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


                         IDI Global, Inc.

                 CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT
    Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
                      18 U.S.C. Section 1350

The undersigned executive officer of IDI Global, Inc. certifies pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that:

1.    the quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the quarter ended
      June 30, 2004, 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 Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all
      material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
      the Company.



                                      /s/ Kevin R. Griffith
Date: August 26, 2004                _________________________________
                                     Kevin R. Griffith
                                     Chief Executive Officer
                                     Principal Financial 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 Global Assets and Services, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"). I,
Bertram Cutler, President, CEO, and CFO of the company, certify, pursuant to 18
USC Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge and belief.

        (1)     The Report fully complies with the requirements of Sction 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.


                                         /s/ Bertram Cutler
                                         --------------------------------
                                         Bertram Cutler, President, CEO, & CFO

Dated:  November 24, 2003
Motion to Extend Time to File Appellant’s Brief Page 1 of 2 DOCKET NO. 12- 14 -00245- CR

CAUSE NO. 19062

JUSTIN CHRISTIAN § IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

VS. § TWELFTH DISTRICT

STATE OF TEXAS § CHEROKEE COUNTY, TEXAS

MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE APPELLANT'S BRIEF

TO THE HONORABLE JUSTICES OF SAID COURT:

Now comes JUSTIN CHRISTIAN, Appellant in the above styled and numbered cause, and moves this Court to grant an extension of time to file appellant's brief, pursuant to Rule 38.6 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, and for good cause shows th e following:

1. This case is on appeal from the 2nd Judicial District Court of Cherokee County,

Texas.

2. The case below was styled the STATE OF TEXAS vs. JUSTIN CHRISTIAN, and

numbered 19062.

3. Appellant was convicted of ASSAULT FAMILY VIOLENCE, IMPEDING BREATH/CIRCULATION.

4. Appellant was assessed a sentence of 10 years confinement institutional division, TDCJ on AUGUST 5, 2014.

5. Notice of appeal was given on AUGUST 26, 2014

6. The clerk's record was filed on SEPTEMBER 12, 2014; the reporter's record was filed in OCTOBER, 2014.

7. The appellate brief is presently due on January 5, 2015.

8. Appellant requests an extension of time of 7 days from the present date, i.e. January 12, 2015

9. This is the third request for extension to file the brief filed in this cause.

10. Defendant is currently incarcerated.

11. Appellant’s attorney has been unable to complete the brief due to his holiday schedule and Court appearances

.

12. Counsel requests this extension not for the sole purpose of delay but so that justice may be done. ACCEPTED

12-14-00245-CR

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS

TYLER, TEXAS

1/6/2015 2:49:27 PM

CATHY LUSK

CLERKMotion to Extend Time to File Appellant’s Brief Page 2 of 2

13. Counsel has conferred with the prosecuting attorney who he is in trial with in

the cause referenced above who has indicated he does n ot object to this motion and has signed the same.

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Appellant prays that this Court grant this Motion to Extend Time to File Appellant's Brief, and for such other and further relief as the Court may deem appropriate.

Respec tfully submitted,

ALLEN W. ROSS Attorney at Law

P

. O

. Box 528 Jacksonville, Texas 75766

903.683

- 2454 (voice)

866.576

- 5317 (fax) allen@arossatty.com

By:____________________________________

ALLEN W. ROSS

State Bar No. 00788324 Attorney for JUSTIN CHRISTIAN

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

This is to certify that on January 6, 2015 a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing document was served on the District Attorney's Office, Cherokee County, Texas, by facsimile transmission to 903 683 2309.

_______________________________________ ALLEN W. ROSS
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 183 

To direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to carry out a study on the 

acquisition of land adjacent to Beaufort National Cemetery, Beaufort, 

South Carolina. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 5, 2011 

Mr. WILSON of South Carolina introduced the following bill; which was 

referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to carry out 

a study on the acquisition of land adjacent to Beaufort 

National Cemetery, Beaufort, South Carolina. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS STUDY ON 

4 THE ACQUISITION OF LAND ADJACENT TO 

5 BEAUFORT NATIONAL CEMETERY, BEAU6 FORT, SOUTH CAROLINA. 

7 (a) STUDY REQUIRED.—The Secretary of Veterans 

8 Affairs shall carry out a study on the acquisition, in ac9 cordance with chapter 24 of title 38, United States Code, 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 183 IH

1 of the parcel of land described in subsection (b) to be used 

2 for the expansion of the Beaufort National Cemetery in 

3 Beaufort, South Carolina. 

4 (b) PARCEL DESCRIBED.—The parcel of land de5 scribed in this subsection is a parcel of land consisting 

6 of approximately 4.9 acres located on 17th Street in Beau7 fort, South Carolina, as depicted on tax map number 120– 

8 1–238 dated May 4, 1998. 

9 (c) CONTENTS OF STUDY.—In carrying out the study 

10 under subsection (a), the Secretary shall examine each of 

11 the following: 

12 (1) Any issues associated with the purchase of 

13 the parcel of land described in subsection (b) by the 

14 Department of Veterans Affairs, and the viable sce15 narios to support such a purchase. 

16 (2) The opportunities for the acquisition of 

17 such parcel of land for the cemetery through a pub18 lic-private partnership. 

19 (3) The feasibility of expanding the grant pro20 gram under section 2408 of title 38, United States 

21 Code, to include aid to municipalities like Beaufort, 

22 South Carolina, for establishing, expanding, and im23 proving veterans’ cemeteries. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 183 IH

1 (4) The issues associated with expanding an ex2 isting veterans’ cemetery under the state grant pro3 gram under such section 2408. 

4 (5) The costs, feasibility, and benefits of a 

5 niche wall separating Beaufort National Cemetery 

6 and the parcel described in subsection (b). 

7 (d) REPORT TO CONGRESS.—Not later than 30 days 

8 after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary 

9 shall submit to Congress a report on the study conducted 

10 under subsection (a). 

Æ 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
#### James Taylor MINK et al., Appellant, v. Roosevelt MIRACLE et al., Appellee.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Dec. 2, 1955.

Floyd Taylor, Pineville, for appellant.

E. B. Wilson, Pineville, for appellee.

MOREMEN, Judge.

This suit was instituted by the appellee, Roosevelt Miracle, for the purpose of seeking a partition of real estate jointly owned by the parties to this appeal. After suitable proceedings, the court appointed commissioners to make the division according to the various interests.

The commissioners viewed the land which was a tract of about 170 acres and consisted of both hillside and bottom land which lay along the Cumberland River. To the appellee, who, with his wife, owns a 3⁄41 interest, was awarded 136.11 acres of hillside land; to appellees, James Taylor Mink and James Mink, who own a *Yu*interest, was awarded 15 acres of bottom land; and to Levi Taylor, who, with his wife, owns a 3⁄41 interest, was awarded 19.74 acres of bottom land. After hearing testimony on objections filed to the commissioners’ report, the court, by judgment, confirmed it.

On this appeal, those who received the bottom land claim that the land was not fairly and equitably divided; that the hillside land contained coal and timber and they should have been given a portion of that. The only testimony introduced in support of their contention was given by Levi Taylor who made the statement that coal and timber land is worth more than overgrown bottom land that has not been used for some time.

On the other hand, the commissioners seem to have given the matter of correct division intensive study. They viewed the premises and prepared a map or survey which shows that they approached the problem with particularity and the testimony of one of the commissioners, at least as far as we can tell from the record, justified the apportionment.

In Purcell v. Purcell, 303 Ky. 478, 198 S.W.2d 43, it was said:

> “Moreover, it has long been the rule that a report of division of land by disinterested commissioners should not be set aside where there is substantial evidence to support it. Lang v. Constance, 46 S.W. 693, 20 Ky.Law Rep. 502; Ratliff v. Yost, 263 Ky. 239, 92 S.W.2d 95. This is especially so on appeal where the report has been confirmed by the chancellor. Noel v. Noel, 235 Ky. 759, 32 S.W.2d 336; Begley v. Skaggs, 288 Ky. 649, 157 S.W.2d 279.”

We find nothing in this record which overcomes the legal presumption above recognized and the judgment is therefore affirmed.
<PAGE>   1



                                  EXHIBIT 23



                  GLEIBERMAN SPEARS SHEPHERD & MENAKER, P.A.

                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Post Effective
Amendment to the Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No. 33-24648) of McRae
Industries, Inc. and subsidiaries of our report dated October 5, 1998 on the
consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedule of McRae
Industries, Inc. and subsidiaries included in its Annual Report on Form 10-K
for the year ended August 1, 1998.



/s/Gleiberman Spears Shepherd & Menaker, P. A.

Charlotte, North Carolina
October 26, 1998



                                                                             42
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1843 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1843

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 489 Army Drive in Barrigada, Guam, as the ``John Pangelinan Gerber 
                        Post Office Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 11, 2011

 Ms. Bordallo 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 489 Army Drive in Barrigada, Guam, as the ``John Pangelinan Gerber 
                        Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. JOHN PANGELINAN GERBER POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 489 Army Drive in Barrigada, Guam, shall be known and 
designated as the ``John Pangelinan Gerber Post Office Building''.
    (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 ``John 
Pangelinan Gerber Post Office Building''.
                                 <all>
```
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ELIZABETH ANN PEREZ, Plaintiff - Appellant,
v. CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Commissioner of Social Security Administration, Defendant - Appellee. No. 12-15187 D.C. No. 2:10-cv-01887-NVW
MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Neil V. Wake, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted December 4, 2013 San Francisco, California Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges. Elizabeth Perez appeals the district court’s decision affirming the Commissioner’s denial of disability insura nce benefits. We reverse and remand. 

# FILED
DEC 09 2013 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.Perez argues that the administrative law judge (“ALJ”) failed to consider the mental health assessment conducted by he r treating physician, Dr. Rooney. We agree. Based on the record before us, it is unclear whether the ALJ adequately considered Dr. Rooney’s opinion about the claimant’s mental limitations. Although the ALJ discussed and gave reas ons for rejecting Dr. Rooney’s physical residual functional capacity assessment, he di d not specifically discuss or reject the doctor’s separate assessment of the claima nt’s mental ability to do work. The ALJ failed to state whether he considered Dr . Rooney a treating physician in evaluating the claimant’s mental limitations and e ssentially rejected a key element of Dr. Rooney’s opinion without giving any reasons for doing so. See Lingenfelter v. Astrue , 504 F.3d 1028, 1038 n.10 (9th Cir. 2007) . We reverse and remand for further proceedings at which the ALJ should consider Dr. Rooney’s opinion regarding plaintiff’s depression and afford it the weight the ALJ deems appropriate. We decline to address the remaining issues raised by Perez. REVERSED AND REMANDED.

2
Exhibit



Exhibit 10.45



DESCRIPTION OF DIRECTOR COMPENSATION ARRANGEMENTS


Compensation of Non-Employee Directors
For fiscal 2019, our non-employee directors were entitled to the following payments:
		
	•
	Annual retainer of $90,000 for each non-employee director


		
	•
	Additional annual retainer of $70,000 for the Lead Director


		
	•
	Additional annual retainer of $28,000 for the Audit Committee Chair


		
	•
	Additional annual retainer of $15,000 for each Audit Committee member (other than the Chair)


		
	•
	Additional annual retainer of $26,000 for the Chair of the subcommittee of the Audit Committee


		
	•
	Additional annual retainer of $23,000 for the Executive Compensation Committee Chair


		
	•
	Additional annual retainer of $10,000 for each Executive Compensation Committee member (other than the Chair)


		
	•
	Additional annual retainer of $18,000 for the Corporate Governance Committee Chair


		
	•
	Additional annual retainer of $8,000 for each Corporate Governance Committee member (other than the Chair)


		
	•
	Additional annual retainer of $18,000 for the Finance Committee Chair


		
	•
	Additional annual retainer of $8,000 for each Finance Committee member (other than the Chair)


		
	•
	Two annual deferred stock awards for each non-employee director, each representing shares of our common stock valued at $80,000.  


During fiscal 2019, the Board determined that fiscal 2020 director compensation would remain the same as for fiscal 2019.
Directors are reimbursed for customary expenses for attending Board and committee meetings. The deferred stock awards (and deferred dividends on those awards) are granted under our Stock Incentive Plan and are pro-rated for period of service if granted after the date of the annual meeting held during that fiscal year. One of the deferred stock awards vests immediately and is payable with accumulated dividends in stock at the earlier of separation from service as a director or change of control. The second award vests at the annual meeting next following the grant of the award, based on service as a director for that year, and is payable with accumulated dividends in stock upon vesting or, if an irrevocable advance election is made, at the same time as the first award. In the event that a non-employee director separates from service as a director prior to vesting in the second award, that award will be forfeited. 
Compensation of Directors who are Employees of the Company 
Directors who are employees of TJX are not paid for their service as a director.
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 Apollo Solar Energy, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2009 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 operations of the Company.












/s/Renyi Hou


Renyi Hou


Chief Executive Officer and Chairman


March 31, 2010








/s/ Xuefent Li


Xuefeng Li


Interim Chief Financial Officer


March 31, 2010










A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Apollo Solar Energy Inc. and will be retained by Apollo Solar Energy, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request
Exhibit 32.1 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE

OFFICER
PURSUANT TO TITLE 18,
UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, Anthony A.

Lombardo,
President, Chief Executive Officer and Director of E-Z-EM, Inc. (the
Company), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that: 1.
the Annual Report on Form
 10-K of the Company for the fiscal year ended June 2, 2007 (the 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)); and2.
the information contained
 in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
 condition and results of operations of the Company.  Date: August 16,
2007

/s/ Anthony
 A. LombardoAnthony A.
 Lombardo, President,Chief
 Executive Officer, Director -102-
The Honorable George Howard, Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern 1

District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Henry

L. Jones, Jr., United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 96-3314

___________

Donald W. Huffman, *

 *

Appellant, *

 *

v. * Appeal from the United States

 * District Court for the

Larry Norris, Director, Arkansas * Eastern District of Arkansas. 

Department of Correction; John Byus, * [UNPUBLISHED]

Medical Director, Arkansas Department *

of Correction, *

 *

Appellees. *

___________

 Submitted: July 6, 1998

 Filed: July 9, 1998

___________

Before BOWMAN, Chief Judge, WOLLMAN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD,

Circuit Judges. 

___________

PER CURIAM.

Donald Huffman, an Arkansas inmate, appeals from the district court&s dismissal 1

of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim following an evidentiary hearing before a magistrate
-2-

judge. Huffman claimed that defendants denied him proper treatment for medical and

mental conditions, allowed their agents to assault him and forcibly inject him with drugs,

and harassed him in retaliation for his special medical needs. Having reviewed the

record, we conclude dismissal was proper because Huffman failed to offer evidence that

either defendant personally participated in or had knowledge of the alleged constitutional

violations. See Boyd v. Knox, 47 F.3d 966, 968 (8th Cir. 1995). Accordingly, the

judgment is affirmed.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
#### Alfredo RODRIGUEZ, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 29008.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

May 15, 1957.

*922Albert Armendariz, El Paso, for appel-, iant.

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

WOODLEY, Judge.

The offense is possession of marihuana; the punishment, two years.

The sufficiency of the evidence is challenged, and appellant points to conflicts between the testimony of witnesses for the State and that of appellant and of a witness called by the defense.

The jury, the exclusive judges of the facts proved and the weight to be given to the testimony (Art. 706, C.C.P.), resolved the issues against the appellant and accepted the testimony of the State’s witnesses as true.

This Court cannot, in reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, substitute its judgment on the disputed issues for that of the jurors. We must accept the findings of the jury on conflicting testimony and determine whether- or not there is evidence from which they were warranted in finding' beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the offense, as charged.

Leland C. Boyce, a detective of the El Paso Police Department, testified that he saw appellant and a companion as they left a laundry and, with another police officer, followed them, losing sight of appellant only when he and his companion walked around a corner. Officer Boyce testified that as they got even with a theatre he stepped out of the car and start-, ed walking toward appellant and appellant, ran into the theatre lobby where Boyce caught him. Appellant, according to Officer Boyce, dropped a small bundle of cigarettes on the floor as the officer “grabbed him.” The State proved that the twelve cigarettes' found in the package contained marihuana.

Upon this evidence the jury found that appellant possessed marihuana and assessed the minimum punishment.

We find the evidence sufficient to sustain the conviction and no reversible error is shown.

The judgment is affirmed. :