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



May 14, 2004



In connection with the Large Scale Biology Corporation Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2004 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Kevin J. Ryan, certify, pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted
pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to 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) | that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Large Scale Biology Corporation for the
fiscal periods covered by the Report.
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



By:

/s/    Kevin J. RyanKevin J. Ryan President and Chief Executive
Officer Large Scale Biology Corporation
EXHIBIT 32.01

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER  PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF  THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Robert L. Howard-Anderson, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that the Quarterly Report of Occam Networks, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2007 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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition
and results of operations of Occam Networks, Inc.

|Date: October 16, 2007 |  | By:    |  | /s/ROBERT L. HOWARD-ANDERSON         
|---------------------- |  | ------ |  | -------------------------------------
|                       |  | Name:  |  | Robert L. Howard-Anderson            
|                       |  | Title: |  | President and Chief Executive Officer

I,
Christopher B. Farrell, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of
Occam Networks, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2007 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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations
of Occam Networks, Inc.

|Date: October 16, 2007 |  | By:    |  | /s/CHRISTOPHER B. FARRELL
|---------------------- |  | ------ |  | -------------------------
|                       |  | Name:  |  | Christopher B. Farrell   
|                       |  | Title: |  | Chief Financial Officer  

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

---



QuickLinks
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-6160

CARL MICHAEL ALLSBROOK,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District

Judge. (CA-99-185-2)

Submitted: April 20, 2000 Decided: May 11, 2000

Before LUTTIG and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Carl Michael Allsbrook, Appellant Pro Se. William W. Muse, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
* Although the district court’s order is marked as “filed” on

January 21, 2000, the district court’s records show that it was

entered on the docket sheet on January 31, 2000. Pursuant to Rules

58 and 79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is the

date the order was entered on the docket sheet that we take as the

effective date of the district court’s decision. See Wilson v.

Murray, 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986).

2

PER CURIAM:

Carl Michael Allsbrook seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254

(West 1994 & Supp. 1999). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a

certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal substantially

on the reasoning of the district court. See Allsbrook v. Angelone,

No. CA-99-185-2 (E.D. Va. Jan. 31, 2000).* We note that, although

the magistrate judge’s report did not expressly address Allsbrook’s

claim that he was denied the right to appeal the Parole Board’s

decision, this claim lacks merit. See Virginia Parole Bd. v.

Wilkins, 498 S.E.2d 695, 696 (Va. 1998). 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
N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential.


# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________

YISSUM RESEARCH DEVE LOPMENT COMPANY OF THE HEBREW UNIVER SITY OF JERUSALEM, Appellant

v.

SONY CORPORATION, Appellee

______________________

2015

- 1342

______________________
Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2013

- 00219.

--------------------------------------------------------------

YISSUM RESEARCH DEVE LOPMENT COMPANY OF THE HEBREW UNIVER SITY OF JERUSALEM, Appellant

v.

SONY CORPORATION, Appellee

______________________

2015

- 1343

______________________Appeal from the United States Patent and Trade mark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2013

- 00218.

______________________

JUDGMENT

______________________

C RAIG E. C OUNTRYMAN , Fish & Richardson, P.C., San Di ego, CA, argued for appellant. Also represented by J OHN A. D RAGSETH , Minneapolis, MN.

W ALTER E. H ANLEY
, J R ., Kenyon & Kenyon LLP, New York, NY, argued for appellee. Also represented by
M ICHELLE C ARNIAUX
, M ARK A. C HAPMAN

.

S COTT W EIDENFELLER , Office of the Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA, argued for intervenor Michelle K. Lee. Also represented by N ATHAN K. K ELLEY
, F RANCES M. L YNCH

.

______________________

T HIS C AUSE having been heard and considered, it is

O RDERED and A DJUDGED :

P ER C URIAM (P ROST
, Chief Judge, D YK and T ARANTO
, Circuit Judges ).

AFFIRMED

. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

E NTERED BY O RDER OF THE C OURT

December 11, 2015 /s/ Daniel E. O’Toole Date Daniel E. O’Toole Clerk of Court
1 Filed 3/20/14 P. v. Mollison CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Butte)

----

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.
SHAWNDA REN EE MOLLISON, Defendant and Appellant. C074928 (Super. Ct. No. CM037429)

On October 4, 2012, de fendant Shawnda Renee Mollis on stabbed Diana Luke to death in the apartment Luke shared with her husband, Gregory Luke. Defendant told police she went to the Lukes’ apartment to spend the night, as she had done in the past.
Defendant and the victim star ted arguing, which led to the victim grabbing defendant by the hair and pulling her to the living room co uch. When the victim called her husband into the room, defendant stabbed her. Defend ant said she stabbed the victim because she was scared and wanted to get away. The vic tim’s husband said defendant never stayed at their apartment and he did not know her.2 Defendant pled no contest to volun tary manslaughter and admitted an enhancement for personally us ing a deadly weapon . The trial court sentenced defendant to a stipulated term of 12 years in state prison, imposed various fines and fees, and awarded 418 days’ presentence credit (364 actual and 54 conduct). Defendant appeals. She did not obtai n a certificate of probable cause. We appointed counsel to represent defenda nt on appeal. Counsel filed an opening
brief that sets forth the facts of the case and requests this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. ( People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days elapsed,
and we received no communica tion from defendant. Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable e rror that would result in a disposition more
favorable to defendant.
DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

ROBIE , J.

We concur:

RAYE , P. J.

BUTZ , J.
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

In connection with the Annual Report of Kronos Advanced Technologies, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the three months ended September 30, 2005 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
each of the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below,
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 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 operation of the Company.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authentications, 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 Kronos Advanced
Technologies, Inc. and will be retained by Kronos Advanced Technologies, Inc.
and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.





/s/ Daniel R. Dwight
    -----------------------------
    Daniel R. Dwight
    President and Chief
    Executive Officer


/s/ Daniel R. Dwight
    ------------------------------
    Daniel R. Dwight
    Acting Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 32.1



Statement



Pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. §1350, the undersigned officer of Appleton Papers Inc. (the Company),
hereby certifies that to his knowledge:



| | (1) | the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended July 4, 2004 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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                       |  |  |  |                      |  |                        |  |                                                
|---------------------- |  |  |  | -------------------- |  | ---------------------- |  | -----------------------------------------------
|                       |  |  |  | APPLETON PAPERS INC.
|                       |  |  | 
|Dated: August 16, 2004 |  |  |  |                      |  | /s/    DOUGLAS P. BUTH
|                       |  |  |  |                      |  | Name:                  |  | Douglas P. Buth                                
|                       |  |  |  |                      |  | Title:                 |  | Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer



This certification accompanies this
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Order issued November 15, 2012

In The 

## Court of Appra Igift# Markt of Muss at Dallas

No. 05-12-00913-CR
ANTHONY BEANS, Appellant

V. 

### THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 7

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F11-72079-Y



### ORDER The Court DENIES court reporter Sharon Hazlewood's second request for an extension of time to file the reporter's record. We ORDER the trial court to make findings of fact regarding whether appellant has been deprived of the reporter's record because of ineffective counsel, indigence, or for any other
reason.o The trial court shall first determine whether appellant desires to prosecute the appeal. If the trial court determines that appellant does not desire to prosecute this appeal, it shall make a finding to that effect.
o If the trial court determines that appellant desires to prosecute the appeal, it shall next determine whether appellant is indigent and entitled to proceed without payment of costs for the reporter's record. If appellant is entitled to proceed without payment of costs, the trial court shall make a finding to that effect. Moreover, if appellant is indigent, the trial court is ORDERED to take such measures as may be necessary to assure effective representation, which may include appointment of new counsel. If the trial court finds appellant is not indigent, it shall determine whether retained counsel has abandoned the appeal.
o The trial court shall next determine: (1) the name and address of each court reporter who recorded the proceedings in this cause; (2) the court reporter's explanation for the delay in filing the reporter's record; and (3) the earliest date by which the reporter's record can be filed. We ORDERthe trial court to transmit a supplemental record containing the written findings of fact, any supporting documentation, and any orders, to this Court within THIRTY DAYS from the date of this order. The appeal is ABATED to allow the trial court to comply with this order. It shall be reinstated thirty days from the date of this order or when the supplemental record is received, whichever is earlier. 

# 22/y / eA4J LANA MYERS JUSTICE
II

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 653

To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a certificate of documentation with the appropriate endorsement for employment in the coastwise trade for the vessel AURA.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MARCH 30 (legislative day, MARCH 27), 1995

Mr. KERRY (for himself and Mr. KENNEDY) introduced the following bill;

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce,

Science, and Transportation

A BILL

To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a

certificate of documentation with the appropriate endorsement for employment in the coastwise trade for

the vessel AURA.

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

3 That notwithstanding sections 12106, 12107, and 12108

4 of title 46, United States Code, and section 27 of the Mer5 chant Marine Act, 1920 (46 App. U.S.C. 883), as applica6 ble on the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary

7 of Transportation may issue a certificate of documentation

8 with the appropriate endorsement for employment in the
2

S 653 IS

1 coastwise trade for the vessel AURA (United States offi2 cial number 1027807).

Æ
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A19A1142. STEPHEN PATRICK YANCEY v. FEDERAL NATIONAL

MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION A/K/A FANNIE MAE.

This dispossessory action originated in magistrate court. Following an adverse

ruling, defendant Stephen Patrick Yancy appealed to the state court. The state court

issued a writ of possession in favor of the plaintiff on July 30, 2013. Since then,

Yancy has filed a number of pro se pleadings in state court. We dismissed a direct

appeal from one of the trial court’s orders denying his request to remove the case to

federal court for failure to follow the discretionary appeal procedure. See Case No.

A18A0488 (dismissed December 5, 2017). Yancy subsequently filed a motion for new

trial, motion for judicial review, and motion to recuse, which the trial court denied.

Yancy filed a direct appeal to the Supreme Court, which transferred the case to this

Court. See Case No. S19A0277 (Nov. 15, 2018). We, however, lack jurisdiction.

An appeal from a state court order disposing of a de novo appeal from a

magistrate court decision must be initiated by filing an application for discretionary

review. See OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (11); Strachan v. Meritor Mtg. Corp. East, 216 Ga.

February 20, 2019
App. 82, 82 (453 SE2d 119) (1995). Yancy’s failure to do so deprives us of

jurisdiction over this appeal, which is hereby DISMISSED.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

02/20/2019
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, D. Gary Fife, President and William Whittle, Vice President and Treasurer of Big Bear Gold Corporation, hereby certify, 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 Big Bear Gold Corporation for the nine month period ended November 30, 2004 (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 Big Bear Gold Corporation.

Dated: January 14, 2005

/s/ D. Gary Fife				D. Gary Fife
President (Principal Executive Officer)

/s/ William Whittle				William Whittle
Vice President and Treasurer
(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 Big Bear Gold Corporation and will be retained by Big Bear Gold Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Ray Dean DOSS, Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH of Kentucky, Appellee.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Nov. 26, 1965.

Robert Matthews, Atty. Gen., H. N. Mc-Tyeire, Asst. Atty. Gen., Frankfort, for appellee.

CULLEN, Commissioner.

After a hearing in open court the trial court entered an order overruling the motion of Ray Dean Doss, under RCr 11.42, to vacate a judgment of November 1964 by which, upon his plea of guilty, Doss was sentenced to 21 years’ imprisonment for voluntary manslaughter. Doss appeals from the order.

The ground on which Doss had sought relief from the judgment was that at the time he pleaded guilty he was inadequately represented by a court-appointed attorney who had conflicting interests by reason of being master commissioner. This ground collapsed when Doss admitted on the hearing of his motion that at the time he pleaded guilty he was represented by *employed*counsel (not the master commissioner) whom he had hired some two months previously.

The order is affirmed.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Vincent J. DANIELE, Nino J. Pontari, Larry D. Thompson, George W. Gorman, II, Dana S. Racine, William S. Yager, Joseph D. Nolan, Sean T. Dubanowich, Defendants, *444Christopher R. Saffaras, Defendant-Appellant.

Docket Nos. 01-1378(L), 01-1384 and 01-1391.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Aug. 21, 2002.

Matthew M. Robinson, Cincinnati, OH, for Appellant.

Barbara D. Cottrell, Assistant United States Attorney, for Joseph A. Pavone, United States Attorney for the Northern District of New York, Albany, N.Y. (Carlos A. Moreno, Assistant United States Attorney, on the brief), for Appellee.

PRESENT: JACOBS, LEVAL and KATZMANN, Circuit Judges.

SUMMARY ORDER

ON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court be and it hereby is AFFIRMED.

Defendant Christopher Saffaras appeals from a sentence imposed by the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York (Kahn, /.), following his plea of guilty to participating in a conspiracy to possess and distribute marijuana with eleven co-defendants. In calculating Saffaras’s sentencing range, the district court included an upward adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 3Bl.l(a) for Saffaras’s role as an organizer or leader of a criminal activity involving at least five participants. On appeal, Saffaras argues that the court erred in finding him to be an organizer or leader and in failing to articulate a legal basis for enhancing his sentence accordingly. Finding no error, we affirm.

The district court adopted the findings of the Pre Sentence Report (PSR). While the PSR consisted in large part of an unattributed narrative statement of Saffaras’s activities, which we do not credit, it also included documented sources, including in some cases Saffaras’s own admissions, regarding his organizing and leadership activities. Examples included Saffaras’s admission that he sent a courier to pick up marijuana on a certain date, as well as the statements of confidential sources and co-defendants which showed that Saffaras coordinated and controlled various activities of the marijuana conspiracy. Although Saffaras disputed the information contained in the PSR, and stated at the sentencing hearing that he was not a leader but rather that all members of the conspiracy worked together, there was sufficient evidence to support the district court’s decision to apply the upward adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 3Bl.l(a).

Nor did the district court err in failing to articulate the basis for its findings and its enhancement of Saffaras’s sentence based on his leadership role. While a sentencing court is required to make findings as to disputed facts in order to permit appellate review, adoption of the findings of the PSR is sufficient. *See United States v. Thompson,*76 F.3d 442, 456 (2d Cir.1996). Here, the court articulated its reliance upon the factual findings of the PSR and thereby sufficiently explained the basis for its findings. We uphold the sentence imposed by the district court.