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

**Statement      of Chief Executive Officer Furnished**

**Pursuant      to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

|  | A) | 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(a) or 78o(d))                and |
|--|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|  | B) | the                information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material                respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the                Company                as of the dates and for the periods covered by the                Report. |
|--|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                |                                                                                |                                                |
|-------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------|
|                           |                                                                           |                                           |
| March                14, 2008  |                                                                                | /s/ Kim                S.                Price |
| Date:                               | Kim                  S. PricePresident                  and Chief Executive Officer |
|                                |                                                                                |

----
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida 

Opinion filed January 26, 2022.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D21-0874

Lower Tribunal No. F05-5530D

________________

Jesus Enrique Perez,

Appellant,

vs.

The State of Florida,

Appellee.

An Appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2) from 

the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, William Altfield, Judge.

Jesus Enrique Perez, in proper person.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Linda Katz, Assistant Attorney 

General, for appellee.

Before EMAS, LINDSEY, and GORDO, JJ. 

PER CURIAM.
2

Defendant Jesus Enrique Perez appeals the trial court’s order denying 

his motion to correct an illegal sentence. Finding no reversible error, we 

affirm. See Carter v. State, 786 So. 2d 1173, 1181 (Fla. 2001) (“[A] sentence 

is ‘illegal’ if it ‘imposes a kind of punishment that no judge under the entire 

body of sentencing statutes could possibly inflict under any set of factual 

circumstances[.]’” (citation omitted)).

Affirmed.
o^-i^-ooo^k-cO* ^o'^W^ OOtUW -y

/RECEIVED

AUG 0 3 Z015

THiRDCOUWrOF.APPEALS.

rrV^clii^ OekW- Swat -~3Ljvvn vnoV J^-or ^UY^ ;(L_ -H\aV< W

V<\ A^W °v\\ ^3>^Vco^ . ZJ— <^'\<WV -ev*v\ Va^owlJ kv^V mv-\Y\\

quV "X_ a^V^A c^o X- Vavjj. Arc \ \W o(r\-v"^ fiacW

It-tst I^VvnaJv^^ox Ground -VW/W D<«-\Vj S>0 T^" Vnuvt,^ up

ex<x*r^-Vw_ T\cxV<V Mro ^aV«-~VU_ C^Vvdw^ » OU \/jtoW y^L\W

-^U Cr^y ^a\\ 3£- ^ Y^^\ok4 qv^ CWqo ou*n

c^
VaJj2- / Qe_c\.o*o V© cmto c, dov\6 K-O^act.s^x . \aJW\Qa 4TM,

£. 0^6

VO \cV-) V>W&vW b^A v^O-3 $4>n\<lA C^^^Wo4iv\

-T isxV^r =>n^0 ~3l.^M<W v>^Vx \ fV\*y ILX^ 1.o\j

r ^^ S? AW* a^V^ "X-Wa3 -bo\/^ U| y*W

•$» G-s^faw

<^\- ,/t ^-\\<A WloVW qfW iMoVi^ jf» yvwy

avt*^w ^** ^wMr H*^ GT\ ^VT AH H
^--^Y \^ ^\V\"VS OaV XT VgV^V V^^T? 4-Ka-V vT^OWnovx

jp J\^ \o,^W W- ^Q^U o\W vA^v/ vy^ucIa «Q^6

;X- prow ^^ ^,^1" — ^~. , -_^^., v-

^\^ 0"'c5O G>U^ \/oia j?

ISW0- OV\<U_ -\-o\^ yv^_ vV SViU 0*^Mr VnO^ yv-s_ V\Q QV\5^ CarN * „ fc
•••J

m

i

r

71

W

in

-•J

0

n O —

(T\.

o C/3

O

5.

o^

0

r

-

o

*p y 3 u > - r r «j

\ I ••-•

8

. -. I «
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT ESTEB AN M AYOR GA, a .k.a . Este ba n R am on M ay o rga Fue nte s , Pe titione r, v. ER IC H. HOLDER , Jr., Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde nt . No. 11-73919 Age n c y No. A094-292-146 M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Subm itte d De c e m

be r 17, 2013 ** B e fore : GOODW IN, WALLAC E, a nd GR AB ER , C irc uit Judge s. Este ba n M ay orga , a

native and c itiz e n of Hondura s, pe titions for re vie w of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls’ (“ B IA” ) orde r dism i ssing his a p p e a l from

an im m igration judge ’ s (“ IJ” ) de c ision de ny ing his a pplic ation for withholding of re m ova l. Our jurisdic tion is governe d by 8 U.S.C . § 1252. W e re vie w for



# FIL ED JAN 03 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S . CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).substa

ntia l e vide nc e the a ge nc y ’ s fa c tua l findings. Ze haty ev . Gonzale s , 435 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th C ir. 2006). W e de ny in pa rt a nd dismiss in pa

rt the pe tition for re vie w. Substa ntia l e v i de nc e supports the B IA’ s finding tha

t M a y orga fa i le d to e sta blish theha

rm he suffe re d in thepa st, inc luding thre ats by a m ana ge r who ha d politic a l c onne c t ions a

n d the loss of his job in the c onte xt of a

c orporate re orga niz ation, roseto the le ve l of pe rse c ution. Se eN ahrv ani v . Gonzale

s , 399 F.3d 1148, 1153-54 (9th C ir. 2005). Furthe r, substa ntia l e vide nc e supports the a ge nc y ’ s finding tha

t M a y o rga fa ile d

to e sta blish tha t he fa c e s a

like lihood of future pe rse c ut ion. Se e Ze haty e , 435 F.3d a t 1990 (to qualify

for withholding of re m ova l, pe titione r m

ust show it is m

ore like ly tha n not he would be subje c te d to pe rse c ution on a c c ount of a prote c te d ground) ; Pagay on v . Holde r , 675 F.3d 1182, 1191 (9th C ir. 2011) (pe r c uriam ) (“ [a ] pe rsona l disputeis not, sta nding a lone , ta nta m ount to pe rse c ution ba se d on a n im pute d politic a l opinion” ). W e re j e c t both M ay orga ’ s c onte ntion tha t the B IA did not e nga ge in suffic ie nt a na ly sis of theIJ’ s de c ision, a

nd his c onte ntion tha

t the B IA a

pplie d a n im prope r sta nda rd of re vie w. Ac c ordingly , M a

y orga ’ s withholding of re m ova l c la im fa ils. Fina lly , we la c k

jurisdic tion to c onside r M ay orga ’ s c onte ntions tha t the IJ e rre d by not c onside ring his soc ia l group c la im , be c a u se he did not ra ise this 1 1 - 7 3 9 1 9 2argum e nt in his a ppe a l to theB IA. Se eBarron v . Ashc roft , 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th C ir. 2004). PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WDE NIE D in par t; DISM ISSE D in par t.

1 1 - 7 3 9 1 9 3
#### Ex parte Rogelio GARCIA.

No. 27221.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Oct. 27, 1954.

Noe C. Garza, Corpus Christi, Arthur Mitchell, Austin, for appellant.

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

MORRISON, Judge.

This is an appeal from an order of the district court declining to reduce appellant’s bond in a murder case in the sum of $20,000, and in an assault with intent to murder case growing out of the same transaction in the sum of $12,000.

The testimony reveals that the appellant cut with a pocket knife and mortally wounded his divorced wife and injured his former father-in-law late at night following a dance.

Because of the nature of the proceedings, we refrain from a further discussion or comment upon the evidence but express the conclusion that the offense having been determined to be bailable bond in the murder case should be reduced to the sum of $17,500, and the bond in the assault with intent to murder case should be reduced to the sum of $2,500.

It is so ordered.
Mendota DXV Direct Vent Gas Fireplace Specifications: 

Minimum Framing Dimensions: 

DXV 35: 311/211H x 37 1/811W x 1611 0 

DXV 42: 3311H x 41'W x 1611 0 

DXV 45: 38 1/811H x 4111W x 2011 0 

DXV 60: 4111H X 4811W x 22110 

Wall or Corner 

Installation 

Dimensions A 

B 

C 

D 

E 

F 

G 

H 

I 

J 

K 

DXV 35 

2911 

311/211 

35 7/811 

15 1/211 

22 1/411 

4 5/811 

111/811 

26 1/411 

52 17/3211 

37 1/811 

1111 

Standard Equipment: 

Fiberglo log set, coals, 

DXV 35TF & 42: 2-level burner; 

DXV 35DT & DXV 45: 3-level burner; 

DXV 60: 3-level burner. 

Blower with rheostat, firebrick, 

neo-ceram glass, thermostat. 

DXV 42 DXV 45 DXV 60 

311/411 3411 36 1/1611 

31 3/411 38 1/811 4111 

4011 4011 463/811 

15 1/211 19 1/211 21 3/411 

3311 345/811 39 1/411 

5 1/211 77/811 7 1/1611 

16 1/211 17 5/1611 195/811 

313/411 363/811 40 15/1611 

63 1/211 72 3/411 81 7/811 

453/411 511/211 57 7/811 

15 1/211 17 1/411 185/8 

Options: 

Black, Cast, Copper, Nickel, Silver, 

Brass, and 24K Gold fronts, wall 

switch, remote control, Versiheat. 

Specifications: 

BTUH: OXV 350TII - Hi 33,000 Lo 13,400 

OXV 35T - Hi 33,000 Lo 15,000 

OXV 42 - Hi 40,000 Lo 20,000 

OXV 45 - Hi 45,000 Lo 7,500 

OXV 60 - Hi 60,000 Lo 10,000 

Efficiency: ................. .Thermal up to 86.4% 

AFUE up to 73.4% 

Gas Supply: ............................ Natural or LP 

Vent Size ...................... OXV 60, 45 - 5" x 8" 

35T rear, 350T rear - 5" x 8" 

OXV 42 , OXV 35 TF - 4" x 6" 

Pilot System: ........................ Standing Pilot 

Safety Controls: ...................... AGA Certified 

Safety Tested: .................... Warnock Hersey 

to AGAIANSI Std. 

Shipping Weight: ............ OXV 35 - 185 Ibs. 

OXV 42 - 220 Ibs. 

OXV 45 - 250 Ibs. 

OXV 60 - 275 Ibs. 

Consult your Owners Manual for all final dimensions. Warnock Hersey Products, specifications, and prices subject to change without notice. ,-, 

Mendota products are manufactured in the U.S.A .;; M® 

EERE-2006-BT-STD-0129 COMMENT 129
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 317 

To amend title 31, United States Code, to provide for transparency of 

payments made from the Judgment Fund. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 18, 2013 

Mr. GARDNER (for himself, Mrs. LUMMIS, Mr. GRIFFIN of Arkansas, Mr. 

COLE, Mr. AMODEI, Mr. BENISHEK, Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania, 

Mr. GRAVES of Missouri, Mr. STEWART, Mr. GOSAR, Mr. CHABOT, Mr. 

TIPTON, and Mr. BISHOP of Utah) introduced the following bill; which 

was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend title 31, United States Code, to provide for 

transparency of payments made from the Judgment Fund. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Judgment Fund 

5 Transparency Act of 2013’’. 

6 SEC. 2. JUDGMENT FUND TRANSPARENCY. 

7 (a) TRANSPARENCY REQUIREMENT.—Section 1304 

8 of title 31, United States Code, is amended by adding at 

9 the end the following new subsection: 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with 
2 

•HR 317 IH

1 ‘‘(d) Unless the disclosure of such information is oth2 erwise prohibited by law or court order, the Secretary of 

3 the Treasury shall make available to the public on a 

4 website, as soon as practicable but not later than 30 days 

5 after a payment under this section is tendered, the fol6 lowing information with regard to that payment: 

7 ‘‘(1) The name of the specific Federal agency 

8 or entity whose actions gave rise to the claim or 

9 judgment. 

10 ‘‘(2) The name of the plaintiff or claimant. 

11 ‘‘(3) The name of counsel for the plaintiff or 

12 claimant. 

13 ‘‘(4) The amount paid representing principal li14 ability, and any amounts paid representing any an15 cillary liability, including attorney fees, costs, and 

16 interest. 

17 ‘‘(5) A brief description of the facts that gave 

18 rise to the claim. 

19 ‘‘(6) A copy of the original or amended com20 plaint or written claim, and any written answer 

21 given by the Federal Government to that complaint 

22 or claim. 

23 ‘‘(7) A copy of the final action by a court re24 garding the claim (whether by decree, approval of 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with 
3 

•HR 317 IH

1 settlement, or otherwise), or of the settlement agree2 ment in any action not involving a court. 

3 ‘‘(8) The name of the agency that submitted 

4 the claim.’’. 

5 (b) IMPLEMENTATION.—The Secretary of the Treas6 ury shall implement the amendment made by this section 

7 beginning not later than 60 days after the date of the en8 actment of this Act. 

Æ 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with
| 1. | Medicine name: Lanhai Spirulina Calcium Tablet |
|----|------------------------------------------------|

| 2. | Agreement period: November 1,2008- October 30, 2013 |
|----|-----------------------------------------------------|

| 3. | Patent approval no:2007100725947; application date: August 20, 2007; approval date: March 14,2008 |
|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 4. | Rights and obligation |
|----|-----------------------|

|   | 1) | Party A shall have manufacture rights for this product and shall have all the rights for the patent. |
|--------|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 2) | Party B shall shall provide all the formula and technology related to “Lanhai Spirulina Calcium Tablet” |
|--------|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 3) | Party B shall provide all the necessary approval documents from the government. |
|--------|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 4) | Party A shall in charge of manufacturing and sales for this product and comply on all the manufacture requirement. |
|--------|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 5) | Party B shall continue to provide technical support for this product |
|--------|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 5. | Main ingredients: Spirulina, oyster,sealwort,arillus longan, medlar, Chinese yam |
|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 6. | Total amount: $1,200,000 |
|----|--------------------------|

| 7. | Terms of Payment: Party A shall pay $1,200,000 in full by October 31, 2008 |
|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 8. | Arbitration: All disputes in connection with this agreement thereof shall be settled friendly through negotiations. In case no settlement can be reached, the case will be sent to the Party A’s district court. |
|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 9. | This agreement is made out in two originals, one for each party. Both of them have the same force and effect. This agreement will be effective after the general managers of both parties sign. |
|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

----
#### Dilly PIERCE, Appellant, v. STATE, Appellee.

No. 24001.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 31, 1948.

No appearance for appellant.

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

HAWKINS, Presiding Judge.

Conviction is for selling whisky in a dry area, punishment assessed at a fine' of $500.00.

*622Since perfecting his appeal to this court appellant has filed his affidavit advising us that he does not desire to further prosecute his appeal, and at his request same is dismissed.
* 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. 1 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_________________________________

No. 98-10481

_________________________________
REBECCA SHERROD,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC.,

Defendant-Appellee.

--------------------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern Distric of Texas, Dallas

(3:97-CV-1373-D)

---------------------------------

November 20, 1998 Before EMILIO M. GARZA, DeMOSS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Rebecca Sherrod (“Sherrod”) once again appeals from a summary judgment dismissing a retaliation claim brought against American Airlines, Inc. (“American”). In Sherrod v. American Airlines, Inc. , 132 F.3d 1112 (5th Cir. 1998) (“Sherrod I”), we upheld a summary judgment against Sherrod wherein she claimed discrimination and retaliation in the face of American’s proffered legitimate, nonpretextual claim that Sherrod was ineligible for rehire. In the instant2

case, the district court found that Sherrod had failed to create a fact issue that American’s declaration that she was not eligible for rehire was a pretext for discrimination, and that our final determination in Sherrod I, that American did not discriminate when it declared Sherrod ineligible for rehire, collaterally estopped her present attack on the same legitimate, nonpretextual basis for American’s complained of act in the instant case. We agree, and affirm essentially for the reasons set forth in Judge Fitzwater’s succinct and cogent memorandum and order dated April 1, 1998. AFFIRMED.
#### Ex parte COCHRAN.

No. 26097.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Dec. 10, 1952.

Mac L. Bennett, Jr., Normangee, for appellant.

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

MORRISON, Judge.

By writ of habeas corpus, relator seeks his discharge from the State penitentiary. The application for the writ was presented to the Honorable Max M. Rogers, Judge of the District Court of Walker County, who has certified to this Court the application and the facts developed before him, as contemplated by Article 119, C.C.P., as amended.

On January 18, 1934, relator was received into the penitentiary of this State to serve a term of twenty-five years, imposed by cumulative sentences upon convictions in the District Courts of Williamson and Calhoun Counties.

On March 21, 1940, the relator was granted a six months’ reprieve. For the purpose of this opinion, only the following need be quoted therefrom: “If any of the terms or conditions herein set out and now on file in the office of the Secretary of State are violated, time out of prison under this Proclamation shall not be considered as time served on sentence.”

On August 12, 1940, and before the expiration of the six months’ reprieve, relator was granted a conditional pardon. The important part of this conditional pardon, so far as we are here concerned, is the following: “Conditioned that he continue to observe the conditions of his previous clemency.”

Relator was at liberty under this conditional pardon for more than ten years, or until October 27, 1950, at which time it was *444revoked by the Governor of this State, which order of revocation contained this order: “ * * * and the time during which the said Herbert Cochran has been at large under said Proclamation (the conditional pardon) or any previous clemen-cies shall not be considered or credited to the said Herbert Cochran as time served on such sentence.”

The relator is eligible for discharge if, as he contends, the above quoted portion of the order of revocation is inoperative. He reasons that each successive proclamation should contain a complete restatement of all conditions. With this, we cannot agree.

When the relator walked out of the penitentiary on March 21, 1940’, he did so by virtue of having accepted a contract tendered him by the Governor. This contract provided that if he violated any of the terms thereof he should not receive credit for the time spent at liberty.

When the relator remained at large by virtue of the conditional pardon tendered him on August 12, 1940, he was likewise bound by the terms thereof.

We hold that the clause of said conditional pardon, “Conditioned that he continue to observe the conditions of his previous clemency,” brought forward into that instrument all of the terms and conditions of the prior clemency. That is, the pardon was but the renewal of the original contract.

So holding, the relief prayed for is denied.
EXHIBIT 21.1
                                                                    ------------


                          EXTENDED SYSTEMS INCORPORATED
                              LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES


      Advance Systems Limited (United Kingdom)
      Counterpoint Systems Foundry, Inc. (Oregon, United States)
      Extended Canada, Inc. (Canada)
      Extended Systems Benelux B.V. (Netherlands)
      Extended Systems Bristol Limited (United Kingdom)
      Extended Systems GmbH (Germany)
      Extended Systems Holdings Limited (United Kingdom)
      Extended Systems International, Inc. (Idaho, United States)
      Extended Systems Italia S.R.L. (Italy)
      Extended Systems Limited (United Kingdom)
      Extended Systems of Idaho, Inc. (Idaho, United States)
      Extended Systems France SARL  (France)
      Extended Systems U.S. Virgin Islands, Inc. (U.S. Virgin Islands)
Exhibit 10.17


 


 


Schedule of Agreements with Executive Officers


 


The Company has entered into
change-in-control agreements with the executive officers listed below.  Each agreement is substantially identical in
all material respects to the form agreement and amendment thereto, set forth in
Exhibits 10.15 and 10.16 to this 10-K report.


 


 


Joseph E. Abbott


 


Michael A. Anderson


 


Steven A. Ellers


 


William J. Federici


 


John R. Gailey III


 


Robert S. Hargesheimer


 


Richard D. Luzzi
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) HS SOLUTIONS, INC. et al. , ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) ) Civil Action No. 18- cv-2355 (TSC) ) L. FRANCIS CISSNA , Director, U.S. Citizenship and Immi gration Services , ) ) ) Defendant. ) )
MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiffs HS Solutions, Incorporated and Prabina Mohapatra f iled this action alleging that a decision of the Defendant , relating to an H-1B visa appl ication, was arbitrary and capricious. On May 8, 2019, Defenda nt filed a motion to dismis s arguing that the decision Plaintiffs challenge has bee n vacated. Defs. Mot. to Dismiss p p 4-5. Pursuant to Local Civil rule 7(b), “[w]ithin 14 days of the dat e of service [of a motion], an opposing party shall serve and f ile a memorandum of points a nd authorities in opposition to the motion. If such memorandum i s not filed within the prescri bed time, the Court may treat the motion as conceded.” More than fourteen days have passed a nd Plaintiffs have not filed an opposition or sought an extension. Accordingly, by separate order, t he court will grant Defendant’ s motion and dismiss this action. Date: May 29, 2019 

## Tanya S. Chutkan TANYA S. CHUTKAN United States District Judge