alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**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 eRoomSystem Technologies, Inc. (the
      "Company") on Form 10-QSB/A for the period ending June 30, 2005, as filed with
      the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), David
      A. Gestetner, Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer), President
      and Chief Financial Officer (Principal Accounting and Financial Officer) of
      the
      Company, certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
      to
      Section 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.






By:
                /s/ David A. Gestetner
            
            President,
                Chief Executive Officer andChief
                Financial Officer
            
            August
                3, 2006David
                A. Gestetner
            
            (Principal
                Executive Officer and PrincipalFinancial
                and Accounting Officer )
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2009-7022

ROSELLA A. KEELER,

Claimant-Appellant,

v.

ERIC K. SHINSEKI, Secretary of Veterans Affairs,

Respondent-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims

in 07-0291, Judge Robert N. Davis.

ON MOTION

ORDER

Upon consideration of Rosella E. Keeler's motion to voluntarily dismiss her

appeal,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

The motion is granted.

Each side shall bear its own costs.

FOR THE COURT

MAR 10 2009 /s/ Jan Horbaly

Date Jan Horbaly

Clerk

FED

U.S. COURT OF

IL 

APPEALS FOR

THE FEDERAL CIRCUR

cc:	Rosella E. Keeler

Robert C. Bigler, Esq. MAR 1.0 2009

.11tie

s8

	

CLERK

ISSUED AS A MANDATE: MAR 10 2009
EXHIBIT 31.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TOSECTION 302 OFTHE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Mark L. Ogden, certify that:

|  
|--
|1.
|  
|2.
|  
|3.
|  
|4.

|   
|---
|(a)
|   
|(b)
|   
|(c)
|   
|(d)

|  
|--
|5.

|   
|---
|(a)
|   
|(b)

|               |  |                                                                  
|-------------- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------
|March 16, 2011 |  | /s/ Mark L. Ogden                                                
|               |  |                                                                  
|               |  | Mark L. OgdenVice President, Finance(Principal Financial Officer)



---
#### F. F. REYNOLDS, D.D.S., Appellant, v. KENTUCKY STATE BOARD OF DENTAL EXAMINERS, Appellee.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

June 17, 1955.

*540Wallace & Hopson, Louisville, for appellant.

Wiggins & Wiggins, Richmond, for ap-pellee.

CULLEN, Commissioner.

The Kentucky State Board of Dental Examiners suspended, for one year, the license of Dr. F. F. Reynolds to practice dentistry. He attempted to appeal to the circuit court from the order of suspension, hut the appeal was dismissed on the ground that the court lacked jurisdiction to entertain such an appeal. On his appeal to this Court the only question is whether the circuit court erred in holding it was without jurisdiction.

The statutes regulating the practice of dentistry are contained in KRS 313.010 to 313.250, which are based upon an Act of 1938. In KRS 313.180 it is provided that an appeal may be taken to the circuit court from an order *revoking*a license, but there is no provision for an appeal from an order *suspending*a license.

Dr. Reynolds concedes that he has no right of appeal under KRS 313.180, but contends he has such a right under KRS 313.-340. The latter statute is part of a 1942 Act, which relates only to the practice of dental hygiene. As a matter of fact, KRS 313.330, which provides for revocation or suspension of the license of a dental hygienist, and KRS 313.340, which provides for appeals to the circuit court, were both set forth as part of a single section of the 1942 Act, and apparently were divided into two KRS sections merely for convenience in compilation.

Although the language of KRS 313.-340 is broad enough on its face to cover appeals from any action of the State Board of Dental Examiners, we think it is beyond question that the section was intended to apply and can apply, only to action concerning licenses of dental hygienists. ¡Not only the body of the 1942 Act, but its title, makes clear that the Act is confined to the regulation of the practice of dental hygiene.

The lower court correctly held that Dr. Reynolds has no right of appeal from the order suspending his license to practice dentistry. However, as pointed out in the opinion of the lower court, he is not without remedy if he can establish, in an independent suit, that the action of the board was arbitrary or capricious. See Kendall v. Beiling, 295 Ky. 782, 175 S.W.2d 489.

The judgment is affirmed.
Adams, Kevin (OST) 

From: 

Sent: 

To: 

Subject: 

Kevin, 

Bruce McGlasson <bmcglasson@flygrant.com> 

Tuesday, October 02, 2012 4:17PM 

Adams, Kevin (OST) 

Akun EAS bid 

, .-·\'\.HSPORTATlON 

• ... , \./1 :~ /r:.··r '•.C., C' }, r:n:R~·Tlr'Jl'JC' L ll I. \- •• ) 

At this time, Grant Aviation, Inc respectfully requests a one week extension of the deadline for EAS proposals between 

Dutch Harbor and the Akun /Akutan markets. Currently, there remain several unresolved issues between the USPS, 

DOT, and the independent contractors that will be involved in performance ofthis service. Thisrequest for extension of 

deadline may be sufficient for all involved to reach agreement or, barring that unlikely event, will allow Grant Aviation 

the time to prepare several contingent bids allowing for whatever eventual resolution is reached between the parties. 

Thank you, 

Bruce McGlasson 

President 

Grant Aviation, Inc. 

1
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 194 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 194

             For the relief of Martha Palmillas de Morales.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 5, 2011

Mr. Pastor of Arizona introduced the following bill; which was referred 
                   to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
             For the relief of Martha Palmillas de Morales.

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

SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS FOR MARTHA PALMILLAS DE MORALES.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding subsections (a) and (b) of section 
201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, Martha Palmillas de Morales 
shall be eligible for issuance of an immigrant visa or for adjustment 
of status to that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence 
upon filing an application for issuance of an immigrant visa under 
section 204 of such Act or for adjustment of status to lawful permanent 
resident.
    (b) Adjustment of Status.--If Martha Palmillas de Morales enters 
the United States before the filing deadline specified in subsection 
(c), she shall be considered to have entered and remained lawfully and 
shall, if otherwise eligible, be eligible for adjustment of status 
under section 245 of the Immigration and Nationality Act as of the date 
of the enactment of this Act.
    (c) Deadline for Application and Payment of Fees.--Subsections (a) 
and (b) shall apply only if the application for issuance of an 
immigrant visa or the application for adjustment of status is filed 
with appropriate fees within 2 years after the date of the enactment of 
this Act.
    (d) Reduction of Immigrant Visa Number.--Upon the granting of an 
immigrant visa or permanent residence to Martha Palmillas de Morales, 
the Secretary of State shall instruct the proper officer to reduce by 
1, during the current or next following fiscal year, the total number 
of immigrant visas that are made available to natives of the country of 
the alien's birth under section 203(a) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act or, if applicable, the total number of immigrant visas 
that are made available to natives of the country of the alien's birth 
under section 202(e) of such Act.
    (e) Denial of Preferential Immigration Treatment for Certain 
Relatives.--The natural parents, brothers, and sisters of Martha 
Palmillas de Morales shall not, by virtue of such relationship, be 
accorded any right, privilege, or status under the Immigration and 
Nationality Act.
                                 <all>
```
Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinionsho uld not * be publishe d an d is not precede nt except und er the limit ed circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 09- 40842 C onfer enc e Cal endar UN I TE D S TA TE S OF AM ERI CA, P l ai n t i f f
- A pp el l ee v. M ONI CAMENDOZ A- OR OS CO , D e fe nda nt - Appe l l ant

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f or t h e Sou t h ern D i st ri ctof T exas U SD C N o. 1: 05- C R - 425- 1 B ef ore G A R Z A , D E N N IS, an d E L R O D , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R I A M: * A pp eal i n g t h e j u dg m enti n ac r i m i nalc ase, M on i ca M en doza
- O rosc o rai ses argu m ent s t hat s he c onc ede s ar e f or ec l os ed byUni t e d St at e s v . Mo ndr ago nSa nt i ago , 5 6 4 F .3 d 3 5 7 , 3 6 4 -6 5 (5t h C ir.) , c e r t . de ni e d, 1 3 0 S . C t. 1 9 2 (20 0 9 ), w hi c h hel d t hatpl ai n er r or rev i ew appl i es t o f or fei t ed i ss ues of

pr oc edur al r e a s o n a b le n e s s . A c c o r d in g ly , th e a p p e lla n t’s m o tio n fo rs u m m a r yd is p o s itio n is GR ANT ED , a n d t h e j u d g me n to f t h e d i s t r i c tc o u r ti s A F F I RMED. United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Februar y 12, 2010 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I Clerk Case: 09-40842 Document: 00511027066 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/12/2010
EXHIBIT 32

                      18 U.S.C. Section 1350 Certifications

     I hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
section. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and
belief, that the accompanying Form 10-QSB of Microwave Transmission Systems,
Inc. for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2003, fully complies with the
requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934(15
U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and that the information contained in this Form 10-QSB
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of Microwave Transmission Systems, Inc.

By:  /s/ P. DAVID SPURLIN
     --------------------
     P. David Spurlin
     President and Chief Executive Officer
     Date: November 14, 2003

     I hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
section. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and
belief, that the accompanying Form 10-QSB of Microwave Transmission Systems,
Inc. for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2003, fully complies with the
requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934(15
U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and that the information contained in this Form 10-QSB
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of Microwave Transmission Systems, Inc.

By:  /s/ D. SUSAN KING
     -----------------
     D. Susan King
     Chief Financial Officer
     Date: November 14, 2003
| ·   | Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-18557) |
|--------------------|------------------------------------------------------|

| ·   | Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 033-60113) |
|--------------------|------------------------------------------------------|

| ·   | Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-18543) |
|--------------------|------------------------------------------------------|

| ·   | Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-120242) |
|--------------------|-------------------------------------------------------|

| ·   | Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-36693) |
|--------------------|------------------------------------------------------|

| ·   | Registration Statement (Form S-3D No. 333-20683) |
|--------------------|-------------------------------------------------------|
#### Robert WATSON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 27563.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 22, 1955.

*716Rodgers & ¡ Adams, by Thomas Adams, Big Spring, for appellant.

Guilford L. Jones, Dist. Atty., Big Spring, Leon Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

MORRISON, Presiding Judge.

The offense is driving while intoxicated as a second offender, as denounced by Article 802b, Vernon’s Ann.P.C.; the punishment, 3 years.

Officer 'Walton testified that, as he was patrolling in the City of Big Spring at approximately 3:00 o’clock on the Sunday morning in question, he observed an automobile slide around a corner; that he whipped his patrol car to the right in order to avoid being hit, and then turned around and gave chase'; that the automobile came to a halt near the colored American Legion hall; and that he observed the appellant under thé wheel. Walton stated that the appellant’s breath smelled strongly of alcohol, that the appellant spoke as if he had a thick tongue, staggered as he got out of the automobile, and in his opinion was intoxicated. Walton testified that he had observed the appellant drinking beer in the “flats” earlier that night.

A prior misdemeanor conviction for driving while intoxicated was established.

Appellant, testifying in his own behalf, stated that he had been talking and dancing at the Legion hall and Gomez’ place up until 2:30 on the morning in question, but denied that he: was intoxicated and claimed that the only intoxicant which he had consumed that night was a portion of a bottle of beer which the officers found in his possession at the time he was arrested. He denied that he had been to the “flats” that night.

The jury resolved the disputed issue of the appellant’s intoxication against him, and we find the evidence sufficient to support the conviction.

By amended motion for new trial, the appellant sought to raise approximately twenty alleged errors in the trial of his cas.e which range from objections to the court’s charge to the contention that the prosecutor was disqualified. We have carefully checked the statement of facts on the trial and fail to find where any of the questions were properly raised at the time of the trial.

' All objections to the court’s charge must be made before the charge is read to the jury and cannot be made for the first time on’ motion for new trial. Article 658, Vernon’s Ann.C.C.P., and Clay v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 246 S.W.2d 180.

As to the prior convictions for felonies which the appellant claims in his motion for new trial were too remote to be employed for the purpose of impeachment, we note that the appellant himself testified without objection about his-prior felony convictions in the State of Oklahoma.

No. objections were made to any of the other questions sought to be raised in the motion. Former jeopardy must be *717plead before trial and cannot be raised for the first time on motion for. new. trial. Hill v. State, *79*Tex.Cr.R. 555,. 186 S.W. 769.

Finding no reversible error,' the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
EXHIBIT 32.1

                                  Certification
  Pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) and Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
                       (18 U.S.C. Section 1350(a) and (b))


I,  Timothy  Rosen,  Chairman  of  the  Board  and  Chief  Executive  Officer of
VerticalBuyer,  Inc.  (the  "Company")  certify  that:

(1)  the  quarterly  report  on  Form 10-QSB of the Company for the period ended
March  31, 2004 (the "Quarterly Report") fully complies with the requirements of
section  13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or
78o(d));  and

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


July  23,  2004

                                                     /s/ Timothy Rosen
                                                     Timothy Rosen
                                                     Chairman of the Board
                                                     and Chief Executive Officer



I,  Leslie  Kent, Chief Financial Officer of VerticalBuyer, Inc. (the "Company")
certify  that:

(1)  the  quarterly  report  on  Form 10-QSB of the Company for the period ended
March  31, 2004 (the "Quarterly Report") fully complies with the requirements of
section  13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or
78o(d));  and

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


Date:  July  23,  2004

                                                     /s/ Leslie  Kent
                                                     Leslie  Kent
                                                     Chief  Financial  Officer


<PAGE>
**Exhibit 32.1**

****CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18. U.S.C. SECTION1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the AnnualReport of Parkway Properties, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K forthe annual period ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Steven G.Rogers, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.1350, as adopted pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to myknowledge:

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

(2)       The information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company.
|  | /s/ Steven G. Rogers                            |
|--|-------------------------------------------------|
|  | Steven G. Rogers (*)                            |
|  | President, Chief Executive Officer and Director |
|  | March 4, 2005                                   |

*A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906 has been provided to ParkwayProperties, Inc. and will be retained by the Company and furnished to theSecurities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
|   | (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 Deep      Down. |
|--------|-----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| By:   | /s/      RONALD E.      SMITH                                        |
|-----------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|            | Ronald      E. Smith                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    |
|            | President and Chief      Executive Officer                                                                                                                                                                                                                              |
|            | August 15,      2008                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    |

----
1

Filed 4/11/18

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE, )

) S224564

Plaintiff and Respondent, )

) Ct.App. 4/1 D063428

v. )

) San Diego County

LEONEL CONTRERAS and ) Super. Ct. No. SCD236438

WILLIAM STEVEN RODRIGUEZ, )

)

Defendants and Appellants. )

___________________________________)

ORDER MODIFYING OPINION

THE COURT:

The opinion in this matter, which was filed February 26, 2018, and appears at 4

Cal.5th 349, is modified as follows:

In the second full paragraph starting on page 363, beginning “The record in this 

case,” the sentence, “An opportunity to obtain release does not seem ‘meaningful’ or 

‘realistic’ within the meaning of Graham if the chance of living long enough to meet that 

opportunity is roughly the same as a coin toss” is modified to read as follows: “An 

opportunity to obtain release does not seem ‘meaningful’ or ‘realistic’ within the meaning 

of Graham if the chance of living long enough to make use of that opportunity is roughly 

the same as a coin toss. (Cf. dis. opn. of Cantil-Sakauye, C. J., post, at p. 394.)”

This modification does not affect the judgment.