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

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER 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 Analogic Corporation (the Company) for the fiscal year ended July 31, 2007 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, James W. Green, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that, to the
best of his 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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                         |  |  |  |                                                                                   
|------------------------ |  |  |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                         |  | 
|                         |  |  |  | /s/    JAMES W. GREEN                                                             
|Date: September 27, 2007 |  |  |  | James W. Green President and Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Everton Wagstaff, Appellant.

[631 NYS2d 410]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Goldstein, J.), rendered February 22, 1993, convicting him of kidnapping in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish the "abduct[ion]” element of kidnapping in the second degree which requires proof of restraint by either secreting or holding the victim in a place where he or she is not likely to be found (Penal Law § 135.00 [2] [a]) or by using or threatening to use deadly physical force (Penal Law § 135.00 [2] [b]). The People concede on appeal that there was no evidence of deadly physical force, therefore the element of abduction as defined in Penal Law § 135.00 (2) (b) was not established. The defendant’s contention that the evidence was also legally insufficient to establish the element of abduction as defined in Penal Law § 135.00 (2) (a) is unpreserved for appellate review as this argument was not raised in the trial court *(see, People v Bynum,*70 NY2d 858; *People v Udzinski,*146 AD2d 245). In his motion to dismiss at the end of the People’s case, the defendant argued only that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish that the abduction was accomplished by the use or threatened use of deadly physical force. In any event, we find that there was legally sufficient evidence to establish that the victim was secreted or held in a place where she was not likely to be found *(see, e.g., People v Salimi,*159 AD2d 658; *People v Valero,*134 AD2d 635).

The defendant further contends that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence because, *inter alia,*the eyewitness’ testimony, including her identification of him, was incredible. Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence *(see,*GPL 470.15 [5]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Miller, J. P., O’Brien, Ritter and Hart, JJ., concur.
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

U.S. Indo-Pacific CommandUSINDOPACOM

U.S. Indo-Pacific Command

Search

Search
Search

-  Home		 
-  Leadership    -  Commander         
  -  Deputy Commander         
  -  Chief of Staff         
  -  Senior Enlisted Leader 
-  About USINDOPACOM    -  History         
  -  USPACOM Area of Responsibility         
  -  USPACOM Previous Commanders         
  -  Women, Peace and Security 
-  Organization    -  Organization Chart 
-  Media    -  News      -  Spotlight 
  -  Photos         
  -  Speeches / Testimony         
  -  Freedom of Information Act      -  FOIA - Reading Room         
    -  Submit FOIA Request         
    -  Request Status         
    -  FOIA FAQS 
-  Resources    -  Travel Requirements         
  -  Useful Theater Information         
  -  FAQ         
  -  Useful Links 
-  Newcomers		 
-  Contact    -  Directory         
  -  Media Inquiries         
  -  Industry Engagements 
-  JTF - Red Hill		 
-  JTF-Micronesia		 

Home : Media : News : News Article View

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

# Readout: Office call with French Armed Forces Leaders

U.S. Pacific Fleet Public Affairs

PEARL HARBOR, Hawaii -- Adm. Samuel Paparo, commander, U.S. Pacific Fleet met with French Air Force Lt. Gen. Vincent Cousin, commander of air defense and air operations, as well as French Navy Rear Adm. Jean-Mathieu Rey, joint commander French Armed Forces in the Asia Pacific, at the Pacific Fleet command headquarters on board Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam, June 28.This was their first conversation since Paparo assumed command of Pacific Fleet. As Cousin and Rey visited Hawaii as part of the cooperation mission Wakea between U.S. and French forces, they also discussed the French Armed Forces posture in the Indo-Pacific region.

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

More
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-KSB of Legend
International Holdings, Inc. (the "Company") for the fiscal year ended December
31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "report"), the undersigned, Joseph Isaac Gutnick, Chief Executive Officer
of the Company, certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that:

          (1)  The report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
               or 15(d) of the securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

          (2)  The information contained in the report fairly presents, in all
               material respects, the financial condition and result of
               operations of the Company.


Date:  March 30, 2005


                              /s/ Joseph Isaac Gutnick
                              -------------------------------------
                              Joseph Isaac Gutnick
                              Chairman of the Board, President and
                              Chief Executive Officer
                              (Principal Executive Officer)


                                       35
No. 82-993.

#### Patrick *v.*Ohio.

Ct. App. Ohio, Summit County. Certiorari denied.
Exhibit 13.2



RESIN SYSTEMS INC.



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 Resin Systems Inc. (the "Company") on Form 20-F for the period ended August 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Greg Pendura, 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; 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: | February 27, 2004  
|----- | -------------------
|By:   | /s/ Keith Gerrard  
|      | Name: Keith Gerrard
|      | Title:Controller
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Renae McGarry, Appellant.

[631 NYS2d 95]

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Chemung County (Danaher, Jr., J.), rendered July 11, 1994, convicting defendant upon her plea of guilty of the crime of attempted criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree.

Defendant pleaded guilty to the crime of attempted criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and was sentenced as a second felony offender to a term of 4 to 8 years in prison. She contends that the sentence is harsh and excessive given the health and substance abuse problems she had at the time of committing the crime. In view of defendant’s lengthy criminal record, we do not find that the sentence is harsh or excessive. Moreover, we reject defendant’s claim that the sentence is illegal inasmuch as it is within statutory parameters. Finally, we do not find that County Court abused its discretion in failing to waive the mandatory surcharge.

Mikoll, J. P., Mercure, Crew III, Yesawich Jr. and Peters, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
**Exhibit 32.2** **CERTIFICATION**      Pursuant to the requirement set forth in Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the UnitedStates Code (18 U.S.C. § 1350), John K. Allen, the Chief Financial Officer of Leadis Technology,Inc. (the “Company”), hereby certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:      1. The Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2007, to whichthis Certification is attached as Exhibit 32.2 (the “Annual Report”), fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Exchange Act; and      2. The information contained in the Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition of the Company at the end of the period covered by the Annual Report andresults of operations of the Company for the period covered by the Annual Report.      **In Witness Whereof**, the undersigned has set his hand hereto as of this 17th day of March,2008.    /s/    John K. Allen **John K. Allen**  **Chief Financial Officer**          This certification accompanies the Form 10-K to which it relates, is not deemed filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing ofLeadis Technology, Inc. under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities ExchangeAct of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date of this Form 10-K), irrespective ofany general incorporation language contained in such filing.
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

U.S. Indo-Pacific CommandUSINDOPACOM

U.S. Indo-Pacific Command

Search

Search
Search

-  Home		 
-  Leadership    -  Commander         
  -  Deputy Commander         
  -  Chief of Staff         
  -  Senior Enlisted Leader 
-  About USINDOPACOM    -  History         
  -  USPACOM Area of Responsibility         
  -  USPACOM Previous Commanders         
  -  Women, Peace and Security 
-  Organization    -  Organization Chart 
-  Media    -  News      -  Spotlight 
  -  Photos         
  -  Speeches / Testimony         
  -  Freedom of Information Act      -  FOIA - Reading Room         
    -  Submit FOIA Request         
    -  Request Status         
    -  FOIA FAQS 
-  Resources    -  Travel Requirements         
  -  Useful Theater Information         
  -  FAQ         
  -  Useful Links 
-  Newcomers		 
-  Contact    -  Directory         
  -  Media Inquiries         
  -  Industry Engagements 
-  JTF - Red Hill		 
-  JTF-Micronesia		 

Home : Media : News : News Article View

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

# US, India Join Forces in Bilateral Flying Training

Pacific Air Forces public affairs

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

More News
# Maveriek
AV IATIO N GROUP September 21, 2011 Mr . Martin F. Kay Principle Op e rations Inspector LAS FSDO 7181 Amigo St., Ste. 180 Las Vegas, NV 89119 D ea r Mr. Kay,
Mave rick Airstar, LLC requests a n exemption from Title 14 CFR Part 93.323 which requires the filing of a flight plan prior to conducting operations in th e vicinity of the Grand Canyon National Park (GCNP) and an exe mption from the "LAS FSDO Grand Canyon National Park Special Flight Rules Area Procedures Manu a l" c h a pter 1 , s e ction 1.13 pag e 1-16 which requires a VFR flight plan be filed with an FAA Flight S e rvice Station prior to conducting a commercial SFRA operation. M ave ri c k Airsta r requests that the exempti o ns be granted until the referenced documents are revised or rescinded. Maverick Airstar will co ntinue to comp l y with all othe r require ment of the refere nced documents in c lud i ng the qu a rterly reporting require ment. The re asons Maverick Airstar is se e king the exemptions are as follows: 1 . The filing of flight plans prior to o peration within the GCNP SFRA is required for allocation use auditing and not for safety of flight or flight locat i ng reasons. 2. Fli g ht l ocating and flight fo l lowing i s done within the company as pe r section 4 -2 of our General Operations Manual and is in compliance with FAR Part 135 require ments . 3. Our d e monstrated method of quarterly allocation u s e reporting, verification and audit options provides for ad equate oversight by the responsible agency. 4 . Th e filing of pre -flight flight plans each hour is a dupli cation of the information contained in th e q u arterly GCNP operations reports and is much l ess accurate as the p l anned fli g hts often ch ange afte r th e filing of the report. 5. By not faxing or emailing the hourly flight plans to a FSS , it would lessen the burden on FSS personnel and allow them to be more effective at their primary tas ks of flight following and disseminating weath e r info rmation . T hank yo u for you r con s i d eration of t his request an d i f you h ave an y add it i o nal qu estio n s , please co n tact me by phone: 928 - 638-2622 or e m ail: shall@flymaverick.com
. Since rely , 

## j~41~ Stephen Hall, Director of Operation Mave rick Airstar, LLC PO Box 3297 Grand Canyon, AZ 86023



### MAVERICK HELICOPTERS MAVERICK AIRLINES GRAND CANYON AIRPORT I - lIGI - lWAY 64 GRAND CANYON, AZ 86023 928.638.2622
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

U.S. Indo-Pacific CommandUSINDOPACOM

U.S. Indo-Pacific Command

Search

Search
Search

-  Home		 
-  Leadership    -  Commander         
  -  Deputy Commander         
  -  Chief of Staff         
  -  Senior Enlisted Leader 
-  About USINDOPACOM    -  History         
  -  USPACOM Area of Responsibility         
  -  USPACOM Previous Commanders         
  -  Women, Peace and Security 
-  Organization    -  Organization Chart 
-  Media    -  News      -  Spotlight 
  -  Photos         
  -  Speeches / Testimony         
  -  Freedom of Information Act      -  FOIA - Reading Room         
    -  Submit FOIA Request         
    -  Request Status         
    -  FOIA FAQS 
-  Resources    -  Travel Requirements         
  -  Useful Theater Information         
  -  FAQ         
  -  Useful Links 
-  Newcomers		 
-  Contact    -  Directory         
  -  Media Inquiries         
  -  Industry Engagements 
-  JTF - Red Hill		 
-  JTF-Micronesia		 

Home : Media : News : News Article View

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

# Mattis Welcomes Indonesia's Foreign Minister to Pentagon

DoD News, Defense Media Activity

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

More News
#### D. L. SAYLOR and others v. B. F. POWELL and others.

*Homestead.*

L A widow is not entitled to homestead in iands of her husband if he die leaving children — minors or adults.

2. An heir twenty-one years old is not entitled to homestead in the lands of his ancestor.

*(Wharton*v. *Taylor,*88 N. C., 230; *Wharton v. Leggett,*80 N. C., 169, cited and approved).

Civil Action tried at Spring Term, 1883, of ANSON Superior Court, before *MaoJRae, J.*

This is a creditors’ bill filed by the plaintiffs against the defendants, who are the widow and son of Henry Powell, deceased, who died intestate, and seized and possessed of the house and lot, in the town of Wadesboro, described in the complaint. The son and only heir was more than twenty-one years of age, and was the administrator of the intestate’s estate. The plaintiffs are creditors of the intestate, and had obtained judgments against him which were regularly docketed in the superior court.

The defendants’ intestate was possessed of very little personal estate — not more than sufficient to pay his funeral expenses, and the charges incident to the administration, and the taxes due upon his real property, which is the only resource for the payment of *203the plaintiffs’ debts. They have demanded payment of the administrator, but he has taken no steps for the satisfaction of their claims; and they therefore ask that the house and lot be sold and the proceeds made assets to pay the decedent’s debts.

The defendants deny the plaintiffs’ right to have the land sold, for the reason that B. E. Powell, the son and only heir of the deceased, is entitled to his homestead in the same, and the defendant Harriet, the widow, is entitled to her dower and homestead therein.

His Honor adjudged that the house and lot be sold subject to the dower of the widow, and from this judgment defendants appealed.

Tfessrs. *J. A. Lockhart*and *Little & Parsons,*for plaintiffs.

*Mr. J. L). Pemberton,*for defendants.

Ashe, J.

The only question presented for the determination of this court is, whether the defendants, or either of them, are entitled to a homestead in the house and lot.

The claim set up by the widow for a homestead is decided in the case of *Wharton*v. *Leggett,*80 N. C., 169, where it is held that, under article ten, section live of the constitution, a widow is not entitled to a homestead in the lands of her husband, if he die leaving children — minors or adults.

And the defendant B. F. Powell is not entitled to a homestead, either under the constitution or under the act of 1877, ch. 253. It is alleged in the complaint that he was twenty-one years old, which is not denied. So that even if he was a minor when his father died, and he was then entitled to a homestead, the right ceased as soon as ho attained his majority. Const., Art. X, §3. Nor is he entitled to it by virtue of the act of 1877, for that act has been declared to be in violation of the constitution of the state. *Wharton*v. *Taylor,*88 N. C., 230.

There is no error. Let this be certified, that the case may be proceeded with in accordance with this opinion and the law.

No error. Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             AUG-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-31-1999
<CASH>                                         812,179
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                 20,164,761
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                       7,247,516
<DEPRECIATION>                              10,738,011
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              21,218,412
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                      9,244,012
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        17,569
<OTHER-SE>                                   8,954,061
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                21,218,412
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            29,365,753
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                6,313,128
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            21,148,505
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             796,611
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,107,509
<INCOME-TAX>                                   492,625
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            614,884
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   614,884
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .35
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .35


</TABLE>
I 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 141 

To amend title 11 of the United States Code to dispense with the requirement 

of providing assurance of payment for utility services under certain 

circumstances. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 3, 2017 

Mr. CONYERS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend title 11 of the United States Code to dispense 

with the requirement of providing assurance of payment 

for utility services under certain circumstances. 

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 ‘‘Preventing Termi5 nation of Utility Services in Bankruptcy Act of 2017’’. 

6 SEC. 2. AMENDMENT. 

7 Section 366 of title 11, United States Code, is 

8 amended by adding at the end the following: 


smartinez on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 141 IH

1 ‘‘(d) Notwithstanding any other provision of this sec2 tion in a case in which the debtor is an individual, if the 

3 debtor pays in the 20-day period beginning on the date 

4 of the order for relief debts owed to a utility for service 

5 provided during such period and thereafter pays when due 

6 debts owed to such utility for service provided during the 

7 pendency of the case, then the debtor may not be required 

8 to furnish assurance of payment.’’. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS