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

                  In connection with the quarterly report of I-trax, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Frank
A. Martin, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:

                  (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

                  (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents,
in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of
the Company.

/s/ Frank A. Martin
Frank A. Martin
Chief Executive Officer

May 13, 2004
<PAGE>

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

         Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as created by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Diamond Triumph Auto
Glass, Inc. (the "Company") hereby certifies that:

         (i) the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for
     the quarter ended March 31, 2004 (the "Report") fully complies with the
     requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the
     Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

         (ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
     material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
     Company.

     Dated: May 17, 2004                   /s/ Norman Harris
                                           -------------------------------------
                                                  Norman Harris
                                                  Chief Executive Officer

         The foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the
         Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, and is not being filed for
         purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
         amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of
         the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless
         of any general incorporation language in such filing.
EXHIBIT 3.18





CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT


TO


AMENDED AND RESTATED CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION


OF


COMMUNICATION INTELLIGENCE CORPORATION







It is hereby certified that:




1.           The name of the corporation is Communication Intelligence Corporation (hereinafter called the “Corporation”).




2.           The Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation of the Corporation is hereby amended by striking paragraph (a) of Article Fourth thereof and by substituting in lieu of said paragraph the following new paragraph:




“FOURTH:     The total number of shares which the Corporation shall have authority to issue is 1,074,500,000 of which 1,050,000,000 shares shall be Common Stock, par value $0.01 per share, and 24,500,000 shares shall be Preferred Stock, par value $0.01 per share, of which 2,000,000 shares are designated as Series A-1 Preferred Stock, 14,000,000 shares are designated Series B Preferred Stock and 4,100,000 shares are designated Series C Preferred Stock.”




The balance of Article Fourth shall remain unchanged.




3.           This Certificate of Amendment to the Corporation’s Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation has been duly adopted in accordance with the provisions of Section 242 of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware.




4.           This Certificate of Amendment shall be effective as of the date of filing with the Secretary of State of the State of Delaware.




IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Corporation has caused this Certificate of Amendment to be signed by Craig Hutchison, its Vice President and Assistant Treasurer, as of December 31, 2010.




COMMUNICATION INTELLIGENCE


CORPORATION





By: /S/ Craig Hutchison


Name:      Craig Hutchison


Title:        Vice President and Assistant Treasurer
Theodore D. Schade Air Pollution Control Officer 

### GREAT BASIN UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 157ShortStreet, Bishop, California 93514-3537 September 11, 2012 Mr. Patrick Au California Air Resources Board Stationary Source Division P.O. Box 2815 Sacramento, CA 95812 760-872-8211 Fax: 760-872-6109

Re: Adoption ofDistrictRule 221 - PSD Dear Mr. Au: Concurrent with the District's submittal ofthe rule package sent to you on September 7, 2011 regarding its adoption ofRule 221 - Prevention ofSignificantDeterioration, the District requests that the California Air Resources Board send Rule 221 for inclusion in the State Implementation Plan. Sincerely, Duane Ono Deputy Air Pollution Control Officer
EXHIBIT 32



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 Quarterly Report of BOE Financial Services, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-QSB for the periods ending June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of the undersigned 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 and Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or
780(d)); 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 June 30, 2004, and for the periods then ended.



|                          
|--------------------------
|/s/ George M. Longest, Jr.
|George M. Longest, Jr.    
|Chief Executive Officer   
|                          
|/s/ Bruce E. Thomas       
|Bruce E. Thomas           
|Chief Financial Officer   
|                          
|August 11, 2004
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE>       5
<MULTIPLIER>    1
       
<S>                                   <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                          12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                 DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                      DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                904,000
<SECURITIES>                                0
<RECEIVABLES>                          85,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                0
<INVENTORY>                                 0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                      989,000
<PP&E>                             89,400,000
<DEPRECIATION>                    (34,181,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                     56,371,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>               1,081,000
<BONDS>                                     0
<COMMON>                                    0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       0
<PREFERRED>                                 0
<OTHER-SE>                         39,233,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>       56,371,000
<SALES>                            14,928,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                   15,088,000
<CGS>                               5,651,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                       5,651,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                    3,576,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                            0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                    177,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                     4,185,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         0
<DISCONTINUED>                              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                             0
<CHANGES>                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                        4,185,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                           25.48
<EPS-DILUTED>                               0
        
 

</TABLE>
* Pursuant to 5TH 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 5TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED October 24, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-20015 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus JOSE VICTOR TORRES, also known as Jose Victor Torres-Valles, also known as Jose Victor Torres-Baez, also known as Heriberto Ochoa-Gomez, also known as Jose Feliciano Perez-Mesa, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:05-CR-127-ALL

-------------------- Before JOLLY, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Jose Victor Torres appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for being found unlawfully in the United States after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Torres argues that the district court misapplied the Sentencing Guidelines by characterizing his state felony convictions for possession of a controlled substance as aggravated felonies for purposes of U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(C). Torres’s argument isNo. 06-20015 -2- unavailing in light of circuit precedent. See United States v. Hinojosa-Lopez , 130 F.3d 691, 693-94 (5th Cir. 1997). Torres argues that this circuit’s precedent is inconsistent with Jerome v. United States , 318 U.S. 101 (1943). Having preceded Hinojosa-Lopez , Jerome is not “an intervening Supreme Court case explicitly or implicitly overruling that prior precedent.” See United States v. Short , 181 F.3d 620, 624 (5th Cir. 1999). Torres also challenges the constitutionality of § 1326(b) in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466 (2000). The Government argues that Torres lacks standing to bring a facial challenge to the constitutionality of § 1326(b). Because Torres may be entitled to a lesser sentence if his constitutional challenge were successful, he has standing. See Henderson v. Stalder , 287 F.3d 374, 380 (5th Cir. 2002). Torres cannot succeed on his constitutional challenge, however, because his argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998). Although Torres contends that Almendarez-Torres was incorrectly decided and that a majority of the Supreme Court would overrule Almendarez-Torres in light of Apprendi , we have repeatedly rejected such arguments on the basis that Almendarez-Torres remains binding. See United States v. Garza-Lopez , 410 F.3d 268, 276 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , 126 S. Ct. 298 (2005). Torres properly concedes that his argument is foreclosed in light of Almendarez-Torres and circuitNo. 06-20015 -3- precedent, but he raises it here to preserve it for further review.
AFFIRMED.
#### Lloyd A. CASH, Appellant, v. J. D. RICHARDS, Appellee.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

June 17, 1955.

J. Wood Vance, Jr., Glasgow, Sam Cary, Burkesville, Harlan E. Judd, Burkesville, for appellant.

John Sam Cary, Burkesville, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

We are affirming the judgment for $248 because there is no merit in appellant’s sole contention -that there was no evidence showing that he was negligent on the occasion of the accident.

The motion for an appeal is overruled, and the judgment stands affirmed.
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State 

v. Brandenburg, Slip Opinion No. 2016-Ohio-2970.] 

NOTICE 

This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in an 

advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports. Readers are requested to 

promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 65 

South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or other 

formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be made before 

the opinion is published. 

SLIP OPINION NO. 2016-OHIO-2970

THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLEE, v. BRANDENBURG, APPELLANT. 

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 

may be cited as State v. Brandenburg, Slip Opinion No. 2016-Ohio-2970.] 

Criminal law—Felony Sentencing—Standard of review upon appeal of sentence—

R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)—Judgment reversed, and cause remanded for 

application of State v. Marcum. 

(Nos. 2015-1330 and 2015-1489—Submitted April 7, 2016—Decided May 17, 

2016.) 

APPEAL from and CERTIFIED by the Court of Appeals for Butler County, 

Nos. CA2014-10-201 and CA2014-10-202, 2015-Ohio-2573. 

__________________ 

{¶ 1} In State v. Marcum, ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 2016-Ohio-1002, ___ N.E.3d 

___, we held that R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) allows an appellate court to increase, reduce, 

or otherwise modify a sentence only when it clearly and convincingly finds that the 

sentence is (1) contrary to law or (2) unsupported by the record. Id. at ¶ 7. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

2

{¶ 2} The judgment of the court of appeals in the instant case is reversed, 

and the cause is remanded to the court of appeals for application of Marcum. 

 O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, KENNEDY,

FRENCH, and O’NEILL, JJ., concur. 

_________________ 

 Michael T. Gmoser, Butler County Prosecuting Attorney, and Lina N. 

Alkamhawi, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. 

 Charles M. Conliff, for appellant. 

_________________
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1689 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to disallow the deduction 

for income attributable to domestic production activities with respect 

to oil and gas activities of major integrated oil companies. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 3, 2011 

Mr. BISHOP of New York (for himself, Mr. FILNER, Ms. SCHWARTZ, Ms. LEE

of California, Ms. HIRONO, Mrs. MALONEY, Mr. ENGEL, Mr. CARNEY, 

Mr. MCGOVERN, Mr. ROTHMAN of New Jersey, Ms. MOORE, Ms. LINDA

T. SA ́NCHEZ of California, Mr. ACKERMAN, Mr. DEUTCH, Mr. 

BLUMENAUER, Mr. JACKSON of Illinois, Mr. RUSH, Mr. YARMUTH, Mr. 

VAN HOLLEN, Mr. HOLT, Ms. CASTOR of Florida, Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia, Mr. CARNAHAN, Mr. HINCHEY, Mr. WELCH, Mr. KILDEE, Mr. 

TONKO, Mr. FARR, Ms. HANABUSA, Mr. QUIGLEY, Mr. CICILLINE, Mrs. 

LOWEY, Mr. KEATING, Mr. CONYERS, Mr. NADLER, Ms. KAPTUR, Ms. 

NORTON, Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania, Mrs. CAPPS, Ms. BASS of California, Ms. MCCOLLUM, Mr. BRALEY of Iowa, Mr. MEEKS, Ms. SLAUGHTER, Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California, Mr. GRIJALVA, Mr. ISRAEL, Ms. 

ROYBAL-ALLARD, Mr. ANDREWS, Mr. HIGGINS, Ms. SUTTON, and Mr. 

SERRANO) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to disallow 

the deduction for income attributable to domestic production activities with respect to oil and gas activities of 

major integrated oil companies. 

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


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1689 IH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Big Oil Welfare Repeal 

3 Act of 2011’’. 

4 SEC. 2. DEDUCTION FOR INCOME ATTRIBUTABLE TO DO5 MESTIC PRODUCTION ACTIVITIES NOT AL6 LOWED WITH RESPECT TO OIL AND GAS AC7 TIVITIES OF MAJOR INTEGRATED OIL COM8 PANIES. 

9 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subparagraph (B) of section 

10 199(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amend11 ed by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end of clause (ii), by striking 

12 the period at the end of clause (iii) and inserting ‘‘, and’’, 

13 and by inserting after clause (iii) the following new clause: 

14 ‘‘(iv) in the case of a major integrated 

15 oil company (as defined in section 

16 167(h)(5)), the production, refining, proc17 essing, transportation, or distribution of 

18 oil, gas, or any primary product thereof.’’. 

19 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

20 subsection (a) shall apply to taxable years beginning after 

21 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
No. 99-50737 -1-

* 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. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-50737 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus ELIZABETH TINOCO DE CRUZ, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. DR-99-CR-299-01

-------------------- May 25, 2000 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *
Elizabeth Tinoco de Cruz (Tinoco) appeals after pleadin g guilty to illegal ree ntry into the United States following depo rtation. She argues that her attorney was ineffective at sentencing (1) for failing to move for a downward departure under Application Note 5 of U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2 and (2) for failing to argue
that her prior drug conviction was not an “aggravated felony” which warranted a 16-level increase under § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A). Although we generally do not entertain claims of ineffective
assistance on direct appeal, we feel that the record isNo. 99-50737 -2- sufficiently developed to address Tinoco’s claims. S ee United

States v. Higdon , 832 F.2 d 312, 313-14 (5th Cir. 1987). In
Tinoco’s plea agreement, both parties stipulated (1) that a 16- level increase was appropriate because Tinoco had previously been deported subsequent to an aggravated-felony conviction, (2) that a
total offense level of 20 was appropriate, and (3) that Tinoco
should be sente nced at the bottom end of the corresponding guideline range.
Giv en these stipulations, Tinoco has not shown that her

a ttorney was ineffective at sentencing for failing to argue t hat
Tinoco’s prior conviction was not an aggravated felony. S ee United
States v. Wilkes , 20 F.3d 651, 653 (5th Cir. 1994)(“[An] attorney

cannot be considered deficient for failing to raise claims knowingl y and voluntarily waived in the process of plea bargaining.”).
With respect to a downward departure under Application Note 5
of U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2, we note that Tinoco’s counsel specifically quoted Application Note 5 in its entirety in his brief supporting
h is motion for a downward departure based on the minor nature of

t he defendant’s prior felony conviction. At the sentencing hearing, however, the court specifically ruled that it did not
believe it had the discretion to downwardly depart based on Application Note 5, and Tinoco’s counsel objected. It therefore

cannot be said that Tinoco received ineffective assistance of
counsel for a failure to raise this issue.

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit
32.2





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
connection with the annual report of Communication Intelligence Corporation (the
“Company”) on Form 10-K for the annual period ended December 31, 2007, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),
I, Francis V. Dane, Principal Financial Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
1350, as adopted pursuant to 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.





Date:           May
21, 2008





By: /s/ Francis V.
Dane


Principal
Financial Officer
#### CAROL ANN RUBIN *v.*HARVEY BRUCE RUBIN

(14708)

Heiman, Schaller and Hennessy, Js.

Argued January 23

decision released March 5, 1996

*Carol Ann Rubin,*pro se, the appellant (petitioner).

*930
      *William M. Bloss,*for the appellee (respondent).

*Bridget G. Jenkins,*for the minor child.

PER CURIAM.

The judgment is affirmed.
#### Roy Morgan HOPWOOD, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 27925.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 4, 1956.

R. T. Scales, George W. Irwin, Dallas, for appellant.

Henry Wade, Criminal Dist. Atty., Henry L. Brotherton, Fred Bruner, and Charles S. Potts, Asst. Criminal Dist. Attys., Dallas, and Leon B. Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

PER CURIAM.

The offense is-driving while intoxicated; the punishment, 30 days in jail and a fine of $500.

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.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                           4,714
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    7,151
<ALLOWANCES>                                       591
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                13,670
<PP&E>                                           9,518
<DEPRECIATION>                                   8,418
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  18,454
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            6,697
<BONDS>                                          1,600
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          1
<COMMON>                                            15
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    18,454
<SALES>                                         13,861
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                24,445
<CGS>                                            1,266
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   22,370
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 2,700
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 177
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (492)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       206
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (698)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (698)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.10)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.10)
        

</TABLE>