1996.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
104th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                                 S. 492

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a certificate of 
                 documentation for the vessel INTREPID.
```
[No. 34941.

Department One.

February 4, 1960.]

#### Radiant Glassheat of Tacoma, Inc., *Respondent,*v. Ernest P. Sekor *et al., Appellants.**1*

*Elvidge, Watt, Veblen & Tewell,*for appellants.

*Albert & Andrews,*for respondent.

1

Reported in 348 P. (2d) 976.

Per Curiam.

On December 10, 1956, the parties entered into a contract by the terms of which the plaintiff was to furnish and install radiant heat panels for one thousand seven hundred fifty dollars in the house the defendants were constructing.

The plaintiff filed a materialman’s lien and this is a foreclosure action for the contract price. The defendants counter-claimed for poor workmanship and failure of the electric panels to adequately heat the house.

The trial court gave a judgment of foreclosure for the contract price less a set-off of forty-eight dollars. The defendants appeal and, in effect, seek a trial *de novo*in this court.

No questions of law have been presented by this appeal. Such divergent versions of the facts were presented to the trial court that the party whose facts were accepted is entitled to prevail.

We are not prepared to hold that the evidence clearly preponderates against the trial court’s findings of fact. Indeed, the credibility of witnesses, who were observable by the trial court only, is more decisive than usual as to the disputed facts. An examination of the record reveals adequate support for the judgment.

The judgment is affirmed.

Weaver, C. J.

J. (concurring)—I concur in the result for the reasons stated in *Croton Chemical Corp. v. Birkenwald, Inc.,*50 Wn. (2d) 684, 314 P. (2d) 622 (1957).
Record ofDiscussion Docket No. FAA-2011-1037 Directorate Identifier: 2011-NE-30-AD

With whom outside the FAA has this action been discussed (i.e., Design Approval Holder, manufacturer, ATA, NBAA, RAA, AOPA, ALPA, GAMA, etc)?

ORGANIZATION PERSON CONTACTED DATE TOPICS DISCUSSED HAl Harold Summers 11/8/ 12 EASA Alastair Caldwell 1117/12 Other. List below.

Other /Additional Information: EASA responded thatthey wrote two different ADs for the sameN2 Sensor Harness part number replacement because the manufacturing issue for the existing AD is crimping and the new EASA AD is for corrosion.

9
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1248 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1248

    To amend title 5, United States Code, to provide that civilian 
 employees of the Department of Defense performing unsatisfactory work 
    shall not be eligible for annual nationwide adjustments to pay 
                               schedules.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 29, 2011

   Mr. West introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
              Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To amend title 5, United States Code, to provide that civilian 
 employees of the Department of Defense performing unsatisfactory work 
    shall not be eligible for annual nationwide adjustments to pay 
                               schedules.

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

SECTION 1. DENIAL OF PAY ADJUSTMENTS FOR UNSATISFACTORY PERFORMANCE.

    (a) In General.--Section 5303 of title 5, United States Code, is 
amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``(h)(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, an 
adjustment under this section shall not be made in the case of any 
employee of the Department of Defense having an unacceptable 
performance rating.
    ``(2) For purposes of administering any provision of law, rule, or 
regulation which--
            ``(A) provides premium pay, retirement, life insurance, or 
        any other employee benefit which requires any deduction or 
        contribution,
            ``(B) imposes any requirement or limitation, or
            ``(C) requires any other computation (such as under section 
        5304(c)(1)(B)),
on the basis of a rate of basic pay, the rate of basic pay payable 
after the application of paragraph (1) shall be treated as the rate of 
basic pay for the employee involved.''.
    (b) Regulations.--The Secretary of Defense, in consultation with 
the Director of the Office of Personnel Management, may prescribe any 
regulations necessary to carry out the purposes of this section.
                                 <all>
```