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 Quarterly Report of Absolute Potential, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended December 31,
2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Thomas F. Duszynski,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350 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 results of operations of the Company.



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



The
foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350 and is not being
filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference
into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language
in such filing.

|                        |     |                                                                                                                                                                   
|----------------------- | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                        |     |                                                                                                                                                                   
|Dated:  January 6, 2012 | By: | /s/ Thomas
    F. Duszynski                                                                                                                                       
|                        |     | Thomas F. Duszynski                                                                                                                                               
|                        |     | Chief
        Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer and Director
        (Principal
        Executive Officer and Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
<PAGE>
 
               UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
                            WASHINGTON, D.C.  20549

                                 FORM 10-QSB/A

[X]  QUARTERLY REPORT UNDER SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT
     OF 1934

                  For the quarterly period ended June 30, 1998

                                       OR

[ ]  TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES
     EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

                        Commission File Number:  0-27234

                             PHOTON DYNAMICS, INC.
            (Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

          CALIFORNIA                                  94-3007502
(State or other jurisdiction of          (I.R.S. Employer Identification No.)
incorporation or organization)
 
    6325 SAN IGNACIO, SAN JOSE, CA                      95119
(Address of principal executive offices)              (Zip Code)

                                 (408) 226-9900
              (Registrant's telephone number, including area code)

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required
to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during
the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was
required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing
requirements for the past 90 days.  Yes  X   No
                                       -----   -----

As of August 10, 1998, 7,320,625 shares of the Issuer's Common Stock, no par
value, were outstanding.
<PAGE>
 
                                   SIGNATURES

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the
registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the
undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.


                                     PHOTON DYNAMICS, INC.


Date:   November 16, 1998            /s/ Vincent Sollitto
                                     -------------------------------------
                                     Vincent Sollitto
                                     Chief Executive Officer and Director
                                     (Principal Executive Officer)


Date:   November 16, 1998            /s/ Richard Dissly
                                     -------------------------------------
                                     Richard Dissly
                                     Chief Financial Officer and Assistant
                                     Secretary
# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 6- 18 48

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca
ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.
Mau ric e Ma lo ne , als o kno wn as Tit o
ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe llan t

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e North ern Dis tri ctof I owa- Dub uque

__ __ __ __ __ __ Subm it te d: Octo be r 14 , 20 16 Fi le d: Octo be r 19 , 20 16 [Unpubl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re SM ITH, BENTON, an d S HEPHERD, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ __ PER CURI AM.

Mau ric e Mal on e ap pe al s the se nt en ce th e di st ric t co ur t im po se d aft er rev ok in g 1 hi s supe rv is ed rel eas e. Hav in g juri sd ic t i o n u n de r 28 U.S.C. § 12 91 , th is co urt affi rm s.

The Hon or ab le Lin da R. Rea de , Ch ie f Ju dg e, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Co urt fo r 1 th e Nor th ern Dis tri ctof I owa
.The di st ric t co ur t d idno t ab us e it s d is cret io n. Se e Uni te d Sta te s v. Mer ri va l ,

52 1 F.3 d 88 9, 89 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 ) (s ub st an ti ve reas on ab le ne ss of rev oc at io n se nt en ce is rev ie wed un de r de fere nt ia l ab us e-o f-d is cret io n st an da rd ). The wit hi n- Gui de li ne sran ge se nt en ce was no t subs ta nt iv el y un reas on ab le , an d th e co ur t con si de red th e 18 U.S.C. § 35 53 (a) fact or s. Se e Uni te d St at es v. Petr ei kis , 55 1 F.3 d 82 2, 82 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ) (ap p l yin g pr es um

pt io n of subs ta nt iv e reas on ab le ne ss to rev oc at io n se nt en ce wit hi n Gui de li ne s ran ge ); Uni te d St at es v. Mil le r , 55 7 F.3 d 91 0, 91 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ) (u nd er subs ta nt iv e-re as on ab le ne ss te st , di st ric t co ur t ab us es it s di sc ret io n if it fai ls to
co ns id er rel ev an t § 35 53 (a) fact or , gi ve s si gn ifi can t weig ht to im pr op er or irr el ev an t fact or , or c omm it s cl ear e rro r of jud gm en t i n wei gh in g fa ct or s)

.
The jud gm en t i s af

firm ed , andco un se l’s m ot io n t o wi th dr aw is gra nt ed

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-2

-
```

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 225 (Thursday, November 21, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 92198]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-27162]

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

POSTAL SERVICE

Product Change--Priority Mail and USPS Ground Advantage[supreg] 
Negotiated Service Agreement

AGENCY: Postal ServiceTM.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the 
Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services 
contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail 
Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

DATES: Date of required notice: November 21, 2024.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
November 12, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a 
USPS Request to Add Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage[supreg] 
Contract 451 to Competitive Product List. Documents are available at 
www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2025-361, K2025-359.

Sean Robinson,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2024-27162 Filed 11-20-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                   DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                      JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                        JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                    6,960
<SECURITIES>                                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                                 0
<ALLOWANCES>                                  0
<INVENTORY>                                   0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              0
<PP&E>                                  880,550
<DEPRECIATION>                          156,271
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                          813,934
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         0
<BONDS>                                 224,706
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                         0
<PREFERRED>                                   0
<COMMON>                                      0
<OTHER-SE>                              370,989
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>            813,934
<SALES>                                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                         81,814
<CGS>                                         0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                            56,819
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                          1,164
<LOSS-PROVISION>                              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                       11,368
<INCOME-PRETAX>                          24,995
<INCOME-TAX>                                  0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                      24,995
<DISCONTINUED>                                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                               0
<CHANGES>                                     0
<NET-INCOME>                             24,995
<EPS-BASIC>                                1.04
<EPS-DILUTED>                              1.04


</TABLE>
D ISMISS; Opinion Filed February 4 , 2014. 

# S

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05
- 12
- 01609
- CV
THE HOUSING AUTHORIT Y OF THE CITY OF DAL LAS, TEXAS , Appellant V. SCHEVONNE L. BLUITT HECHAVARRIA AND ALL OCCUPANTS , Appellee s On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC
- 12
- 04 1 07
- B



### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices O'Neill, Myers, and Brown Opinion by Justice Myers The H ousing Authority of the City of Dallas, Texas appeals the take

- nothing judgment rendered against it in its suit for forcible detainer and unpaid rent against Schevonne L. Bluitt
Hechavarria and all occupants

. On December 5, 2013, Dallas County Court at La w No. 4, in
cause number CC

- 13

- 05074

- D, signed an order providing that the parties had agreed that a writ of possession may issue to the Dallas Housing Authority for the property at issue, that
Hechavarria and all occupants had agreed to vacate the propert y before the writ of possession took effect, and that the parties had agreed to the dismissal of this appeal. Despite this order, appellant did not file a motion to dismiss this appeal as required by the order. On January 7, 2014, we notified the parties that it appeared this appeal was now moot, and we requested the parties to file responses by January 20, 2014 explaining why this Court retains jurisdiction over– 2

– this appeal. As of this date, neither party has filed a response. We conclude this appeal i s moot. See Marshall v. Housing Auth. of City of San Antonio , 198 S.W.3d 782, 787 (Tex. 2006) (surrendering possession of property moots appeal in forcible detainer case when lessee has no potential claim to current, actual possession of property) ; In re Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. , 195 S.W.3d 807, 817 (Tex. App.

— Dallas 2006, orig. proceeding) (settlement of claims moots those claims on appeal)

. We dismiss this appeal as moot.

121609F.P05 /Lana Myers/ LANA MYERS JUSTICE– 3

– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT NUNC PRO TU NC

THE HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF DALLAS , TEXAS, Appellant
No. 05

- 12

- 01609

- CV V.
SCHEVONNE L. BLUITT HECHAVARRIA AND ALL OCCUPANTS, Appellee s On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC

- 12

- 04107

- B. Opinion delivered by Justice Myers. Justices O'Neill and Brown participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of February 4, 2014, th is appeal is DISMISSED as moot. It is ORDERED that appellee s SCHEVONNE L. BLUITT HECHAVARRIA AND ALL OCCUPANTS recover their costs of this appeal from appellant THE HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CI TY OF DALLAS , TEXAS.

Judgment entered this 4 th day of February , 2014.

/Lana Myers/ LANA MYERS JUSTICE
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                       4,041,324
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   60,115
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             4,134,333
<PP&E>                                          43,106
<DEPRECIATION>                                  11,132
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,168,807
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          159,740
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                         41
<COMMON>                                          6984
<OTHER-SE>                                   6,009,801
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,168,807
<SALES>                                         56,175
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                56,175
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  973,345
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                11,281
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              66,926
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (838,963)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (838,963)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (838,963)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.12
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.12
        

</TABLE>
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13

- 50011 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v. MATEO CASTILLO

- RUELAS , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 2:10

- CR

- 779

- 4

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DENNIS, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Mateo Castillo

- Ruelas appeals the total 324

- month sentence imposed after a jury convicted him of conspiracy to possess with the intent to distribute 100 kilograms or more of marijuana, illegal reentry after having previously been deported, and being a felon in possession of a firearm. Castillo

- Ruelas argues that the district court erred in calculating the drug quantity and in imposing an enhancement for obstruction of justice.

* 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. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED March 7, 2014 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 13-50011 Document: 00512553578 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/07/2014No. 13

- 50011
The district court’s calculation of the quantity of drugs involved in an offense is a factual determination that we review for clear error. United States v. Betancourt , 422 F.3d 240, 2 46 (5th Cir. 2005)

. Cast illo

- Ruelas’s mere opinion that his brother’s testimony was not credible is not sufficient to undermine the district court’s credibility determinations or rebut the reliability of the drug quantity information contained in the presentence report ( PSR )

. See United States v. Montes , 602 F.3d 381, 384 ( 5th Cir. 2010); United States v. Ford , 558 F.3d 371, 376

- 77 (5th Cir. 2009) ; United States v. Alford , 142 F.3d 825, 832 (5th Cir. 1998). The district court’s determination that a defen dant obstructed justice pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1 is also a factua l finding that we review for clear

error. United States v. Juarez

- Duarte , 513 F.3d 204, 208 (5th Cir. 2008). Castillo

- Ruelas’s mere objection to the obstruction of justice enhancement, without more, does not suffice to rebut the truth, accuracy, or relia bility of the supporting evidence contained in the PSR. See id. at 208; see also Ford , 558 F.3d at 376

- 77

. T he district court did not clearly err in cal culating the drug quantity or in imposing an obstruction of justice enhancement. See Betancourt , 422 F.3d at 2 46; Juarez

- Duarte , 513 F.3d at 208 . Accordingly, t he judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

2 Case: 13-50011 Document: 00512553578 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/07/2014
#### Brown and others, Trustees, Respondents, vs. Loewenbach and others, Appellants.

*May 24*—

September *14, 1937.*

*426For the appellants there were briefs by McGovern, *Curtis & Devos*of-Milwaukee, and oral-argument by *John J. Devos.*

*427For the respondents there was a brief by *Upham,*Black, *Russell ■& Richardson,*attorneys, and *Perry J. Stearns*of counsel, all of Milwaukee, and oral argument by *Mr. Stearns.*

The following opinion was filed June 21, 1937 :

Fairchild, J;

The motions to dismiss the appeal because the order is not appealable and because the order appealed from is moot .by lapse of time are denied. The order is—

> “A final order affecting a substantial right made ... in an action after judgment.” Sec. 274.33 (2), Stats.

Its appealability was recognized in *Marwalt Realty Co. v. Greene,*224 Wis. 1, 271 N. W. 648; as to the point that the question is now moot, we consider the terms of the judgment prevent such a ruling because there is provision, if valid, for further application for similar relief.

Appellants contend that the judgment gave them a vested right under ch. 125, Laws of 1933 (sec. 278.106, Stats. 1933), to have an extension of the period of redemption under its terms. , It is unnecessary to discuss the effect of sec. 281.22 (2), Stats. 1935, because assuming that the judgment is such as to include in it all the terms and provisions of ch. 125, Laws of 1933, still the order must be affirmed. The 1933 statute read:

> . • The extension may be granted by the court where the applicant shall pay during the period for which the extension is made the taxes, or interest, or both, in the discretion of the court.”

In *Banking Comm. v. Wutschel,*219 Wis. 332, 263 N. W. 182, this portion of the statute was construed to mean that the applicant must pay all the taxes, due and to become due, or all the interest, or both. Under the facts of this case, it would be an abuse of discretion to grant an extension upon payment of the interest and a small portion of the taxes, as requested by appellants. As appears from the statement of *428facts, the unpaid taxes have accumulated, plus penalties, to upwards of $41,000. Delinquencies began in 1931, and more than $12,000 accrued during the pendency of the action. Any requirement which would compel the mortgagee, to face the alternative of losing the property through the acquisition of tax titles by other persons, or making a further investment by paying the back taxes in order to protect himself, would, in this situation, be without legal sanction. *Banking Comm. v. Wutschel, supra.*In view of the existing situation, any ruling substantially different from that made by the trial court would be an abuse of discretion and would have to be reversed.

*By the Court.*— Order affirmed, and cause remanded for further proceedings according to law.

A motion' for a rehearing was denied, without costs, on September 14, 1937.
```

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 175 (Tuesday, September 10, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55240-55241]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-21967]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS

Agenda and Notice of Public Meeting of the District of Columbia 
Advisory Committee

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and 
regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission), and 
the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), that a planning meeting and 
briefing meeting of the District of Columbia Advisory Committee to the 
Commission will convene at 9:30 p.m. (ET) on Tuesday, September 24, 
2013, at 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite 1150, Washington, DC 
20425. The purpose of the briefing meeting is to hear from government 
officials, advocates, and other experts on the issue of human 
trafficking in the District of Columbia. The planning meeting will 
discuss the next steps for the project and set forward a timeline for 
completing tasks related to the project.
    Members of the public are entitled to submit written comments. The 
comments must be received in the regional office by Thursday, October 
24, 2013. Comments may be mailed to the Eastern Regional Office, U.S. 
Commission on Civil Rights, 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue, Suite 1150, 
Washington, DC 20425, faxed to (202) 376-7548, or emailed to 
ero@usccr.gov. Persons who desire additional information may contact 
the Eastern Regional Office at 202-376-7533.

[[Page 55241]]

    Persons needing accessibility services should contact the Eastern 
Regional Office at least 10 working days before the scheduled date of 
the meeting.
    Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced 
at the Eastern Regional Office, as they become available, both before 
and after the meeting. Persons interested in the work of this advisory 
committee are advised to go to the Commission's Web site, 
www.usccr.gov, or to contact the Eastern Regional Office at the above 
phone number, email or street address.
    The meetings will be conducted pursuant to the provisions of the 
rules and regulations of the Commission and FACA.

    Dated: September 5, 2013.
David Mussatt,
Acting Chief, Regional Programs Coordination Unit.
[FR Doc. 2013-21967 Filed 9-9-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6335-01-P
```