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 EnergySouth, Inc. (the Company) Annual Report on
Form 10-K for the period ending September 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, John S. Davis,
President and 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 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, as amended;
and2.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company. Date:  December 3, 2004
    /s/ John S. DavisJohn S. DavisPresident and
Chief Executive Officer
EXHIBIT D

Case 6:20-cv-00534-ADA Document 47-8 Filed 03/05/21 Page 1 of 7
Case 6:20-cv-00534-ADA Document 47-8 Filed 03/05/21 Page 2 of 7
Case 6:20-cv-00534-ADA Document 47-8 Filed 03/05/21 Page 3 of 7
Case 6:20-cv-00534-ADA Document 47-8 Filed 03/05/21 Page 4 of 7
Case 6:20-cv-00534-ADA Document 47-8 Filed 03/05/21 Page 5 of 7
Case 6:20-cv-00534-ADA Document 47-8 Filed 03/05/21 Page 6 of 7
Case 6:20-cv-00534-ADA Document 47-8 Filed 03/05/21 Page 7 of 7
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE 
MERIDIAN MEDICAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC. FORM 10-Q FOR THE QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED
APRIL 30, 1998.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000095676
<NAME> MERIDIAN MEDICAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-30-1998
<CASH>                                             543
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    8,764
<ALLOWANCES>                                       279
<INVENTORY>                                      8,440
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                20,158
<PP&E>                                          19,322
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,959
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  48,429
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           13,423
<BONDS>                                         18,608
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           298
<OTHER-SE>                                      13,271
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    48,429
<SALES>                                         13,430
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                13,430
<CGS>                                            8,324
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    8,324
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 5,340
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 694
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (941)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (223)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (718)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  (494)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,212)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.41)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.41)
        

</TABLE>
Initial to indicate certification as to information on this page

(full text of certification is on page one).

Date

INSTRUCTIONS: Please type or print in ink. Please read carefully the attached instructions and supply the information requested on this form. 

Use additional sheet(s) if necessary.

2. Case # and Name 3. Date and Type of DCI and Number

4. EPA Product 

Registration

5. I wish to cancel 

this product 

registration 

voluntarily

6. Generic Data 7. Product Specific Data

6a. I am claiming a Generic Data 

Exemption because I obtain the 

active ingredient from the source 

EPA registration number listed 

below.

6b. I agree to satisfy Generic Data

Requirements as indicated on the 

attached form entitled 

"Requirements Status and 

Registrant's Response."

7a. My product is an MUP and I 

agree to satisfy the MUP 

requirement on the attached form

entitled "Requirements Status and

Registrant's Response."

7b. My product is an EUP and I 

agree to satisfy the EUP 

requirement on the attached form 

entitled "Requirements Status and 

Registrant's Response."

OMB Approval 2070-0174

1. Company Name and Address

 

4026 - Copper thiocyanate

Chemical # and Name: 025602

Copper thiocyanate

16-Jan-2013

GENERIC

ID # GDCI-025602-1261

United States Environmental Protection Agency

Washington, D.C. 20460

DATA CALL-IN RESPONSE

Page of 1 1

8. Certification: I certify that the statements made on this form and all attachments are true, accurate, and complete. I acknowledge that any

knowingly false or misleading statement may be punishable by fine, imprisonment or both under applicable law.

Signature and Title of Company's Authorized Representative ______________________________________________________

10. Name of Company

N/A N/A

9. Date

11. Phone Number
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
FROM TECH-SYM CORPORATION FORM 10-Q THIRD QUARTER 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                           3,167
<SECURITIES>                                       100
<RECEIVABLES>                                   62,798
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     85,167
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               198,411
<PP&E>                                          47,523
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 297,284
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           78,548
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           803
<OTHER-SE>                                     173,711
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   297,284
<SALES>                                        192,116
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               192,116
<CGS>                                          126,158
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 (174,499)
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                (1,003)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,731
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 15,889
<INCOME-TAX>                                     5,243
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              9,217
<DISCONTINUED>                                   1,188
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    10,405
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.72
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.69
        

</TABLE>
Order entered July 21, 2022

In The 

### Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**

No. 05-22-00688-CV

IN RE AL WILLIAMS, Relator

Original Proceeding from the 14th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. DC-19-17458

ORDER Before Justices Osborne, Partida-Kipness, and Smith

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DENY relator’s petition for

writ of mandamus.

/s/ CRAIG SMITH
JUSTICE
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT

RUSSELL ALAN CROSIER, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D17-869 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ___________________________________) Opinion filed January 30, 2019. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Mark D. Kiser, Judge. Henry G. Gyden of Gyden Law Group, P.A., Tampa, for Appellant. Ashley Brooke Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and David Campbell, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
KHOUZAM, SLEET, and BADALAMENTI, JJ., Concur.
**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 on Form 10-K of Xplore Technologies Corp. (the “Company”) for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Philip S. Sassower, as Chief Executive Office of the Company, and Michael J. Rapisand, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of each such officer’s knowledge:

 

(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 condition and results of operations of the Company.

 
| By:                      | /s/   PHILIP S. SASSOWER  |   |
|--------------------------|---------------------------|--------|
|                     | Philip   S. Sassower      |
|                     | Chief   Executive Officer |
|                     |                      |
| Date: June 24, 2011 |
|                     |                      |
| By:                      | /s/   MICHAEL J. RAPISAND |   |
|                     | Michael   J. Rapisand     |
|                     | Chief   Financial Officer |

 

Date: June 24, 2011

 

----
EXHIBIT 15

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED

PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

Securities and Exchange Commission

Washington, D.C. 20549

We have conducted a review of the condensed consolidated financial statements of Superior Uniform Group, Inc. and subsidiaries as of June 30, 2008 and for the
three-month and six-month periods ended June 30, 2008 and 2007, in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), and issued our report thereon dated July 23, 2008. We are aware that such
financial statements and our above-mentioned report appearing in the Form 10-Q of Superior Uniform Group, Inc. for the quarter ended June 30, 2008 are being incorporated by reference in the Registration Statement on Form S-8 (File
No. 33-105906, effective June 6, 2003) and that such report pursuant to Rule 436(c) of the Securities Act of 1933 is not considered a part of a registration statement prepared or certified by an accountant within the meaning of Paragraphs
7 and 11 of that Act.



|                      
|----------------------
|/s/ GRANT THORNTON LLP
|                      
|Tampa, Florida        
|July 23, 2008
UN PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18
- 6164

CHRISTOPHER SHAWN BOLLING , Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v. HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director of Virginia Department of Corrections , Respondent

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia , at Roanoke

. Glen E. Conrad , District Judge. ( 7:17

- cv - 00298

- GEC

- RSB )

Submitted : June 14, 2018 Decided: June 19, 2018

Before TRAXLER, DUNCAN, and WYNN , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

. Christopher Shawn Bolling, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Christopher Shawn Bolling seeks to appeal the district court’s order d enying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition and a subsequent order denying reconsideration

. The order s are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonabl e jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on pr ocedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed t he record and conclude that Bolling has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conte ntions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-03-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             MAR-29-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-27-1998
<CASH>                                         714,827
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                7,234,377
<ALLOWANCES>                                    51,000
<INVENTORY>                                  3,737,925
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            12,130,260
<PP&E>                                       4,671,366
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,595,746
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              14,953,555
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        5,106,767
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       128,324
<OTHER-SE>                                   9,704,249
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                14,953,555
<SALES>                                      3,281,399
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,284,795
<CGS>                                        1,157,505
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,921,226
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              65,587
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                296,553
<INCOME-TAX>                                    74,138
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            222,415
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   222,415
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .17
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .17
        

</TABLE>
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

May 14, 2015

No. 04

- 15

- 00214

- CV

IN RE Juan Miguel MATA

Original Mandamus Proceeding 1

ORDER

Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez , Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa , Justice

Jason Pulliam , Ju stice

On May 8, 2015

, relator Juan Miguel Mata , filed a motion for extension of time to file a

motion for rehearing. The motion is GRANTED. Any motion for rehearing on behalf of relator

should be filed in this court no later than June 8, 2015

.

It is so ORDERED on May 14, 2015

.

PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO: _____________________________

Keith E. Hottle, Clerk

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2714 , styled In the Matter of Maria Elena Mata and Juan Miguel Mata

, pendi ng in the County Court

, Dimmit County, Texas, the Honorable Francisco G. Ponce presiding.
#### LUJAN v. STATE.

No. 25790.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 9, 1952.

Rehearing Denied May 21, 1952.

*478John B. Luscombe, Jr., Fryer & Milstead, El Paso, for appellant.

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

DAVIDSON, Commissioner.

Possessing marihuana is the primary offense charged. The punishment of life imprisonment in the penitentiary was assessed because of two prior felony convictions.

The witness Casavantes, a detective of the city of El Paso, testified that while standing on a street of said city at night he saw appellant place a package on the ground and against the front wheel of a parked automobile. He knew that appellant was a handler of narcotics, and he watched the package for about fifteen minutes, thinking perhaps appellant would make a sale. At the expiration of that time he picked up the package and placed appellant under arrest. The package contained marihuana (narcotic drug) cigarettes. A search of his person after arrest failed to reveal any narcotics.

Appellant denied having placed the package where found and having had any connection therewith. He admitted his prior convictions.

The state offered in evidence the ordinance of the city of El Paso authorizing arrests of persons under suspicious circumstances.

Appellant insists that the evidence showing his possession of the marihuana was obtained as a result of his illegal arrest.

With this contention we do not agree. The package of marihuana cigarettes was not upon appellant’s person when taken into possession by the officer; the cigarettes were picked up by the officer from in front of the automobile wheel where he had seen appellant place the package prior thereto. The feel of ,the package caused the officer to believe, in connection with the knowledge he already possessed, that a felony had been committed by appellant in his presence, or at least that the arrest was authorized under the above mentioned city ordinance. In any event, appellant’s guilt before the jury was not made to depend upon facts ascertained from a search of his person after arrest.

Complaint is made of arguments of state’s counsel. In this connection, attention is directed to the fact that here the penalty to be assessed upon a finding of guilt was fixed by law and therefore the amount of the penalty to be assessed was not within the discretion of the jury. Art. 63, P. C.

The arguments complained of violated no mandatory statute, nor were they such as would be calculated to influence the jury in this case upon the sole issue of whether appellant possessed the marihuana cigarettes.

We are unable to agree, therefore, that error was committed in failing to sustain *479the objection to the arguments complained of.

Other questions presented have been examined, and are overruled without discussion.

The judgment is affirmed.

Opinion approved by the court.
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. 

ZTE CORPORATION, ZTE (USA), INC. 

and ZTE (TX), INC.,

 Defendants.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

C.A. NO. 6:20-cv-00487-ADA

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL 

Defendants ZTE Corporation, ZTE (USA), Inc. and ZTE (TX), Inc., (collectively

“ZTE”), notify the Court and the parties of the appearance of Lionel M. Lavenue as counsel on 

its behalf. Defendants respectfully request that Mr. Lavenue, who is enrolled in the Court’s 

CM/ECF system and whose contact information is set forth below, be included on the Court’s 

and parties’ service lists. 

DATED: November 5, 2020 Respectfully submitted,

/s/Lionel M. Lavenue 

Lionel M. Lavenue

Virginia Bar No. 49,005

lionel.lavenue@finnegan.com 

FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW,

GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP

1875 Explorer Street, Suite 800

Reston, VA 20190

Phone: (571) 203-2700

Fax: (202) 408-4400

Attorney for Defendants, 

ZTE Corporation

ZTE (USA), Inc.

ZTE (TX), Inc.

Case 6:20-cv-00487-ADA Document 34 Filed 11/05/20 Page 1 of 2
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned hereby certifies that all counsel of record who are deemed to have 

consented to electronic service are being served with a copy of this document via the Court’s 

CM/ECF system on November 5, 2020. 

/s/Lionel M. Lavenue 

Lionel M. Lavenue

Case 6:20-cv-00487-ADA Document 34 Filed 11/05/20 Page 2 of 2
#### ROGERS v. STATE.

No. 23410.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Oct. 23, 1946.

*931Dan Abbott, of Abilene, for appellant.

Ernest S. Goens, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

DAVIDSON, Judge.

Upon her plea of guilty to the offense of unlawfully possessing whisky for the purpose of sale in a dry area, appellant’s punishment was assessed at a fine of $100 and 30 days in jail.

Appellant filed a motion for a new trial, asserting that she was threatened, coerced, and intimidated into entering the plea.

Evidence was heard upon the motion, which is brought here in a statement of facts.

The trial judge testified upon the-hearing. His testimony contradicts that of the appellant and shows that the appellant voluntarily entered the plea of guilty after proper warning by the county attorney.

If we understand appellant’s testimony correctly, she did not have so much objection to pleading guilty or of paying a minimum fine of $100, which she thought she would receive; the surprise which prompted appellant in seeking to set aside the plea of guilty seems to have arisen when the trial court added the 30 days’ jail sentence in addition to the $100 fine.

There is nothing in this record to show that the trial judge .abused the discretion lodged in him in fixing the punishment that he did.

Bills of exceptions appear in the record which cannot be considered because they were not filed within the time allowed.

These bills are in exactly the same status as those referred to in Tex.Crim.App., 196 S.W.2d 930.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.