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

** **

**CERTIFICATIONOF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICERPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

** **

I, John R. Cooper, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, asadopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, thatthe Quarterly Report of Avocent Corporation on Form 10-Q for the quarterlyperiod ended June 30, 2006 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that informationcontained in such Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects thefinancial condition and results of operations of Avocent Corporation.

 

Date:                    August 4,2006
|   |   | By:    | /s/ John R. Cooper      |   |
|--------|--------|--------|-------------------------|--------|
|   |   | Name:  | John R. Cooper          |
|   |   | Title: | Chief Executive Officer |
|        |        |        |                         |        |  |

 

I, Edward H. Blankenship, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, thatthe Quarterly Report of Avocent Corporation on Form 10-Q for the quarterlyperiod ended June 30, 2006 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that informationcontained in such Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects thefinancial condition and results of operations of Avocent Corporation.

 

Date:                    August 4,2006
|   |   | By:    | /s/ Edward H. Blankenship                                      |   |
|--------|--------|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   |   | Name:  | Edward H. Blankenship                                          |
|   |   | Title: | Senior Vice President of Finance, Chief Financial Officer, and |
|   |   |   | Assistant Secretary                                            |
|        |        |        |                                                                |        |  |

 

1

----
Exhibit 31(a)
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(a) and 15d-14(a)
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K of Interphase Corporation (the Company);2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material
fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period
covered by this report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included
in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows of the Company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4.
    
    The Companys other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and
15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the Company and have:
     5.
    
    The Companys other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Companys auditors and the
audit committee of the Companys board of directors:
   Date: March 19, 2010
    
    Signature:
    
    /s/ Gregory B. KalushChief Executive Officer
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-20382

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Petitioner-Appellee

v.

MARK E. BATTON

Respondent-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:07-MC-27

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, STEWART, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Having reviewed the district court’s order, the parties’ briefs, and the record, we

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we AFFIRM.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

February 26, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> BD
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> US DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                       9,710,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,635,000
<SECURITIES-RESALE>                          5,301,000
<SECURITIES-BORROWED>                                0
<INSTRUMENTS-OWNED>                          8,279,000
<PP&E>                                       7,431,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              43,783,000
<SHORT-TERM>                                23,500,000
<PAYABLES>                                  27,349,000
<REPOS-SOLD>                                         0
<SECURITIES-LOANED>                                  0
<INSTRUMENTS-SOLD>                             782,000
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       598,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                 (8,446,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                43,783,000
<TRADING-REVENUE>                           29,185,000
<INTEREST-DIVIDENDS>                         2,033,000
<COMMISSIONS>                               19,896,000
<INVESTMENT-BANKING-REVENUES>                7,680,000
<FEE-REVENUE>                                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           4,570,000
<COMPENSATION>                              47,692,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (21,791,000)
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                              (21,791,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (3.28)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (3.28)
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1686 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1686

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 200 South Morgan Street in Shelbyville, Illinois, as the ``Jesse M. 
                        Donaldson Post Office''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 3, 2011

  Mr. Shimkus (for himself, Mr. Kinzinger of Illinois, and Mr. Rush) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                    Oversight and Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 200 South Morgan Street in Shelbyville, Illinois, as the ``Jesse M. 
                        Donaldson Post Office''.

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

SECTION 1. JESSE M. DONALDSON POST OFFICE.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 200 South Morgan Street in Shelbyville, Illinois, shall be 
known and designated as the ``Jesse M. Donaldson 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 ``Jesse M. 
Donaldson Post Office''.
                                 <all>
```
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1791 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.1791

                      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 United States courthouse under construction at 101 
 South United States Route 1 in Fort Pierce, Florida, as the ``Alto Lee 
                 Adams, Sr., United States Courthouse''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.
    The United States courthouse under construction at 101 South United 
States Route 1 in Fort Pierce, Florida, shall be known and designated 
as the ``Alto Lee Adams, Sr., United States Courthouse''.
SEC. 2. REFERENCES.
    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the United States courthouse referred to 
in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Alto Lee Adams, 
Sr., United States Courthouse''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
#### Newell et al., Appellees, *v.*The Cleveland Cemetery Association et al., Appellants.

(No. 27108

Decided July 12, 1939.)

*658
      *Mr. O. D. Eshelman*and *Mr. Jesse Stephens,*for appellees.

*Messrs. Frieholin $ Byers,*for appellants.

By the Court.

While there are minor differences between the facts in this matter and those in the case of *Snyder*v. *Ridge Hill Memorial Park, supra,*the principle of law involved is the same.

It is unnecessary to more than merely summarize the multitude of facts shown by the record. With reference to the questioned contract of 1919, the Court of Appeals makes the following pertinent observation:

> “ So that we are presented with the picture of Boss ' Taylor, a trustee and general manager of the association, acquiring a land contract for ninety-three acres for cemetery purposes from Stecher. Taylor assigns this contract to the company through Graber, Kyle, Bow and Thorne, for the acquisition of which land the company obligated itself to pay $90,000. The association entered into a contract to purchase this same land from the company for the sum of $500,000 to be used for cemetery purposes. Disregarding for the moment the legal conclusion in respect to this set-up, we have the company on the one hand officered by C. E. Kyle as secretary of both companies, and the directors made up of either men who are trustees of the association, or their wives and relatives. On the other hand we have thé association officered entirely by the same four men individual defendants with Taylor as constituting the full board of trustees. It would appear that the association by its officers entered into a contract for the purchase of land from the company *659which in fact and in effect was a purchase from themselves, although under the cloak and apparent protection of separate corporate entities.”

The court states also that the sole excuse for the existence of the Rocky River Land Company “was to serve as a conduit for funds of the association into the hands of G-raber, Kyle, Bow and Thorne.”

With reference to the contract of 1931, the court concludes:

> “It is our conclusion that this contract to pay the company fifty per cent of the income of this association is- illegal and void and in fraud of the rights of the lot owners in this cemetery and should be can-celled; that the lands covered by the Stecher contract less the acreage released to Stecher, should be quieted in the association; that the officers of the association be enjoined from any further distribution to anyone except for the purposes enumerated and so defined in the statutes; that an accounting be had to ascertain and determine the amount of money received by each of the individual defendants representing profits to them out of the funds of the association for which sums the association be awarded judgment against such defendants in such amounts as each illegally received, and that the cause be retained to await the result of such accounting.”

The conclusions of the Court of Appeals are fully sustained by the record, and the decree must be affirmed.

*Decree affirmed.*

Weygandt, C. J., Day, Zimmerman, Whjjams, Myers, Matthias and Hart, JJ., coucur.
**Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record**

**Plant ID 06808**  **Removed from Public**  **(Non-CBI) Docket**  **1 Copyright** 

**Flag 2**  **File Name Description**  x 

### 06808\06808_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook



### 06808\06808_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist 

### 06808\06808_HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted x 

### 06808\06808_PartA.xls Plant submitted survey file x 

### 06808\06808_PartE.xls Plant submitted survey file x 

### 06808\06808_PartH.xls Plant submitted survey file



### 06808\Certification Statement Plant ID 06808.pdf Plant certification statement x 

### 06808\Supplemental Documents\06808_LCSES PROPERTY Map-1.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 

### 06808\Supplemental Documents\06808_LCSES PROPERTY Map-2.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 

### 06808\Supplemental Documents\06808_LCSES Water Balance Diagram.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

1Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database
. 2Copyright documents are available from the docket.
### ^To Ujlnom TSt M*y Concern i ~7nfs 7 s To rc^vje..s4 <^ feV' +'oo Tar T) T5cr£KW<\r-v? lr\A\«\^K^ per^^ j absT^U^^a by family > i/Jl+hwT reco^rsA. 

### +0 a. "puUic d^-feoAe^,f

—^^J ^ 4°P °^ ^11 +^5j X. 4le VerV <:orfvyp+ U/^ne lUH. COURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALS APR 20 2015 ?]•&&* ^n-f ^e * WW* e*k* +Wj* set *> 

## Cr^r, ^J^ fW » • ^ ^ ^k ^ -*y *uUcc «r- TA<4o/cW^ ****<">» "? j^ J^U >^K^ proper/ ^^ ' 5T(r , , , FILED IN

Droceed- b^T^ Ky Af^{' COURTOF CRIMINALAPPEALS

. APR 22 2015 Ri r 11 / Abel Acosta, Clerk 

## vsY&eA, in W V ^ lorj ZT*<U Ckntt
Order entered August 15 , 2013

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 12
- 01724
- CR No. 05
- 12
- 01731
- CR No. 05
- 12
- 01732
- CR JERMAINE COTTON, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 363rd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No s . F12
- 51603
- W, F12
- 51604
- W, F12
- 70036
- W 

### O RDER
The Court REINSTATES these appeals. On June 18, 2013, we ordered the trial court to make findings regarding why appellant’s brief had not been filed. On Augus t 13, 2013, we received appellant’s brief, together with an extension motion. Therefore, in the interest of expediting the appeals, we VACATE the June 18, 2013 order to the extent it requires findings.
We GRANT the August 13, 2013 extension motion and ORD ER appellant’s brief filed as of the date of this order.
We DENY as moot appellant’s June 19, 2013 extension motion.As noted in the June 18, 2013 order, the trial court’s certifications of appellant’s right to

appeal in these cases are incomplete. None o f the boxes is checked on the certifications. Accordingly, we ORDER the trial court to file, within FIFTEEN DAYS of the date of this order, completed certifications of appellant’s right to appeal that accurately reflect the trial court proceedings.
We DIR ECT the Clerk to send copies of this order, by electronic transmission, to the Honorable Tracy Holmes, Presiding Judge, 363rd Judicial District Court, and to counsel for all parties. /s/ DAVID EVANS JUSTICE
#### Commercial Motor Freight, Inc., Appellant, *v.*Public Utilities Commission of Ohio, Appellee.

(No. 27380

Decided June 21, 1939.)

*574
      *Mr. E. J. Shover,*for appellant.

*Mr. Thomas J. Herbert,*attorney general, and *Mr. Kenneth L. Sater,*for appellee.

*575By the Court.

It is shown by the record in this proceeding that the original Dayton-Lima restriction was embodied in the certificate of the bns company for the benefit of its parent company and that the removal of the restriction was requested by the bus company after its parent company had abandoned interurban electric service. The elimination of the purpose of the restriction, in which the bus company originally acquiesced, should entitle it to greater consideration in receiving rights theretofore denied by such restriction. The record further shows that the rights of the parent interurban company were protected by continuing the Dayton-Lima restriction in the certificates held by the motor freight company and its predecessor in title.

It should be borne in mind that this is not a proceeding wherein two applicants s'eek permission to operate over the same route,-but it is one in which two certificated operators between the same termini but by different routes contest over the additional benefits which will accrue from the removal of the restriction. We hold that the commission did take into consideration existing transportation facilities in the territory, including the most direct route.

During the hearing the motor freight corporation mistakenly maintained it possessed the right under certificate No. 300 to handle through traffic between Dayton and Lima, thereby necessarily admitting public convenience and necessity, but it was conclusively established that no such right existed by the direct route set forth above. Therefore the contention of the appellant before the commission tended to prove that public convenience and necessity would be served by such through service.

In Gilbert, *d. b. a.,*v. *Public Utilities Commission,*131 Ohio St., 392, 3 N. E. (2d), 46, a comparable situation was involved, with the exception of the question of the financial status of the successful applicant in *576that proceeding. The decision in that case as expressed in the *per curiam*opinion determines the present controversy as to (1) the substitution of one type of service for another type which had ceased to exist, (2) the inapplicability of Section 614-87, General Code, and (3) the discretionary province of the commission in dealing with problems of fact.

We are of the opinion that Section 614-87&, Genera] Code, likewise does not apply in this controversy.

*Order affirmed.*

Weygandt, O. J., Day, Zimmerman, Williams, Myers, Matthias and Kart, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, the Chief Executive Officer and the Chief Financial Officer of Computer Software Innovations, Inc.
(the Company), each certify, pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350), that to his or her knowledge on the date of this certification:



| | 1. | The quarterly report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on this date (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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ Nancy K. HedrickNancy K. HedrickChief Executive OfficerDate: November 12, 2008/s/ David B. DechantDavid B. DechantChief Financial OfficerDate: November 12, 2008
#### J. H. DUNCAN, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 27287.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 5, 1955.

No attorney on appeal for appellant.

Wesley Dice, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was convicted for the unlawful sale of intoxicating liquor in a dry area, and his punishment was assessed at a fine of $100.

The complaint and information, as well as all matters of procedure, appear regular. The record is before us without a statement of facts or bills of exception, in the absence of which nothing is presented for review.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he H onor abl e W i l l i a m B . S hubb, S e ni orU ni t e d S t a t e s D i s tr i c tJudge ** f o rth e E a s te rn D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia , s ittin g b yd e s ig n a tio n . T he pane l unani m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** * w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T UN I T E D S T AT E S OF AME R I C A, P l ai nt i ff

- A pp el l ee , v. D O N N E L L H A T C H E R , a. k. a. D , a. k. a. D arn e ll, D e f

e n d an t - A p p e llan t. N o. 11- 10211 D . C. N o . 3 : 9 2 - c r - 0 0 0 0 1 - W BS ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e N o rth e rn D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia W i l l i a m B . S hubb, D i s tr i c tJudge , P r e s i di ng ** S ubm i tt e d O c t obe r9, 2012 *** B e f o r e : R A W L I N S O N , M U R G U I A , an dW A T F O R D , C ir c u it Ju d g e s . D o n n e ll H a tc h e rap p e a ls f r o m h is g u ilty - p le ac o n v ic tio n an d2 4 0 - m o n th



# FI LED OC T 16 2012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS11- 10211 2 s e n t e n c e f

o rp o s s e s s i o n w i th i n t e n tt o d i s tr i b u t e h e r o i n , i n v i o l a t i o n o f 2 1 U . S. C. § 841( a ) ( 1) . P ur s uantt o A n de rs v . Ca lifo rn ia , 3 8 6 U .S . 7 3 8 (1 9 6 7 ), H atch er ’s c ouns e l ha s f

i l e d abr i e f

s t a t i ng the r e ar e no gr ounds f orr e l i e f , a l ong w i th am ot i on to w ith d r aw a s c o u n s e l o f r e c o r d . W e h a v e p r o v id e dH a tc h e rth e o p p o rtu n ityto fi l e apro se s up pl em ent albri ef . N o p ro se supp l em ent albri ef or answ er i ng bri ef ha s be e n f

i l e d. O uri nde pe nde ntr e vi e w of the r e c or d pur s uantt o P e n s o n v . O h io , 4 8 8 U . S. 7 5 , 8 0 ( 1 9 8 8 ) , d is c lo s e s n o ar g u ab le g r o u n d s f o rr e lie f o n d ir e c t ap p e a l. C o u n sel ’ s m o t i o n t o w i th d raw i s G R A N TED . AF F I RME D.
#### George Thomas FIRTH, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 27482.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 16, 1955.

No attorney on appeal for appellant.

Henry Wade, Criminal Dist. Atty., Charles S. Potts, Asst. Dist. Atty., Dallas, Leon Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

PER CURIAM.

The offense is robbery; the punishment, 35 years’ confinement in the state penitentiary.

The record on appeal contains no statement of facts or bills of exception. All proceedings appear to be regular and nothing is presented for review.

The judgment is affirmed.