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




CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER





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 The Stephan Co. (the "Company) on Form
10-Q/A for the period ended June 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Frank F. Ferola, Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to
my knowledge:





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





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





/s/
      Frank F. FerolaFrank
      F. FerolaChief
      Executive OfficerDecember
      7,
2009
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

WACO DIVISION

WSOU INVESTMENTS LLC,

Plaintiff, 

v.

DELL TECHNOLOGIES INC., DELL 

INC., EMC CORPORATION,

Defendants.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

CIVIL NO. W-20-CV-00473-ADA

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE 

JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge 

Derek T. Gilliland. ECF No. 289. The report recommends Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss Under 

Rule 41(a)(2) (ECF No. 269) be GRANTED-IN-PART and DENIED-IN-PART and that the 

case be DISMISSED with PREJUDICE, without deciding whether to award attorneys’ fees. The 

report and recommendation was filed on January 4, 2024. 

A party may file specific, written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations 

of the magistrate judge within fourteen days after being served with a copy of the report and 

recommendation, thereby securing de novo review by the district court. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b); Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 72(b). As of today, neither party has filed objections.

When no objections are timely filed, a district court reviews the magistrate judge’s report 

and recommendation for clear error. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note (“When no 

timely objection is filed, the [district] court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on 

the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.”). The Court has reviewed the report 

and recommendation and finds no clear error.

Case 6:20-cv-00473-ADA-DTG Document 292 Filed 04/25/24 Page 1 of 2
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of United States 

Magistrate Judge Gilliland (ECF No. 289) is ADOPTED. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss Under Rule 41(a)(2)

(ECF No. 269) is GRANTED-IN-PART and DENIED-IN-PART and that the case be 

DISMISSED with PREJUDICE, without deciding whether to award attorneys’ fees.

SIGNED this 25th day of April, 2024.

ALAN D ALBRIGHT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 6:20-cv-00473-ADA-DTG Document 292 Filed 04/25/24 Page 2 of 2
* 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. 04-10369 Conference Calendar

JAMES EARL HOPKINS, JR., Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus EASON, Warden; NFN JIMENEZ; NFN HANSZ, Defendants-Appellees.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 1:03-CV-230-C

-------------------- Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and PICKERING, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * James Earl Hopkins, Jr., Texas prisoner #1031879, appeals from the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for lack of jurisdiction. The district court lacked jurisdiction to reopen Hopkins’s previous 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action which was dismissed by another district court. See Bankers Mortgage Co. v. United
States , 423 F.2d 73, 78 (5th Cir. 1970). Hopkins’s appeal is without arguable merit and is frivolous. Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). Hopkins is United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## F I L E D August 18, 2004 Charles R. Fulbruge III ClerkNo. 04-10369 -2- warned that the dismissal of his appeal counts as a “strike” for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) and that once he accumulates three “strikes” he will be barred from proceeding in forma pauperis in any civil action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he “is under imminent danger of serious physical injury.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). APPEAL DISMISSED. 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2. SANCTIONS WARNING ISSUED.
EXHIBIT 32.2








CERTIFICATION


Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350


(Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)





In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Rodobo International, Inc. (the “Company”) for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Xiuzhen Qiao, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §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 results of operations of the Company.








Date:  December 21, 2010
By:
/s/ Xiuzhen QiaoName: Xiuzhen QiaoTitle:  Chief Financial Officer
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

BLUE BELL CREAMERIES, L.P. 

Defendant. 

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

CRIMINAL ACTION NO.

1:20-CR-123-RP

WAIVER AND CONSENT TO SENTENCING BY VIDEO CONFERENCE

 I acknowledge that Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 43 requires the presence of Blue Bell 

Creameries, L.P. ( Blue Bell ), for which I am the authorized corporate representative, before a United 

States District Judge for sentencing. See United States v. Navarro, 169 F.3d 228, 239 (5th Cir. 1999) 

(holding that a court may not sentence a defendant by video conference unless the defendant consents). 

I further acknowledge that I, on behalf of Blue Bell, may waive the requirement to appear in person 

before a judge for sentencing and Blue Bell may consent to sentencing conducted by videoconference.

Blue Bell and I have discussed with our attorney the implications of waiving the requirement 

to appear in person and we understand the consequences of such a waiver. Blue Bell is choosing to 

knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waive the Rule 43 requirement to be sentenced in person. 

Blue Bell consents to United States District Judge Robert Pitman sentencing Blue Bell via 

video conference. Blue Bell consents of its own free will and volition. Nobody, including Blue Bell s

attorney, the attorney for the government, or the Court, has coerced the decision to consent to 

sentencing via video conference. 

Blue Bell, after consultation with its attorney, voluntarily and knowingly waives the right to 

appeal the sentence based on the manner in which sentencing was conducted (by videoconference).

This waiver applies to a proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. 

Case 1:20-cr-00123-RP Document 21 Filed 09/04/20 Page 1 of 2
-2-

Date Defendant Blue Bell Creameries, L.P., by its 

authorized representative Samuel Sommer, Chief 

Financial Officer

Douglas A. Fellman

Name of Attorney for Defendant (Print)

Date Signature of Attorney for Defendant

September 4, 2020

Case 1:20-cr-00123-RP Document 21 Filed 09/04/20 Page 2 of 2
Need to return call by / at/between and . Signature: ___________________________ 

Project No.: 0172.07.005.504 DISTRIBUTION 

Page _1_ of __1_

Project Name: 304(m) Annual Review 

TELEPHONE CALL RECORD 

 Outgoing Call 

Date: 2/16/2010 Time: 12:00 pm EST 

Company Name: Kodak Colorado Division 

Contact Name: Eric Peterson 

Phone No.: (970) 686-4014 

Name: Elizabeth Sabol Eastern Research Group 

GENERAL SUBJECT : Silver concentration reported to DMR in 2008 

 

TOPICS DISCUSSED AND ACTION TAKEN 

I called Kodak Colorado Division on February 12, 2010, to speak with Eric Peterson. I left Mr. Peterson a 

message identifying myself and why I was calling. Mr. Peterson returned my phone call on Tuesday, February 

16, at 12:00 pm. We briefly discussed silver discharges from Outfall 006. 

Mr. Peterson explained that Outfall 006 is an internal discharge that is ultimately commingled with other 

streams and sent to a POTW. Mr. Peterson stated that the silver in Outfall 006 comes from spent photographic 

fixer used at the facility. I asked him if the average flow for the outfall was around 4 MGD, which was reported 

to the ICIS-NPDES database. He stated that the average flow for the discharge is about 150 L/day (0.000039 

MGD), not 4.000039 MGD. I told him that we would correct the flow in our database.
**Exhibit99.1**

 

The undersigned officer of StockerYale, Inc. (the “Company”) herebycertifies that the Company’s quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarterlyperiod ended June 30, 2002, as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof, fully complies with the requirements of Section13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, asamended, and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, inall material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany. This certification is provided solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.

 

 
| Date: August 14, 2002 | Name:  | /s/ Mark W. Blodgett                  |   |
|-----------------------|--------|---------------------------------------|--------|
|                  |   | Mark W. Blodgett                      |
|                  |   |                                  |
|                  |   |                                  |
|                  | Title: | Chairman and  Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
#### BALBUENA v. STATE.

No. 26664.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Dec. 9, 1953.

Reid & Reid, by T. M. Reid, Abilene, for appellant.

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

BELCHER, Commissioner.

Appellant was convicted for the unlawful sale of beer in a dry area, and her punishment was assessed at a fine of $200.

By Bills of Exception Nos. 1 and 2, appellant complains of the action of the trial judge in permitting the state to amend the complaint and information after both parties had announced ready for trial on the merits.

It is shown that prior to the amendment of the complaint and information, the first count in each charged appellant with the possession of whiskey for the purpose of sale in a dry area, and the second count charged her with the sale of whiskey in a dry area. It is further shown that Leon C. Bowman signed the complaint as affiant. During the selection of the jury it was discovered that beer and not whiskey was the basis of the state’s case. Then the court permitted the amendment of the complaint and information so as to allege beer instead of whiskey as the basis of the offense charged, to which action of the court appellant objected for the reason that it was changing the sworn complaint and affidavit of Leon C. Bowman, the affiant.

We have held in cases presenting this question that one person cannot change another’s affidavit. Broadhead v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 252 S.W.2d 194; Hedspeth v. State, 143 Tex.Cr.R. 627, 160 S.W.2d 928.

The court was not authorized to permit the substitution of the word “beer” for the word “whiskey,” in the state’s pleadings, such allegation being a matter of substance. Art. 533, C.C.P., and cases there cited.

The judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded.

Opinion approved by the Court.
Filed 4/6/09 by Clerk of Supreme Court

IN THE SUPREME COURT

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

2009 ND 50

Daniel Arvid Louis Fremling, Jr., Plaintiff and Appellee

v.

Elaine JoAnn Fremling, Defendant and Appellant

No. 20080197

Appeal from the District Court of Cass County, East Central Judicial District, the Honorable Cynthia Rothe-Seeger, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Per Curiam.

Timothy J. McLarnan, McLarnan & Skatvold, PLLP, 730 Center Avenue, Suite 202, P.O. Box 8, Moorhead, MN 56561-0008, for plaintiff and appellee.

James R. Brothers, Wold Johnson, P.C., 400 Gate City Building, P.O. Box 1680, Fargo, N.D. 58107-1680, for defendant and appellant.

Fremling v. Fremling

No. 20080197

Per Curiam.

[¶1]Elaine Fremling appeals a district court amended judgment, arguing the court erred in denying her request for permanent spousal support.  Concluding the judgment of the district court is based on findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous, we summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).

[¶2]Dale V. Sandstrom

Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.

Carol Ronning Kapsner

Daniel J. Crothers

William F. Hodny, S.J.

[¶3]The Honorable William F. Hodny, Surrogate Judge, sitting in place of Maring, J., disqualified.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-31257

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff−Appellee,

versus

THADDEUS RICHARDSON,

Defendant−Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

No. 2:14-CV-1375

Before SMITH, WIENER, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Thaddeus Richardson, federal prisoner #32639-034, was convicted of 

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

October 9, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-31257 Document: 00514188171 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/09/2017
No. 16-31257

2

possession with intent to distribute a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of heroin and possession of firearms in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. He seeks a certificate of appealability (“COA”) to appeal the 

denial of a postjudgment motion for reconsideration of the denial of his 

28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. He request in forma pauperis (“IFP”) status on 

appeal.

The postjudgment motion is construed as a motion made under Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). See Harcon Barge Co. v. D & G Boat Rentals, 

Inc., 784 F.2d 665, 667−68 (5th Cir. 1986) (en banc); FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b). In 

his motion, Richardson, in an attempt to reopen the time limit for seeking relief 

from this court, sought to have the district court reinstate its order of dismissal 

of his § 2255 motion. Because the motion merely sought to reinstate appellate 

jurisdiction, and did not constitute an attack on the district court’s resolution 

of his claims on the merits or add a new ground for relief, a COA is unnecessary. See Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 532−33 (2005); Dunn v. 

Cockrell, 302 F.3d 491, 491−92 & n.1 (5th Cir. 2002).

Richardson’s case is therefore before this court on his motion to appeal 

IFP, and this court’s inquiry “is limited to whether the appeal involves ‘legal 

points arguable on their merits (and therefore not frivolous).’” Howard v. King, 

707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983) (citation omitted). The district court did not 

abuse its discretion by denying Richardson’s motion. See Perez v. Stephens, 

745 F.3d 174, 177−79 (5th Cir. 2014); Hernandez v. Thaler, 630 F.3d 420, 428 

(5th Cir. 2011); Dunn, 302 F.3d at 492−93. 

This appeal lacks arguable merit and is DISMISSED. See Howard, 

707 F.2d at 220; 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. The motion for a COA is DENIED as 

unnecessary. The motion to proceed IFP is DENIED.

 Case: 16-31257 Document: 00514188171 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/09/2017
##### 



Exhibit 99.1 MORGAN STANLEY DEAN WITTER
CREDIT CORPORATION Michael J. GillespieAccounting Director Officers Certificate Pursuant to the Servicing
Agreement between Morgan Stanley Dean Witter Credit
Corporation, formerly known as NOVUS Financial Corporation, as seller and
servicer (referred to herein in such capacity as the Servicer, and Redwood
Trust, Inc., as Owner, the undersigned, hereby states that: (1) A review of the activities of the Servicer and of its performance
under the
Servicing Agreement during the calendar year ended December 31, 2003 has
been made
under my supervision; and (2) To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has
fulfilled
all its obligations under the Agreement throughout such period. MORGAN STANLEY DEAN WITTER
CREDIT CORPORATIONBy

    /s/ Douglas J. BushDouglas J. BushTitle Director
Dated as of December 31, 2003 By

    /s/ David
BianucciDavid BianucciTitle Vice President
Dated as of December 31, 2003 2500 Lake Cook Road, J
East, Riverwoods, Illinois 60015 Tel (224) 405-1903
Printed on 100% recycled/recyclable paper with 100% post

- consumer fiber and process chlorine free.
Customer Service Hotline: 1

- 800

- 438

- 2474 8/19/13

Mr. David K. Paylor , Director Virginia Department of Environmental Quality

629 East Main Street Richmond, Virginia 23219

Dear Director Paylor:

On July 26

, 2013, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) received a revision to the Virginia State Implementation Plan (SIP) from the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VADEQ) pertaining to the 20 1 3 fine particulate matter (PM 2.5 ) National Ambient Air Quality S tandard s (NAAQS) . EPA has determined that the submittal is administ ratively and technically complete, and is reviewing it to prepare a Direct Final Rulemaking Notice (DFRN) action.

If members of your staff have any questions, they may direct them to M s

. Ellen Schmitt

, Air Program Planning , at (215) 814

- 5787 , or at schmi tt

. ellen @epa.gov. Sh e is the principal contact for this rulemaking.

Sincerely,

/s/

Diana Esher, Director

Air Protection Division

cc: Mr. Michael G. Dowd, Air Division Director Virginia Department of Environmental Quality
Exhibit  32





Certification

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Subsections (a)

and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)





Pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 (subsections (a)

and (b) of Section 1350,  Chapter 63 of Title 18,  United States Code), each

of the undersigned officers of The  L.S. Starrett Company,  a Massachusetts

corporation  (the "Company"), does hereby certify, to such officer's

knowledge, that:



The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 24, 2005 (the

"Form 10-Q") of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section

13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information

contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the

financial condition and results of operations of the Company.







Date:  November 2, 2005                     /s/ Douglas A. Starrett

Douglas A. Starrett

Chief Executive Officer





Date:  November 2, 2005                     /s/ Randall J. Hylek

Randall J. Hylek

Chief Financial Officer





The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section

906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section

1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United  States Code) and is not being filed as

part of the Form 10-Q or as a separate disclosure document.



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been

provided to The L.S. Starrett Company and will be retained by The L.S.

Starrett Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or

its staff upon request.
Exhibit 31.1

Certification of Principal Executive Officer Pursuant to Section 302 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and Securities and Exchange Commission Release
34-46427

I, Attila Reisz, the principal executive officer of 10Charge, Inc., a Delaware
corporation, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of 10Charge, Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this annual 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 annual
report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this annual report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officers 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)) for the registrant and we have:

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries,
is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the
period in which this annual report is being prepared;

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this annual
report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

c) presented in this annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness of
the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the
Evaluation Date;

5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors
(or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrant's
auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over
financial reporting.



Date: July 7, 2004                     /s/ Attila Reisz
                                       -----------------------------------------
                                       Attila Reisz, Principal Executive Officer


                                       1
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

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 The Stephan Co. (the "Company) on
Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Robert C. Spindler,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that, to my knowledge:

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

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


/s/ Robert C. Spindler
----------------------------------------
Robert C. Spindler
Chief Financial Officer
January 10, 2008