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 Janus Capital Group Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Richard M. Weil, 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:



/s/ RICHARD M. WEIL Richard M. Weil Chief Executive Officer


Date:
February 24, 2010

A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Janus Capital Group Inc. and will be retained by Janus Capital Group Inc. and furnished to
the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---



QuickLinks
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 647 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 647

To provide for the appointment of additional Federal district judges in 
             the State of Florida, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 17, 1999

 Mr. Mack (for himself and Mr. Graham) introduced the following bill; 
  which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To provide for the appointment of additional Federal district judges in 
             the State of Florida, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Florida Federal Judgeship Act of 
1999''.

SEC. 2. DISTRICT JUDGES FOR THE FLORIDA DISTRICT COURTS.

    (a) In General.--The President shall appoint, by and with the 
advice and consent of the Senate--
            (1) 5 additional district judges for the middle district of 
        Florida; and
            (2) 2 additional district judges for the southern district 
        of Florida.
    (b) Tables.--In order that the table contained in section 133 of 
title 28, United States Code, will reflect the changes in the total 
number of permanent district judgeships authorized as a result of 
subsection (a) of this section, the item relating to Florida in such 
table is amended to read as follows:

``Florida:
    Northern................................................         4 
    Middle..................................................        16 
    Southern................................................     18.''.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

    There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be 
necessary to carry out the provisions of this Act, including such sums 
as may be necessary to provide appropriate space and facilities for the 
judicial positions created by this Act.

SEC. 4. EFFECTIVE DATE.

    This Act shall take effect on the date of enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-6887

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

JOSEPH ANDREW SADLER,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District

Judge. (CR-93-160)

Submitted: February 28, 1997 Decided: March 18, 1997

Before HALL, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

C. Timothy Sullivan, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant.

J. Rene Josey, United States Attorney, David C. Stephens, Assistant

United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Joseph Sadler appeals the district court's order granting the

Government's motion for a under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure

35(b) to reduce Sadler's sentence in light of his substantial

assistance to the Government. Although the district court reduced

Sadler's sentence from 400 months imprisonment to 380 months,

Sadler contends that the reduction was insufficient. We dismiss

Sadler's appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

Under 18 U.S.C.A. § 3742(a) (West 1985 & Supp. 1997),

we have jurisdiction to entertain [Sadler's] appeal only

if his sentence (1) was imposed in violation of law, (2)

was imposed as a result of an incorrect application of

the Sentencing Guidelines, (3) is greater than the sentence specified in the applicable guideline range, or

(4) was imposed for an offense for which there is no sentencing guideline and is plainly unreasonable.

United States v. Hill, 70 F.3d 321, 323 (4th Cir. 1995) (citing 18

U.S.C.A. § 3742(a)). Consistent with Congress's intent, jurisdiction under § 3742(a) is narrowly interpreted. See Hill, 70 F.3d at

323-24. After reviewing the district court's order, the parties'

briefs, and the applicable law, we conclude that Sadler is unable

to demonstrate any of these jurisdictional prerequisites and therefore we dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS OF APPAREL VENTURES, INC. FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 1998
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                         183,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               30,841,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   454,000
<INVENTORY>                                 20,814,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            55,865,000
<PP&E>                                       9,043,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               4,314,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              77,071,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       36,603,000
<BONDS>                                     38,213,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,000
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,254,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                77,071,000
<SALES>                                     52,063,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            52,063,000
<CGS>                                       31,001,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               31,001,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            16,919,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                14,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           4,672,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (543,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (173,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (370,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (370,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT
32.1





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


(18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350)





Pursuant
to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of
section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), the undersigned
officers of Viking Systems, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), do
hereby certify, to such officers’ knowledge, that:





The
annual report on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2008 (the “Form
10-K/A”) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in
the Form 10-K/A fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.








DATE: May
14, 2009


/s/
      William C. BoppChief
      Executive Officer(Principal
      Executive Officer)




/s/
      Robert MathewsRobert
      MathewsExecutive
      Vice President and Chief Financial Officer(Principal
      Financial Officer and Principal AccountingOfficer)
#### In the Matter of Metropolitan Property and Casualty Company, Respondent, v Reade Sands, Appellant. Government Employees Insurance Company, Nonparty Respondent.

[772 NYS2d 850]

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to stay arbitration of an uninsured motorist claim, the appeal is from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (John J.J. Jones, Jr., J.), entered May 8, 2003, which, upon a decision of the same court dated February 26, 2003, made after a hearing, granted the petition and permanently stayed arbitration.

Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed, with costs.

*602“It is well established that the decision of the fact-finding court should not be disturbed on appeal unless the court’s conclusions could not be reached on any fair interpretation of the evidence, especially in cases resting in large part on the credibility of witnesses” *(Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. v McMahon,*251 AD2d 571, 572 [1998]; *see Thoreson v Penthouse Intl.,*80 NY2d 490, 495 [1992]; *Matter of State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v Mucerino,*275 AD2d 464 [2000]; *Matter of Aetna Life & Cas. v Gramazio,*242 AD2d 530 [1997]). The determination that there was no physical contact between the appellant’s automobile and an alleged hit-and-run vehicle is supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence adduced at the hearing and should not be disturbed *(see Matter of State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v Mucerino, supra; Atlantic Mut. Ins. Co. v Roth,*253 AD2d 875 [1998]; *Matter of Aetna Life & Cas. v Gramazio, supra).*Ritter, J.P., H. Miller, Crane and Cozier, JJ., concur.
No. 32—2302.

#### Gertrude M. Jewett v. A. L. Jewett.

In February, 1881, appellant obtained a decree of divorce from appellee, and by it was awarded the custody of their three sons, and alimony for the support of herself and said three sons fixed at the sutn of seventy-five dollars per month, Both p irties married again, appellant beconrng the wife of aman whom the record shows was of ample means. Soon after his marriage to his present wife appellee filed his petition to ojien the former decree as to the custody of the children. Ajipellant resisted the apjilication but the court opened the decree and heard evidence at considerable length. The court permitted the two elder sons to elect with which jiarent they would remain, and they se’ected their mother. At the time of this hearing the oldest son was upward of seventeen years of age and had been employed as a clerk. The second son was fifteen years old, and the youngest eleven and something over. The court, by its final order in the matter of appellee’s petition, left the custody of the sons with appellant but reduced the alimony to twenty dollars per month, which sum apjiellee was ordered to pay for the sujiport and education of the youngest boy. This order appellant assigns for error, alleging that the order should have been for a larger amount, and should have made provision for the support of the second son-This court can not say that the judgment arrived at by the chancellor ought to be different.

Affirmed.

Opinion Per *654Curiam.

Judge below, Henry M. Shepard.

Attorneys, for appellant, Messrs. Padbook & Aldis;

for appellee, Mr. Alfred Moore and Messrs. Bisbee, Ahrens & Decker.

Opinion filed April 28, 1886.
#### STATE to the use of the BOARD OF EDUCATION *v.*ALBERT C. MOODY, and others.

(Same syl'abus as in *State*to the use of the *Board, of Education*v. *Moodyy*an others,, amia page 73.)

Ceetiokaei upon a judgment rendered at Spring Term,, 1875, PobesoN Superior Court, *Kerr, J..*presiding.-

The facts in this case arc the' sanie, and the same points are involved, as in the case of *State to the une of the hoard of Jiduúutiun vs. Moody*and others, reported ante page 73.

*Attorney General Hargrove,*for the appellant.

*W-right <Jh Stead mu-n,*contra.

Peade, J.

There are three cases between the same parties involving the same points. An opinion-has been delivered in one, and the decision in this is the same.

Note. — Why was not one case brought up and the others allowed to. -await the decis.on of the Court ?

Pee Cueiam. Judgment affirmed.
#### WILLIAM R. BROWN *v.*HENRY M. FOUST and another.

A bond had been given in 1863 for the price of a slave, and partial payments had been made thereupon in Confederate money : *Held,*that in order to ascertain how much is now due thereupon in National currency, the jury should estimate the value of the slave when purchased, in gold, and deduct therefrom an amount which bears to that value the same proportion which the *payments do to*the sum specified in the bond ; adding to the remainder the depreciation of U. S. Treasury notes at the time of the verdict.

*(Garrett*v. *Smith, ante*93, approved.)

Debt upon bond, tried before *Tourgee, ■!.,*at Spring Term 1870 of Randolph Court.

The bond bad been executed Sept. 1, 1863, payable at six months, for $1400, being the price of a negro girl then purchased by the obligors. Payments were endorsed thereupon : of $800, paid April 30th 1864, and of $400, paid Oct. 29th 1864.

His Honor instructed the jury that they should scale the note according to the value of the property, and that the payments should be scaled according to the money scale, and that they might allow the premium for gold, upon both the value of the property, and the value of the money paid.

Verdict, and Judgment accordingly, for $1,192.53.

The defendants appealed.

*Gorrell,*for the appellants.

*Scott & Scott*and *Mendenhall, contra.*

Hick, J.

The Confederate money was received by the obligee, and such payment discharged the bond pro *tanto.*The bond was given for a negro girl, and the value of the balance of the contract is regulated by the acts of 1866, chs. 38 and 39. The jury upon the proof, should have estimated *673in gold, the value of the negro girl at the time of the contract, and deducted therefrom an amount which bore the same proportion to such value as the payments did to the sum specified in the bond, and then added to such gold balance, the depreciation of U. S. Treasury notes, at the time of the verdict: *Garrett*v. *Smith, ante*93.

As for instance, if the amount of the bond had been fifteen hundred dollars, and the payments had been five hundred dollars, one-third of the bond would have been discharged, and one-third should have been deducted from the gold value of the property.

The instructions of his Honor were erroneous, and there must be a *venire de novo.*

Let this be certified.

Per Curiam. *Venire de novo.*
U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Aviation 

Administration 

JAN 0 7 2015 

Mr. Jose Mora-Vargas 

Certification Director 

Associated Air Center 

8321 Lemmon Avenue 

Dallas, Texas 75209 

Dear Mr. Mora-Vargas: 

Transport Airplane Directorate 

1601 Lind Avenue, S.W. 

Renton, Washington 98057-3356 

We have received your petition letter dated December 17, 2014, requesting exemption from 

§§ 25.785(h)(2), 25.7850), 25.813(e), 25.815, and 25.853(d), ofTitle 14, Code ofFederal 

Regulations. This exemption, if granted, would permit relief from the requirements of 

flight-attendant direct view; firm handholds along each aisle; interior doors between 

passenger compartments and emergency exits; minimum aisle width in the passenger 

compartment; and maximum heat release rates for large panel interior materials and large 

non-metallic seat panels. You stated that the proposed exemption is specifically intended 

for application to an executive interior on a Boeing Model 787-8 airplane, Serial Number 

40695, designated as "private use, not for hire, not for common carriage." 

This request was submitted to the Department of Transportation's Federal Docket 

Management System (at Regulations.gov) on December 17, 2014, and has been assigned 

Docket No. FAA-2014-1066. We are in the process of reviewing your request. We will 

contact you if we need additional information. 

If you have any questions or concerns regarding your petition or the petition process, please 

contact Mr. JeffGardlin at (425) 227-2136, or by e-mail at Jeff.Gardlin@faa.gov. 

Sincerely, 

!J~vt~ Deana M. Stedman 

Transport Airplane Directorate 

Aircraft Certification Service 

COPY 

OF ORIGINAL
# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas** MEMORANDUM OPINION N o s . 04

- 16

- 00274

- CR & 04

- 16

- 00275

- CR Gabriel Barrera ZAMARRIPA , Appellant
v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee From the 379th Judicial District Court , Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No s . 2014CR5915 & 2014CR5916 Honorable Ron Rangel , Judge Presiding PER CURIAM Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice Delivered and Filed: June 1, 2016 DIS MISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION Gabriel Barrera Zamarripa filed a notice of a ppeal seeking to challenge his convictions in three district court causes. 1 However, there is no judgment of conviction in the underlying cause s (i.e., trial court n umbers 2014CR5915 & 2014CR5916 ) , only judgment s of dismissal. With certain exceptions not implicated here, this c ourt has jurisdiction to consider an appeal filed by a criminal defendant only after a final judgment of conviction. See T EX . C ODE

1 In appeal nos. 04

- 16

- 00272

- CR, 04

- 16

- 00274

- CR, and 04

- 16

- 00275

- CR , Zamarripa challenges his convictions in trial court nos. 2014

- CR

- 5319, 2014

- CR

- 5915 and 2014

- CR

- 5916, respectively.04

- 16

- 00274

- CR & 04

- 16

- 00275

- CR

- 2

- C RIM . P ROC . art. 44.02 (West 2006) (providing that criminal defendant may appeal conviction); State v. Sellers , 790 S.W.2d 316, 321 n.4 (Tex. Crim. Ap p. 1990) (noting that defendant’ s general right to appeal under Article 44.02 “has always been limited to appeal from a ‘final judgment’ ”); Workman v. State , 343 S.W.2d 446, 447 (Tex. Crim. App. 1961) (holding that court’ s judgment discharging criminal defendant from liability was not appealable judgment). Absent a judgment of conviction, we lack jurisdiction to consider Zamarripa’s appeal s . See Ballard v. State , Nos. 01

- 08

- 00947

- CR, 01

- 08

- 00948

- CR, 2009 WL 3248197, at *1 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] Oct. 8, 2009, no pet.) ( mem. op., not designated for publication) (dismissing one appeal for want of jurisdiction because underlying cause was dismissed and had no judgment of conviction against appellant). Because the underlying causes were dismissed, no final appealable orders exist for our review. Thus , we dismiss these appeal s for want of jurisdiction. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 43.2(f).
PER CURIAM Do not publish
Second Amendment to Continental Airlines, Inc. Incentive Plan 2000



 Exhibit 4.18 

SECOND AMENDMENT TO 

CONTINENTAL AIRLINES, INC. 

INCENTIVE PLAN 2000 

(as amended and restated through February 20, 2002) 

WHEREAS, Continental Airlines, Inc. (the “Company”) has heretofore adopted the Continental Airlines, Inc. Incentive Plan 2000 (as
amended and restated through February 20, 2002) (the “Plan”); and 
 WHEREAS, the Company desires to amend the Plan in
certain respects; 
 NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan shall be amended as follows: 

1. The second sentence of Section 5(a) of the Plan shall be deleted and the following shall be substituted therefor: 

“Subject to adjustment as provided in Section 12(b) hereof, the aggregate number of shares of Common Stock that may be issued under the Plan
shall not exceed 4,500,000 shares.” 
 2. The amendment to the Plan set forth in paragraph 1 hereof shall be effective as of
February 22, 2006, provided that the amendment is approved by the stockholders of the Company at the 2006 annual meeting of the Company’s stockholders. 

3. As amended hereby, the Plan is specifically ratified and reaffirmed. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned officer of the Company acting pursuant to authority granted to him by the Board of Directors of the Company
has executed this instrument on this 6th day of June, 2006. 
  

			
	CONTINENTAL AIRLINES, INC.
		
	By:	 	       /s/ Jeffery A. Smisek

	Jeffery A. Smisek
	President
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACED FROM SCANTEK
MEDICAL INC. FINANCIAL  STATEMENTS AT SEPTEMBER 30, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                            SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                       33,528
<SECURITIES>                                240,069
<RECEIVABLES>                                55,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                      0
<INVENTORY>                                 898,796
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                          1,311,845
<PP&E>                                    2,058,560
<DEPRECIATION>                              329,448
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                            3,685,034
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                     4,150,034
<BONDS>                                           0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                        18,328
<PREFERRED>                                       0
<COMMON>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                               (2,335,337)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>              3,685,034
<SALES>                                           0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            597,500
<CGS>                                        85,275
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               588,949
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             93,173
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          169,890
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (84,622)
<INCOME-TAX>                                      0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (84,622)
<DISCONTINUED>                                    0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                   0
<CHANGES>                                         0
<NET-INCOME>                                (84,622)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0



</TABLE>