alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT 32.1

         WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE CEO PURSUANT TO 18 S.S.C. SECTION 1350

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

In connection with the Annual Report of PurchaseSoft, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-KSB for the period ending May 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Steven A. Flagg,
President of the Company, certify, solely for the purposes of complying with 18
U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that to the best of my 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 Company as of
May 31, 2006 and for the periods then ended.

                                               /s/ Steven A. Flagg
                                              ----------------------------------
                                              Steven A. Flagg, President and CEO
                                              Dated October 9, 2007
**Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record**

**Plant ID 01199**  **Removed from Public**  **(Non-CBI) Docket**  **1 Copyright** 

**Flag 2**  **File Name Description**  x 01199\01199_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook

01199\01199_HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted x 01199\01199_Part B.xls Plant submitted survey file x 01199\01199_Part H.xls Plant submitted survey file x 01199\01199_PartA.xls Plant submitted survey file x 01199\01199_PartC.xls Plant submitted survey file x 01199\01199_PartD.xls Plant submitted survey file

01199\Certification Statement_01199.pdf Plant certification statement 01199\Supporting Documentation\01199_Aerial.ppt Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 01199\Supporting Documentation\01199_EV.Mass Water Balance.Draw No.007-00-6-M-F-26A.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

01199\Supporting Documentation\Signed Cover Letter.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 01199\Telecon Documentation\EPA SEG ICR follow-up questions - IPL Eagle Valley Generating Station.rtf Technical Review Correspondence x 01199\Telecon Documentation\RE EPA SEG ICR follow-up questions - IPL Eagle Valley Generating Station.rtf Technical Review Correspondence x 01199\Telecon Documentation\SEG ICR Follow.doc Technical Review Correspondence x 01199\Telecon Documentation\water balance table.pdf Technical Review Correspondence

01199\01199_Completeness_Checklist.pdf EPA Completeness Review Checklist

1Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database

. 2Copyright documents are available from the docket.
#### S. H. HAILE, Appellant, v. AMARILLO NATIONAL BANK, et al., Appellees.

No. 6527.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Amarillo.

Oct. *17,*1955.

Simpson, Clayton & Fullingim, Amarillo, for appellant.

Underwood, Wilson, Sutton, Heare & Boyce, and Stone & Stone, Amarillo, for appellees.

PITTS, Chief Justice.

This is a companion case to another suit immediately preceding this one serially between the same parties reported in Tex.Civ.App., 283 S.W.2d 276. They were heard jointly in the trial court and appealed on the same statement of facts but separately appealed on different transcripts with separate briefs filed. The controlling points presented here are identical with those presented in the other companion case referred to and the principles of law there applied determine the controlling questions here presented. Consequently we refer to the opinion handed down today in that case for determining the controlling issues here presented.

However there is one additional issue determined in this case, but it does not appear to be a controverted issue, except as it depends upon the determination of other controlling issues presented. In this case the original borrowers and makers of the note, Beauford Hill and wife, Wanda Jo Hill, were made party defendants to this suit. They answered but also pleaded a cross-action over and against defendant Haile as the primary obligor on the note in case of appellee’s recovery.

Among its findings and conclusions filed herein at the request of appellant, the trial court found and concluded that Wanda Jo Hill, being a married woman, was not liable on the note, but under the record appellant, Haile, and appellee, Beauford Hill, were jointly and severally liable to appellee for the balance due on the note, including interest and attorney fees therein expressed, but that appellant, Haile, having assumed payment of the note, was primarily liable, and appellee, Beauford Hill, was secondarily liable thereon, and entitled to judgment on his cross-action over and against appellant, Haile, for the amount of the judgment appellee obtained against him. The trial court rendered judgment accordingly.

In our opinion the trial court under the record presented properly found and concluded that appellant, by assuming payment of the note, placed himself in appellee Hill’s original position and thereby became the principal on the note with appellee Hill as surety thereon. Such is the legal effect of such an assumption. 7 C.J.S., Assume, p. 105; Key v. Alamo Nat. Co., Tex.Civ.App., *28062 S.W.2d 1002; Maier v. Thorman, Tex.Civ.App., 234 S.W. 239.

For the reasons stated appellant’s points of error are overruled and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1369 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.1369

                      One Hundred Twelfth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

          Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,
            the third day of January, two thousand and twelve

                                 An Act

 
To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 
   1021 Pennsylvania Avenue in Hartshorne, Oklahoma, as the ``Warren 
                         Lindley Post Office''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. WARREN LINDLEY POST OFFICE.
    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 1021 Pennsylvania Avenue in Hartshorne, Oklahoma, as the 
``Warren Lindley Post Office''.
    (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 ``Warren 
Lindley Post Office''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
#### Darrell Dean DONAHOO, Appellant, v. STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 30736.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

May 13, 1959.

No appearance for appellant.

Leon B. Douglas, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

MORRISON, Presiding Judge.

The offense is robbery; the punishment, 5 years.

*958This case is an outgrowth of Ex parte Donahoo, Tex.Cr.App., 317 S.W.2d 744. There, we ordered this appellant released from confinement in the penitentiary and delivered to the Sheriff of Dallam County to answer to this indictment.

On the present trial, it was shown that the injured party had died since the original trial and that at such trial he had identified the appellant as the person who had entered the filling station where he was employed and had at gun point taken the money from the cash register.

Appellant, testifying in his own behalf, denied that he had robbed the filling station, stated that he had been drinking on the night in question and that his companion had parked the automobile in which they were riding near the station and had absented himself for a time. In answer to questions from his own counsel, appellant admitted that he had entered a plea of guilty at the former trial but subsequently had withdrawn such plea.

The jury resolved this conflict in the evidence against the appellant, and we find the evidence sufficient to sustain the conviction.

No brief has been filed, and no formal bills of exception appear in the record. We do find, however, that the appellant complained that the State was permitted to prove that at the former trial the appellant had entered a plea of guilty. Rodriguez v. State, 130 Tex.Cr.R. 438, 94 S.W.2d 476, is on all fours with the case at bar. There, the accused testified that he had plead guilty at a former trial, and this Court held that such act constituted a waiver of any claimed error.

Finding no reversible error, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Page 1 of 1 

Express Terms

Part 200, General Provisions

Subdivisions 200.1(a) through 200.1(af) remain unchanged.

The table under 200.1(ag) is revised to remove the following entry:

78933 Methyl ethyl ketone (2-Butanone)

Sections 200.1(ah) through 200.1(cf) remain unchanged.

New paragraphs are added to subdivision 200.1(cg) as follows:

(34) dimethyl carbonate

(35) 1,1,1,2,2,3,3-heptafluoro-3-methoxy-propane (known as HFE-7000)

(36) 3-ethoxy-1,1,1,2,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,6-dodecafluoro-2-(trifluoromethyl) hexane (known as HFE-7500, 

HFE-s702, T-7145, and L-15381)

(37) 1,1,1,2,3,3,3-heptafluoropropane (known as HFC 227ea)

(38) methyl formate

(39) propylene carbonate

Sections 200.2 through 200.8 remain unchanged.

Table 1 of existing Section 200.9 is amended as follows:

Regulation Referenced Material Availability

241.3

241.5(b)(3)

ASTM, D977 (Re-approved 2005)

ASTM, D2397 (Re-approved 2005)

ASTM, D6997 (Re-approved 2004)

40 CFR Part 60, Appendix A, method 24 (July 1, 2009)

****

 

** **

*
The State of



# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

September 4, 2015

N o. 04

- 15

- 00277

- CR

John Forrest LOWE

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas, Appellee

From the 198th Judicial District Court, Kerr Coun ty, Texas

Trial Court No. B10794 Honorable Rex Emerson, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

Appellant’s brief was originally due July 2, 2015, but it was not filed. This court notified

a ppellant’s counsel of the deficiency and subsequently granted counsel an extension of time until August 31, 2015, (60 days after the original due date) to file the brief. Our order advised counsel, Arden J. Morley, that no further extensions of time w ould be granted absent a motion that

demonstrated extraordinary circumstances and provided reasonable assurance that the brief

w ould be fi led by the requested deadline

. Neither the brief nor an extension of time has been

filed.

We order Arden J. Morley to file appellant’s brief by September 11, 2015

. If the brief is not filed by the date ordered, the court will abate this appeal and rem and the case to the trial court for a hearing to determine whether appellant or counsel has abandoned the appeal. Counsel may also be ordered to appear before this court to show cause why he should not be held in contempt for failing to comply with the cou rt’s order.

_________________________________ Luz Elena D. Chapa, JusticeIN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 4th day of September, 2015

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk o f Court
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I,
Dennis J. FitzSimons, the Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of Tribune Company, certify that (i) Tribune Company's Form 10-K for the year ended
Dec. 25, 2005 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the information contained in the
Form 10-K for the year ended Dec. 25, 2005 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and the results of operations of Tribune Company.

| |  | /s/DENNIS J. FITZSIMONSDennis J. FitzSimons
Chairman, President and
Chief Executive Officer
| |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |  | February 28, 2006                                                                          

124

---



QuickLinks
Exhibit
32.1





CERTIFICATION
OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER


PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, W.
Gray Hudkins, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of
Langer, Inc. on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008, fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and that information contained in such Annual Report on Form 10-K fairly
presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of
operations of Langer, Inc.





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 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.





Dated:  March
      24, 2009
            /s/  W. Gray
    HudkinsW.
      Gray Hudkins, President andChief
      Executive Officer
* Pursuant to 5 TH 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. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

____________________

No. 97-10088
Summary Calendar

____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

NELSON JAVIER NEVAREZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

(4:95-CR-152-Y)

October 2, 1997 Before SMITH, WIENER, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Nelson Javier Nevarez appeals his conviction and sentence for

possession with intent to distribute more than one kilogram of

heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A). He

contends that the district court erred (1) in admitting evidence of

extraneous offenses; (2) in admitting the testimony of Fort Worth

Police Supervisor H.G. Tebay; (3) in increasing his offense levelfor obstruction of justice; and (4) in finding that he was

accountable for 2,761 grams of heroin seized in a prior incident.

We find no error, plain or otherwise. U nited States v. Olano

,

507 U.S. 725, 731-37 (1993). The district court did not err in

adm itting evidence of extraneous offenses, s ee United States v.

Beechum

, 582 F.2d 898, 911 (5th Cir. 1978) (en banc )

, cert. denied

,

440 U.S. 290 (1979); in admitting Tebay’s testimony, United States

v. Moore

, 997 F.2d 55, 57 (5th Cir. 1993); or in its obstruction of

justice and drug q uantity rulings in sentencing Nevarez, U nited

States v. Montano-Silva

, 15 F.3d 52, 53 (5th Cir. 1994); United

States v. Stewart

, 879 F.2d 1268, 1272 (5th Cir.), cert. denied

,

493 U.S. 899 (1989).

AFFIRMED
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1423 Reported in Senate (RS)]

                                                       Calendar No. 372
112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 1423

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 3, 2011

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security 
                        and Governmental Affairs

                             April 25, 2012

              Reported by Mr. Lieberman, without amendment

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 115 4th Avenue Southwest in Ardmore, Oklahoma, as the ``Specialist 
                   Micheal E. Phillips Post Office''.

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

SECTION 1. SPECIALIST MICHEAL E. PHILLIPS POST 
              OFFICE.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 115 4th Avenue Southwest in Ardmore, Oklahoma, shall be 
known and designated as the ``Specialist Micheal E. Phillips Post 
Office''.
    (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 ``Specialist 
Micheal E. Phillips Post Office''.
                                                       Calendar No. 372

112th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 1423

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 115 4th Avenue Southwest in Ardmore, Oklahoma, as the ``Specialist 
                   Micheal E. Phillips Post Office''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                             April 25, 2012

                       Reported without amendment
```
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 611 Reported in Senate (RS)]

                                                       Calendar No. 142

104th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                                 S. 611

                          [Report No. 104-109]

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                July 11 (legislative day, July 10), 1995

                       Reported without amendment

                                                       Calendar No. 142
104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 611

                          [Report No. 104-109]

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

               March 24 (legislative day, March 23), 1995

 Mr. Bradley (for himself and Mr. Lautenberg) introduced the following 
bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and 
                           Natural Resources

                July 11 (legislative day, July 10), 1995

              Reported by Mr. Murkowski, without amendment

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
      To authorize extension of time limitation for a FERC-issued 
                         hydroelectric license.
    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, That notwithstanding 
the time limitation of section 13 of the Federal Power Act, the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, upon the request of the licensee for FERC 
Project No. 9401 is authorized, in accordance with the good faith, due 
diligence, and public interest requirements of section 13 and the 
Commission's procedures under such section, to extend until August 3, 
1999, the time required for the licensee to commence the construction 
of such project. This section shall take effect for the project upon 
the expiration of the extension (issued by the Commission under section 
13) of the period required for commencement of construction of such 
project.
```
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1344 

To require the purchase of domestically made flags of the United States 

of America for use by the Federal Government. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 4, 2011 

Mr. BRALEY of Iowa (for himself, Mr. DEFAZIO, Ms. DELAURO, Ms. SUTTON, 

Mr. LIPINSKI, and Ms. EDWARDS) introduced the following bill; which 

was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

A BILL 

To require the purchase of domestically made flags of the 

United States of America for use by the Federal Government. 

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 ‘‘All-American Flag 

5 Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REQUIREMENT FOR PURCHASE OF DOMESTICALLY 

7 MADE UNITED STATES FLAGS FOR USE BY 

8 FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. 

9 Only such flags of the United States of America, re10 gardless of size, that are 100 percent manufactured in the 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1344 IH

1 United States, from articles, materials, or supplies 100 

2 percent of which are grown, produced, or manufactured 

3 in the United States, may be acquired for use by the Fed4 eral Government. 

5 SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE. 

6 Section 2 shall apply to purchases of flags made on 

7 or after 180 days after the date of the enactment of this 

8 Act. 

Æ 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS