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 UAS
Drone Corp. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2019, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned principal 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 (“SOX”), 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 (the “Exchange Act”); 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: April 28, 2020



|/s/ Sagiv Aharon                      | 
|------------------------------------- | 
|Sagiv Aharon,
Chief Executive Officer |
<PAGE>
 
                                                           EXHIBIT 11.1

                                  PSINET INC.


CALCULATION OF BASIC AND DILUTED LOSS PER SHARE AND WEIGHTED AVERAGE SHARES USED
                          IN CALCULATION  (UNAUDITED)

<TABLE> 
<CAPTION> 
                                                               THREE MONTHS ENDED
                                                               SEPTEMBER 30, 1998
                                                               ------------------
<S>                                                            <C>  
Weighted average shares outstanding:
Common stock:
     Shares outstanding at beginning of period................       51,252,158
     Weighted average shares issued during the three months    
     ended September 30, 1998 (538,182 shares)................          407,170
                                                                  -------------
                                                                     51,659,328  
                                                                  =============
Net loss to common shareholders...............................    $ (48,116,000)
                                                                  =============
Basic and diluted loss per share..............................    $       (0.93)
                                                                  =============
                                                                 
=================================================================================
</TABLE>
### U.S. EPA FACT SHEET

The EPA Proposes to Redesignate Truckee Meadows to Attain ment for the Coarse Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standard September 1 8 , 201 5

Summary

• The EPA is proposing to approve Nevada’s plan for the Truckee Meadows area, also referr ed to as the Reno planning area, to maintain the inhalable coarse particulate matter 24

- hour National Ambient Air Quality Standard (PM 10 NAAQS). These particles are commonly referred to as PM 10 because they have a diameter of ten micro meters or less

.

• The EPA is also proposing to approve Nevada’s request to redesignate Truckee Meadows to attainment for the PM 10 NAAQS

.
Background

• Today’s actions represent a milestone in air quality improvement in Nevada accomplished primarily through the actions of the Was hoe County District Board of Health, whose regulations and programs have significantly reduced PM10.

• In 2011 The EPA previously determined that Truckee Meadows had attained the PM 10 NAAQS

. C omplete, quality

- assured, and certified ambient air quality monitoring data for the area shows it has continued to attain the PM 10 NAAQS since that time.

• The EPA is concerned about PM 10 because these particles pass through the throat and nose and enter t he lungs. Reducing PM 10 levels is essential because, o nce inhaled, these particles can affect the heart and lungs and cause serious health effects.

• PM 10 is a complex mixture of extremely small particles and liquid droplets. In the Truckee Meadows area i t is predominately comprised of “primary particulates
, ” such as particles from soil or dust , residential wood burning, and diesel

.
Next Steps

• Today’s proposed actions will be published in the Federal Register in approximately two weeks and include a 30

- day period for public comment.

• After the close of the comment period, the EPA will evaluate the comments and respond to them in subsequent rule making action.

For More Information:
http://www.epa.gov/region9/air/actions/nv.html#washoe
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

Pursuant to Section 906 ofthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted), Wayne Wetherell,Chief Financial Officer of ImageWare Systems, Inc. (the ***“Company”***), herebycertifies that, to the best of my knowledge:

 

1.                The Company’s quarterly report on Form 10-QSBfor the period ended March 31, 2005 (the ***“Report”***) fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, asamended; and

 

2.                The information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition of the Company atthe end of the periods covered by the Report and the results of operations ofthe Company for the periods covered by the Report.

 

 
| Dated:   May 16, 2005 |
|--------------------------------------|
|                                 |
| / s/ Wayne Wetherell                 |   |
| Wayne Wetherell                      |
| Chief Financial Officer              |

 

 

Asigned original of this written statement required by Section 906 has beenprovided to ImageWare Systems, Inc. and will be retained by ImageWare Systems,Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff uponrequest.

 

----
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

FORT WORTH DIVISION 

ROBERT “BOB” ROSS, 

Plaintiff/Counterclaim 

Defendant, 

v. 

ASSOCIATION OF PROFESSIONAL

FLIGHT ATTENDANTS, et al., 

Defendants/Counterclaim 

Plaintiff. 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

Civil Action No. 4:22-cv-343-Y 

Judge Terry R. Means 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT 

Plaintiff Robert “Bob” Ross moves for summary judgment holding Defendants for breach 

of fiduciary duty, breach of , breach of union constitution, violations of his rights to free speech, 

association, due process, and wrongful discipline under 29 U.S.C. §§ 411 (a)(2), (a)(5), and 529, 

Intentional Interference with a Contract, and Defamation. The issues arises from a confidential 

transition agreement entered into by the APFA Board of Directors and Plaintiff, and Defendants’ 

allegations of a financial misuse of Plaintiff. The matters required by Local Rule 56.3(a) are set 

forth in the Plaintiff’s supporting brief, and an appendix containing the materials supporting this 

motion and brief is being filed separately. 

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 188 Filed 01/08/24 Page 1 of 3 PageID 3768
Date: January 8, 2024 

Respectfully submitted, 

 

 

By: /s/ Kerri Phillips s 

Kerri Phillips, Esq. 

Texas Bar No. 24065906 

Phone: (972) 327-5800 

Email: kerri@kdphillipslaw.com

KD PHILLIPS LAW FIRM, PLLC 

6010 West Spring Creek Parkway 

Plano, Texas 75024 

Fax: (940) 400-0089 

For Service of Filings: 

notice@kdphillipslaw.com

 

ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that on January 8, 2024 a true and correct copy of the above was served on 

Defendants’ attorneys, via the e-filing manager. 

 /S/ Kerri Phillips 

 Kerri Phillips 

Jeffrey Bartos 

Guerrieri, Bartos, & Roma, P.C. 

1900 M Street, NW, Suite 700 

Washington, DC 20036 

Tel: (202) 624-7400; Fax: (202) 624-7420 

Email: jbartos@geclaw.com

Charlette Matts 

In-House Counsel for APFA 

1004 West Euless Blvd 

Euless, TX 76040 

Tel: (682) 301-8454 

Cmatts@apfa.org

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 188 Filed 01/08/24 Page 2 of 3 PageID 3769
James Sanford 

4803 Gaston Avenue 

Dallas, TX 75249-1020 

Tel: (214) 800-5111; 

Fax: (214) 838-0001 

Email jim@gillespiesanford.com

Email: joe@gillespiesanford.com 

Michael Rake 

Michael R. Rake, Attorney at Law PO Box 1556 

Lake Dallas, TX 75065 Tel.: (940) 498-2103 

Fax: (940) 498-2103 

Email: mrake1@mrakeattorney.com 

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 188 Filed 01/08/24 Page 3 of 3 PageID 3770
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

**____________** No. 23

- 50824 Summary Calendar

**____________ United States of America,**  Plaintiff

— Appellee **,**

versus **Adrian Aguilar,** Defendant

— Appellant

**.**

**______________________________** Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 7:22

- CR

- 267

- 1

**_______________________ _______**  Before **Elrod, Oldham,** and **Wilson,** Circuit Judges

**. Per Curiam**  **:** *****
The attorney appointed to represent Adrian Aguilar has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Aguilar has filed a response. The record is not sufficiently developed to al low us to make a fair evaluation of Aguilar ’s claim of ineffective assistance of

**_____________________**

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See **5th Cir**

**. R** 

**.** 47.5. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED June 28, 2024 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 23-50824 Document: 53-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/28/2024No. 23

- 50824

2 counsel; we therefore decline to consider the claim without prejudice to collateral review. See United States v. Isgar , 739 F.3d 829, 841 (5th Cir. 2014).
We have r eviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Aguilar ’s response. We concur with counsel’ s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, the motion for leave to withdraw is **GRANTED** , counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the appeal is **DISMISSED**

. See **5th Cir. R**

. 42.2. Case: 23-50824 Document: 53-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/28/2024
#### DRAKE v. STATE.

No. 21973.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 4, 1942.

J. W. McCullough, of McKinney, for appellant.

Spurgeon E. Bell, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

*501GRAVES, Judge.

Upon appellant’s plea of guilty of .the •offense of theft of chickens, and the waiver •of a trial by jury, the court assessed his •penalty at confinement in the county jail •for twenty-five days.

The indictment appears to be in proper form. The record contains neither statement of facts nor bills of exceptions. Nothing is presented for review.

The judgment is affirmed.
Case 4:22-cr-00140-O Document 26 Filed 06/15/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID 65
Case 4:22-cr-00140-O Document 26 Filed 06/15/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID 66
H. Con. Res. 34 Agreed to May 4, 1993

One Hundred Third Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE FIRST SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,

the fifth day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-three

Concurrent Resolution

Whereas there is significant widespread support in the international

community for the view that for scientific, ecological, and educational reasons, whales should no longer be hunted for profit;

Whereas there is concern that efforts will be made at the 1993

Annual Meeting of the International Whaling Commission to

overturn the Commission’s existing moratorium on commercial

whaling of large whales;

Whereas there are species of small cetaceans that are currently

subject to direct commercial harvest;

Whereas there are unique regions of the world’s seas which serve

as important feeding grounds for many species of whales, and

where the impacts of environmental threats are unknown: Now,

therefore, be it

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That it is the sense of the Congress that—

(1) the United States policy should promote the conservation and protection of whale, dolphin, and porpoise populations;

(2) the United States should remain opposed to any resumption of commercial whaling, and should work toward a moratorium on the direct commercial harvest of dolphins and porpoises;

(3) the United States should work to strengthen the International Whaling Commission by reaffirming its competence

to regulate direct commercial harvest of small cetaceans and

should encourage the Commission to consider the expertise

of its Scientific Committee;

(4) the United States should support the establishment

of appropriate international sanctuaries where whaling is

prohibited; and
H. Con. Res. 34—2

(5) in promoting the conservation and protection of the

world’s whale populations, the United States should make the

fullest use of diplomatic channels, appropriate domestic and

international law, and all other available means.

Attest:

Clerk of the House of Representatives.

Attest:

Secretary of the Senate.
House Calendar No. 31

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 81

[Report No. 103–68]

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Authorizing the 1993 Special Olympics Torch Relay

to be run through the Capitol Grounds.

APRIL 29, 1993

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be

printed
IV

House Calendar No. 31

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 81

[Report No. 103–68]

Authorizing the 1993 Special Olympics Torch Relay to be run through the

Capitol Grounds.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

APRIL 19, 1993

Mr. TRAFICANT submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was

referred to the Committee on Public Works and Transportation

APRIL 29, 1993

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Authorizing the 1993 Special Olympics Torch Relay to be

run through the Capitol Grounds.

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring),
2

•HCON 81 RH

1 SECTION 1. AUTHORIZATION OF RUNNING OF SPECIAL

2 OLYMPICS TORCH RELAY THROUGH CAPITOL

3 GROUNDS.

4 On May 27, 1993, or on such other date as the

5 Speaker of the House of Representatives and the Presi6 dent pro tempore of the Senate may designate jointly, the

7 1993 Special Olympics Torch Relay may be run through

8 the Capitol Grounds, as part of the journey of the Special

9 Olympics torch to the District of Columbia Special Olym10 pics summer games at Gallaudet University in the District

11 of Columbia.

12 SEC. 2. RESPONSIBILITY OF CAPITOL POLICE BOARD.

13 The Capitol Police Board shall take such action as

14 may be necessary to carry out section 1.

15 SEC. 3. CONDITIONS RELATING TO PHYSICAL PREPARA16 TIONS.

17 The Architect of the Capitol may prescribe conditions

18 for physical preparations for the event authorized by

19 section 1.
#### HALEY v. STATE.

No. 22455.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 31, 1943.

Rehearing Denied May 5, 1943.

Alex P. Pope, of Tyler, for appellant.

Spurgeon E. Bell, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

The appeal is from a twelve months’ jail sentence on a charge of violation of the liquor laws.

There is no statement of facts in the record. The first bill of exception complains of the action of the trial court in overruling the motion for a continuance because of the absence of .Hubert Curbo, who would testify to an alibi for the appellant. The court did not err in overruling this motion. The motion fails to state that there is a reasonable expectation that the attendance of the witness can be obtained at the next term of court. Renfroe v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 167 S.W.2d 772, not yet reported [in State reports]. The qualification of the court shows that the witness was charged in cause No. 6862 in the county court with an offense against the laws of the State and that said cause was called for trial and the witness, being the defendant in that cause, did not answer. His bond was forfeited and an alias capias issued for his arrest. He was, therefore, a fugitive from justice. 9 Texas Jurisprudence, section 119, page 816. Furthermore, it is shown, and the trial court found, that the evidence sought, if true, would have been proven by other witnesses.

 By another bill of exception the appellant complains that he was not allowed on cross-examination of the State’s witness J. G. Garrison to bring out what work the witness did before he became an inspector for the Texas Liquor Control Board. There was no error in this action because the bill fails to show that the defendant would have been able to prove anything that would have reflected on the credibility of .the witness. Nor is this the proper way to affect the credibility of the witness. It is immaterial what work the witness did prior to his connection with the Texas Liquor Control Board so far as •this bill indicates.

Finding no error in the record, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Case 2:22-cr-00046-Z-BR Document 311 Filed 12/06/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID 839
|                                                        
|--------------------------------------------------------
|                                                        
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)          
|View History: Annual                                    
|View History: Annual                                    
|View History:                                           
|                                                        
|U.S. Still Gas Consumed at Refineries (Thousand Barrels)
|                                                        
|                                                        
|U.S. Still Gas Consumed at Refineries (Thousand Barrels)
|                                                        

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0  | Year-1  | Year-2  | Year-3  | Year-4  | Year-5  | Year-6  | Year-7  | Year-8  | Year-9 
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | -------
|1980's                                                                                                                            |         |         |         |         |         |         | 232,124 | 223,313 | 237,141 | 241,935
|1990's                                                                                                                            | 239,414 | 230,987 | 236,403 | 230,760 | 234,006 | 228,258 | 239,155 | 239,165 | 238,505 | 235,683
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 238,535 | 236,221 | 233,230 | 246,215 | 247,213 | 238,236 | 249,358 | 247,106 | 237,161 | 220,191
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 219,890 | 217,716 | 220,094 | 229,670 | 229,918 | 232,046 | 237,518 | 236,151 | 239,341 | 232,316
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 207,890 | 216,976 | 224,293 | 221,249 |         |         |         |         |         |        
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 6/14/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: June 2025
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Federal Reserve System

# AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING:

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. 

# TIME AND DATE:

12:00 noon, Monday, November 13, 2000. 

# PLACE:

Marriner S. Eccles Federal Reserve Board Building, 20th and C Streets, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20551. 

# STATUS:

Closed. 

# MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: 

1. Personnel actions (appointments, promotions, assignments, reassignments, and salary actions) involving individual Federal Reserve System employees. 

2. Any matters carried forward from a previously announced meeting. 

# CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:

Lynn S. Fox, Assistant to the Board; 202-452-3204. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

You may call 202-452-3206 beginning at approximately 5 p.m. two business days before the meeting for a recorded announcement of bank and bank holding company applications scheduled for the meeting; or you may contact the Board's Web site at http://www.federalreserve.gov for an electronic announcement that not only lists applications, but also indicates procedural and other information about the meeting. 

Dated: November 3, 2000. 

Robert deV. Frierson, 

Associate Secretary of the Board. 

[FR Doc. 00-28704 Filed 11-3-00; 4:17 pm] 

BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 19-0708

IN THE MATTER OF:

J.A.L.,

Respondent and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and 

good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including September 9, 2020, within which to prepare, 

file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

August 3 2020

08/03/2020

Case Number: DA 19-0708