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 Annual Report of Win Gaming Media, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2009, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned, as the Chief Executive Officer of the Company, 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 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.

                 Dated: March 25, 2010

                                                        /s/ Shimon Citron
                                                        -----------------------
                                                        Shimon Citron
                                                        Chief Executive Officer
```
#### In the Matter of Bobby Jarrell, Appellant, v Ramon Rodriguez, as Chairman of the New York State Division of Parole, Respondent.

Weiss, J. P.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Williams, J.), entered January 18, 1990 in Sullivan County, which, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, granted respondent’s motion to dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction.

While on parole petitioner was arrested and charged with armed robbery. A parole violation warrant was issued and, after a preliminary hearing, it was determined that probable cause existed to believe that petitioner had violated his parole. After several postponements of the final revocation hearing, the warrant was vacated and petitioner returned to parole supervision because of the failure to timely hold a final revocation hearing. Subsequently, petitioner was convicted, upon his guilty plea, of two counts of robbery in the second degree and was sentenced to two concurrent 4-to-8-year terms of imprisonment. Petitioner’s parole was then revoked by operation of law (Executive Law § 259-i [3] [d] [iii]) and respondent determined that August 21, 1986, the date of petitioner’s arrest on the robbery charges, was the date of delinquency. Petitioner was informed of this administrative determination on October 5, 1988 by his parole officer, but refused to sign for or accept written notification of the parole revocation. In a letter from his counsel dated July 18, 1989 petitioner sought administrative review of the parole revocation, which application was denied as untimely in a letter dated July 26, 1989 *(see,*9 NYCRR former 8006.1 [b]; *see also,*Executive Law § 259-i [4] [a]). The denial letter found the delinquency date to be correct on the merits. By a petition dated October 11, 1989, petitioner sought review of the revocation determination. Respondent’s motion to dismiss was granted, giving rise to this appeal. We affirm.

*777While respondent’s regulation (9 NYCRR 8006.1 [a]) is silent as to any appeal time period for final declarations of delinquency, we deem respondent’s letter of July 26, 1989 to be a denial on the merits. However, contrary to petitioner’s assertion, the revocation of parole was based on new circumstances, i.e., the conviction *(see, People ex rel. Williams v Rodriguez,*108 AD2d 1007, *lv denied*65 NY2d 603), and resulted by operation of law. As petitioner now acknowledges the existence of a new felony conviction, the only possible issue for review would be the delinquency date. The setting of the delinquency date by respondent as the date of arrest or the date of the commission of the crime, rather than the date of conviction, is correct *(see,*9 NYCRR 8004.3 [b]; *Matter of Washington v Rodriguez,*154 AD2d 944; *Matter of Warley v Rodriguez,*145 AD2d 901).

Judgment affirmed, without costs. Weiss, J. P., Mikoll, Levine, Mercure and Harvey, JJ., concur.
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5506 

To suspend temporarily the rate of duty on Sedaxane. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 7, 2012 

Mr. SMITH of Nebraska introduced the following bill; which was referred to 

the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the rate of duty on Sedaxane. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SEDAXANE. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

7 new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.01.00 N-[2-[1,1′-bicyclopropyl]-2- 

ylphenyl]-3- 

(difluoromethyl)-1-methyl1H-pyrazole-4-carboxamide 

(Sedaxane) (CAS No. 

874967–67–6) (provided 

for in subheading 

2933.19.23) ....................... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2015 ’’. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5506 IH

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

2 subsection (a) applies to articles entered, or withdrawn 

3 from warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day 

4 after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

SAN ANTONIO DIVISION

DIEGO GEREMIAS CORTEZ 

VELASQUEZ,

 Petitioner,

vs.

JOSE M. CORREA, SR., ICE San

Antonio Field Office Director of

Detention; CHAD WOLF, Acting

Secretary, DHS; MATTHEW T.

ALBENCE, Deputy Director, ICE

Senior Official; RAY CASTRO,

Warden, South Texas Detention

Complex; and WILLIAM BARR,

United States Attorney General;

 Respondents.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

5-20-CV-00674-OLG-RBF

ORDER

Before the Court is the status of the above-referenced case, which was referred to me for 

disposition of all pretrial matters pursuant to Rules CV-72 and 1 of Appendix C of the Local 

Rules of the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. See Dkt. No. 18. In

light of the parties Joint Stipulation of Dismissal, Dkt. No. 22, the hearing set for March 3, 2021,

is hereby CANCELLED.

Accordingly, having considered and acted upon all matters for which the above-entitled 

and numbered case was referred, it is ORDERED that the above-entitled and numbered case is 

RETURNED to the District Court for all purposes.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

SIGNED this 2nd day of March, 2021.

RICHARD B. FARRER

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
```

[Federal Register: May 5, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 86)]
[Notices]               
[Page 24772-24773]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr05my10-149]                         

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 6598]

 
U.S. National Commission for UNESCO Notice of Meeting

    The 2010 Annual Meeting of the U.S. National Commission for the 
United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization 
(UNESCO) will take place on Wednesday, May 26, 2010 and Thursday, May 
27, 2010, at the Embassy Suites in Washington, DC (900 10th Street, 
NW.). On Wednesday, May 26 from 9 a.m. to 12 p.m. and from 2 p.m. to 
approximately 6:30 p.m., the Commission will hold a series of

[[Page 24773]]

informational plenary sessions and subject-specific committee and 
thematic breakout sessions, which will be open to the public. 
Additionally, on Thursday, May 27, the Commission will meet from 9 a.m. 
until approximately 1 p.m. to discuss final recommendations, which also 
will be open to the public. Members of the public who wish to attend 
any of these meetings or who need reasonable accommodation should 
contact the U.S. National Commission for UNESCO no later than 
Wednesday, May 19th for further information about admission, as seating 
is limited. Those who wish to make oral comments during the public 
comment section held during the concluding session Tuesday should 
request to be scheduled by Thursday, May 20th. Each individual will be 
limited to five minutes, with the total oral comment period not 
exceeding thirty minutes. Written comments should be submitted by 
Tuesday, May 18th to allow time for distribution to the Commission 
members prior to the meeting. The National Commission may be contacted 
via e-mail at DCUNESCO@state.gov, or via phone at (202) 663-0026.

    Dated: April 28, 2010.
Elizabeth Kanick,
Executive Director, U.S. National Commission for UNESCO, Department of 
State.
[FR Doc. 2010-10548 Filed 5-4-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-19-P
```
**REGULATORY EVALUATION**

**Directorate Identifier:** 2010

- NM

- 031

- AD

**Executive Order 12866:** Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:** Is the AD significant? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **Regulatory Flexibility Act:** Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:** This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. I s it appropriate t o include specific requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska, where aviation might be the only mode of transportation? YES ( ) explain NO (X)
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5330 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5330

 To suspend temporarily the rate of duty on certain leathered footwear 
                               for women.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 7, 2012

 Ms. Bonamici introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To suspend temporarily the rate of duty on certain leathered footwear 
                               for women.

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

SECTION 1. CERTAIN LEATHERED FOOTWEAR FOR WOMEN.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``     9902.01.00        Footwear for        Free            No change      No change      On or before     ''.
                          women, with                                                       12/31/2015
                          uppers of leather
                          other than of
                          pigskin (other
                          than house
                          slippers, work
                          footwear, tennis
                          shoes, basketball
                          shoes, gym shoes,
                          training shoes
                          and the like, and
                          other than slip-
                          on footwear),
                          valued $27/pair
                          or higher, such
                          footwear which
                          designed to be
                          worn in lieu of,
                          but not over,
                          other footwear as
                          a protection
                          against water,
                          oil, grease or
                          chemicals or cold
                          or inclement
                          weather where
                          such protection
                          includes
                          protection
                          against water
                          that is imparted
                          by the use of a
                          coated or
                          laminated textile
                          fabric (provided
                          for in subheading
                          6403.99.90)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to articles entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 29

Case 6:20-cv-00475-ADA Document 110-3 Filed 08/20/21 Page 1 of 5
Case 6:20-cv-00475-ADA Document 110-3 Filed 08/20/21 Page 2 of 5
Case 6:20-cv-00475-ADA Document 110-3 Filed 08/20/21 Page 3 of 5
Case 6:20-cv-00475-ADA Document 110-3 Filed 08/20/21 Page 4 of 5
Case 6:20-cv-00475-ADA Document 110-3 Filed 08/20/21 Page 5 of 5
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

WACO DIVISION

WSOU INVESTMENTS, LLC D/B/A 

BRAZOS LICENSING AND 

DEVELOPMENT,

Plaintiff,

v. 

DELL TECHNOLOGIES INC.,

DELL INC., AND EMC 

CORPORATION,

Defendants.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

CIVIL ACTION 6 :20-cv-00473-ADA

CIVIL ACTION 6 :20-cv-00474-ADA

CIVIL ACTION 6 :20-cv-00475-ADA

CIVIL ACTION 6 :20-cv-00476-ADA

CIVIL ACTION 6 :20-cv-00477-ADA

CIVIL ACTION 6:20-cv-00478-ADA

CIVIL ACTION 6:20-cv-00479-ADA

CIVIL ACTION 6:20-cv-00480-ADA

CIVIL ACTION 6:20-cv-00481-ADA

CIVIL ACTION 6:20-cv-00482-ADA

CIVIL ACTION 6:20-cv-00485-ADA

CIVIL ACTION 6:20-cv-00486-ADA

WSOU INVESTMENTS, LLC’S NOTICE OF COMPLIANCE REGARDING 

EXCHANGE OF CLAIM TERMS FOR CONSTRUCTION

TO THE HONORABLE COURT:

Pursuant to the Court’s Version 3.2 of the Court’s Order Governing proceedings entered 

November 9, 2020, and in accordance with the Court’s Scheduling Order, Plaintiff hereby notifies 

the Court Plaintiff has served its proposed claim terms for construction on Defendants Dell 

Technologies Inc., Dell Inc., and EMC Corporation via electronic mail on January 6, 2021. 

Case 6:20-cv-00474-ADA Document 72 Filed 01/06/21 Page 1 of 2
Date: January 6, 2021 Respectfully submitted,

By: /s/ Mark D. Siegmund_____ 

Mark D. Siegmund

State Bar No. 24117055

mark@waltfairpllc.com

Law Firm of Walt, Fair PLLC.

1508 North Valley Mills Drive 

Waco, Texas 76710

Telephone: (254) 772-6400

Facsimile: (254) 772-6432

Counsel for Plaintiff WSOU Investments, LLC

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

A true and correct copy of the foregoing instrument was served or delivered 

electronically via U.S. District Court [LIVE]- Document Filing System, to all counsel of record, 

on this the 6th day of January 2021.

/s/ Mark D. Siegmund

Mark D. Siegmund

Case 6:20-cv-00474-ADA Document 72 Filed 01/06/21 Page 2 of 2
June 9 , 2015



### JUDGMENT 

## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

BRYAN SAUNDERS , Appellant

NO. 14

- 14

- 00508

- CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

________________________________ This cause was heard on the transcript of the record of the court below. Having considered the record, this Court holds that there was no error in the judgment. The Court orders the judgment AFFIRMED

. We further order appellant pay all costs expended in the appeal. We further order this decision certified below for observance.
Dolan Chemical Laboratory

4001 Bixby Road

Groveport, OH 43125

T: 614-836-4221, Audinet 210-4221

F: 614-836-4168, Audinet 210-4168

http://aepenv/labs

Water Analysis

Form REP-703

Rev. 1, 11/2013

Location: Amos Plant Report Date: 10/3/2014

Sample Number: 143369-001 Date Collected: 09/23/2014 08:41 Date Received: 9/23/2014

WWTP Inlet 

Parameter Result Units RL MDL Analysis By Analysis Date/Time Method

Data 

Qual

Mercury, Hg 209000 ng/L 10000 4000 JAB 09/27/2014 EPA 1631E-2002

Sample Number: 143369-002 Date Collected: 09/23/2014 08:35 Date Received: 9/23/2014

Primary Clarifier Outlet A 

Parameter Result Units RL MDL Analysis By Analysis Date/Time Method

Data 

Qual

Mercury, Hg 367 ng/L 10 4 JAB 09/27/2014 EPA 1631E-2002

Sample Number: 143369-003 Date Collected: 09/23/2014 08:07 Date Received: 9/23/2014

Primary Clarifier Outlet B 

Parameter Result Units RL MDL Analysis By Analysis Date/Time Method

Data 

Qual

Mercury, Hg 462 ng/L 10 4 JAB 09/27/2014 EPA 1631E-2002

Sample Number: 143369-004 Date Collected: 09/23/2014 08:28 Date Received: 9/23/2014

Secondary Clarifier Outlet A 

Parameter Result Units RL MDL Analysis By Analysis Date/Time Method

Data 

Qual

Mercury, Hg 14.2 ng/L 2 0.8 JAB 09/27/2014 EPA 1631E-2002

Sample Number: 143369-005 Date Collected: 09/23/2014 08:30 Date Received: 9/23/2014

Secondary Clarifier Outlet B 

Parameter Result Units RL MDL Analysis By Analysis Date/Time Method

Data 

Qual

Mercury, Hg 17.1 ng/L 2 0.8 JAB 09/27/2014 EPA 1631E-2002

Sample Number: 143369-006 Date Collected: 09/23/2014 08:32 Date Received: 9/23/2014

WWTP Outlet 

Parameter Result Units RL MDL Analysis By Analysis Date/Time Method

Data 

Qual

Mercury, Hg 15.0 ng/L 0.5 0.2 JAB 09/27/2014 EPA 1631E-2002

Amos Plant, 143369 Page 1 of 2
Location: Amos Plant Report Date: 10/3/2014

THIS TEST REPORT RELATES ONLY TO THE ITEMS TESTED AND SHALL NOT BE REPRODUCED EXCEPT IN FULL WITHOUT WRITTEN 

APPROVAL OF THE LABORATORY. ALL TEST RESULTS MEET ALL OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ACCREDITING AUTHORITY, 

UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.

U: Analyte was analyzed and not detected at or above adjusted Method Detection Limit

J: Analyte was positively identified, though the quantitation was below Reporting Limit.

Dave Conover, Senior Chemist

Email dpconover@aep.com Tel. 614-836-4219

Fax 614-836-4168 Audinet 210-4219

Amos Plant, 143369 Page 2 of 2
# EXHIBIT 32.2

# Certification Pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In
connection with the filing of the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the period ended
December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
Report) by Electro Energy Inc. (the Registrant), I, Audra J. Mace,
Chief Financial Officer of the Registrant, hereby certify that:

|1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
          Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and
|-- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
          respects, the financial conditions and results of operations of Registrant.
|-- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| | /s/ Audra J. Mace
| | -----------------
| |                  

| | Name: Audra J. Mace           
| | ------------------------------
| | Title: Chief Financial Officer

Dated:  March 31, 2006

---
#### STINEBAUGH v. STATE.

No. 25755.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 26, 1952.

G. C. Harris, Greenville, for appellant.

George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

Appellant was charged with the unlawful sale of intoxicating liquor in a dry area. She pleaded guilty to the charge and was assessed a fine of $500.

On the following day she filed a motion for a new trial alleging that she had been misled and unduly influenced into entering the plea. The only statement of facts we have in the record is that heard by the court on this motion. He found the facts against her contention and we are without authority to reverse his action.

The facts heard on the motion for new trial reveal a most unusual situation. The offense charged is alleged to have taken place a month before the arrest. On the night of the arrest and plea of guilty the officers arrested about thirty others on similar charges and became so busy that they had no time to consider the request of this party to give bond. She is a mother with three small children, all of whom were left at home. She claims that she was promised her liberty to return to them and that this promise induced her to plead guilty and get the matter over with. Such fact is found against her by the court. It was stated by the sheriff, however, that his one deputy who alone was authorized to take bonds had retired for the day and that the sheriff himself told her that he did not have time for her, and wouldn’t until the wee hours of the night. He also informed her that he would be strict about the bond. He went about making other arrests and before his return the plea of guilty had been entered.

This court need not speak on the subject but the writer wishes to be understood that in affirming the case he does not do so with approval of all of the procedure thus revealed.

We find no reversible error and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This financial data schedule is restated to reflect the discontinuation of 
certain businesses.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED> 
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                          25,296
<SECURITIES>                                    12,440
<RECEIVABLES>                                  223,689
<ALLOWANCES>                                     9,802
<INVENTORY>                                    261,308
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               538,234
<PP&E>                                         243,989
<DEPRECIATION>                                 116,187
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 943,599<F1>
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          261,321
<BONDS>                                         94,970
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        21,034
<OTHER-SE>                                     459,476
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   943,599
<SALES>                                        304,139
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               304,139
<CGS>                                          192,332
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  192,332
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                10,282
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   783
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,501
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (16,841)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (6,498)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (10,343)<F2>
<DISCONTINUED>                                   2,348
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (7,995)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.38)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.38)
<FN>
<F1>Included in total assets is an investment in discontinued operations of
$62,074
<F2>Excluding a net after-tax charge of $26.9 million ($1.27 per diluted share)
from patent litigation and an after-tax gain of $4.2 million ($.20 per diluted
share) from a divestiture by Cylink Corporation, a 29 percent owned affiliate
of the Company, income from continuing operations would have been $6.7 million
($.55 per diluted share).
</FN>
        



</TABLE>