alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 32.1


                                  CERTIFICATION


Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted), Joseph Y. Liu, Chief Executive Officer of Oplink
Communications, 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 June 30, 2004,
to which this Certification is attached as Exhibit 32.1 (the "ANNUAL REPORT")
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

2. The information contained in the Annual Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition at the end of the period covered by
the Annual Report and results of operations of the Company for the periods
covered by the Annual Report.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has set his hands hereto as of the 10th day
of September, 2004.


/s/ Joseph Y. Liu
---------------------------------------------
Joseph Y. Liu
Chief Executive Officer

This certification accompanies the Form 10-K to which it relates, is not deemed
filed with the SEC and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of
the Company under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date of the
Form 10-K), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such
filing.
#### Sawyer *v.*Southwest Pennsylvania Pipe Lines, Appellant.

October 7, 1907 :

Argued May 10, 1907.

Appeal, No. 185, April T., 1907, by defendant, from decree of C. P. No. 1, Allegheny Co., Sept. T., 1906, No. 750, oh bill in equity in case of John H. Sawyer v. The Southwest Pennsylvania Pipe-Lines.

Before Rice, P. J., Henderson, Orlady and Beaver, JJ.

Affirmed.

Opinion by

Rice, P. J.,

For the reasons given in case of Henry A. Davis against this defendant, ante, p. 438, the decree is affirmed at the costs of the appellant; the period of stay therein mentioned to be computed from the date of the decree of this court.
S. 2959 

One Hundred Seventeenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE SECOND SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Monday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and twenty two 

An Act 

To provide that, due to the disruptions caused by COVID–19, applications for 

impact aid funding for fiscal year 2023 may use certain data submitted in the 

fiscal year 2022 application. 

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 ‘‘Supplemental Impact Aid Flexibility Act’’. 

SEC. 2. IMPACT AID PROGRAM. 

Due to the public health emergency directly relating to COVID– 

19 and notwithstanding sections 7002(j) and 7003(c) of the 

Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7702(j), 

7703(c)), a local educational agency desiring to receive a payment 

under section 7002 or 7003 of such Act (20 U.S.C. 7702, 7703) 

for fiscal year 2023 that also submitted an application for such 

payment for fiscal year 2022 shall, in the application submitted 

under section 7005 of such Act (20 U.S.C. 7705) for fiscal year 

2023— 

(1) with respect to a requested payment under section 

7002 of such Act— 

(A) use the data described in section 7002(j) of such 

Act relating to calculating such payment that was submitted by the local educational agency in the application 

for fiscal year 2022; or 

(B) use the data relating to calculating such payment 

for the fiscal year required under section 7002(j) of such 

Act; and 

(2) with respect to a requested payment under section 

7003 of such Act— 

(A) use the student count data relating to calculating 

such payment that was submitted by the local educational 

agency in the application for fiscal year 2022, provided 

that payments for fiscal year 2023 shall be calculated by 

the Secretary using the expenditures and rates described 

in clauses (i), (ii), (iii), and (iv) of section 7003(b)(1)(C) 

of such Act that would otherwise apply for fiscal year 

2023; or 
S. 2959—2 

(B) use the student count data relating to calculating 

such payment for the fiscal year required under section 

7003(c) of such Act. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3057 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 3057

 To amend title 18, United States Code, to enhance criminal penalties 
          for health related stalking, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 25, 2021

 Ms. Klobuchar (for herself, Ms. Hirono, Mrs. Feinstein, Mrs. Shaheen, 
Ms. Smith, and Mr. Blumenthal) introduced the following bill; which was 
       read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title 18, United States Code, to enhance criminal penalties 
          for health related stalking, 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 ``Preventing Vigilante Stalking Act of 
2021''.

SEC. 2. OBTAINING OR INTERFERING WITH THE PERSONAL HEALTHCARE DECISIONS 
              OF A WOMAN.

    (a) In General.--Chapter 110A of title 18, United States Code, is 
amended by inserting after section 2261B the following:
``Sec. 2261C. Enhanced penalty for health related stalking
    ``If a person commits an offense under section 2261A with the 
intent to obtain healthcare information of an individual or to prevent 
the healthcare decisions of an individual, the person may be imprisoned 
for up to 3 years, in addition to any term of imprisonment imposed for 
that offense under section 2261A.''.
    (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for chapter 110A of 
title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item 
relating to section 2261B the following:

``2261C. Enhanced penalty for health related stalking.''.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 99.2



CERTIFICATION OF CFO 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
Tumbleweed Communications Corp. (the Company) for the period ended December 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), Gregory M. Capitolo, as Senior Vice
PresidentFinance and Chief Financial Office 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, to the best of his knowledge, that:



(1)    the Report fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) 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.



|/s/    GREGORY M. CAPITOLOGregory M. Capitolo Senior Vice PresidentFinance and Chief Financial Officer  June 4, 2003
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



This certification
accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1263

JUAN R. CERVANTES,

Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

BRIDGEFIELD CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendant - Appellee.

No. 16-1324

JUAN R. CERVANTES,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

BRIDGEFIELD CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Middle 

District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Joe L. Webster, 

Magistrate Judge. (1:15-cv-00081-JLW)

Submitted: November 29, 2016 Decided: December 6, 2016

Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
2

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

J. David Stradley, WHITE & STRADLEY, PLLC, Raleigh, North 

Carolina; Brian M. Ricci, RICCI LAW FIRM, PA, Greenville, North 

Carolina, for Appellant/Cross-Appellee. Jessica C. Tyndall, 

MCANGUS, GOUDELOCK & COURIE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for 

Appellee/Cross-Appellant.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3

PER CURIAM:

Juan R. Cervantes appeals the district court’s order 

dismissing his complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction 

under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), and Bridgefield Casualty 

Insurance Company (“Bridgefield”) cross-appeals from the 

district court’s orders denying Bridgefield’s motions to stay 

discovery and for a protective order, and granting, in part, 

Cervantes’ motions to compel and for sanctions. With respect to 

Cervantes’ appeal, we have reviewed the record and find no 

reversible error. We agree with the district court that 

“persuasive data” does not exist convincing us that the North 

Carolina Supreme Court would disagree with the decisions of the 

North Carolina Court of Appeals relied on by the district court. 

See Assicurazioni Generali, S.p.A. v. Neil, 160 F.3d 997, 

1002-03 (4th Cir. 1998). Accordingly, we affirm the dismissal 

of Cervantes’ complaint substantially for the reasons stated by 

the district court. Cervantes v. Bridgefield Cas. Ins. Co., No. 

1:15-cv-00081-JLW (M.D.N.C. Feb. 11, 2016). Because we affirm 

the district court’s dismissal of Cervantes’ complaint, we 

dismiss Bridgefield’s cross-appeal as moot. We dispense with 

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                      29,539,103
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               13,806,513
<ALLOWANCES>                                   365,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            45,337,800
<PP&E>                                       9,548,855
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,079,467
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             101,636,027
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        8,898,272
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    80,248,636
<OTHER-SE>                                   9,085,708
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               101,636,027
<SALES>                                     85,283,668
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            85,283,668
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            72,552,325
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               286,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             591,382
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             11,853,961
<INCOME-TAX>                                 4,780,037
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          7,073,924
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 7,073,924
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .59
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .57



</TABLE>
~F ID:A58750 

- BUNROENT!Al • 

11 September 1951 

MEMORANDUM FOR AFSA-03 

SUBJECT: Low Echelon Cipher Machine 

Reference: OO'r's Memo to 03 tbru 04, dtd 29 Aug 51 

1. AFSA-04 agrees that the AFSAM 36 does not appear to be the ideal 

equipment for providing security for the communications of low echelens 

and that the development -of the DEM 17 should be expedited by all possible 

mea.ns. 

2. A comprehensive security evaluation of the modified M-209 has 

not been possible, since the model submitted by Mr. Hagelin possesses a 

number of engineering deficiencies which make it difficult to operate 

the machine in a dependable fashion. It would appear, however, from 

studies which have been made, that· -there may be security weaknesses in 

the sample model of the modified M-209 which might require modification 

of the cryptoprinciples. The lack of dependability of the model on hand 

does not permit a proper comparison of the operational facility of the 

modified M-209 with the AFSAM 36. · 

3. It would appear necessary, before making any decisions about 

possible research and. development on Hagelin's modification, to ebtain 

an Operationally dependable model on which can be carried out a complete 

security evaluation. 

4. Should the security evaluation prove that the medification does 

represent sufficient improvement, then AFSA-04 agrees ·that the development 

of a.n all-mechanical machine embodying the modified M-209 (Ha.gelin) action 

would provide some insure.nee against failure of both the AFSAM 36 and the 

DEM 17 projects to provide a satisfactory solution to the low echelon 

problem. It is therefore recommended that an effort be made to get from 

Mr. Hagelin, as soon as possible, a satisfactory model of his new design 

in order to permit a decision regarding the.desirability of establishing 

a research and. development project. 

CC: 

OOT 

eclassifi ed and approved for release by NSA on 06-16-2014 pursuant to 

.0. 13526 

CONFIDENTIAL
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Petitioner

v.

BRIAN WAYNE CARPER,

Respondent

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 425 WAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 17th day of April, 2018, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
NO. 03

- 15

- 002 89

- CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE
THIRD SUPREME JUDICIAL DISTRICT AT AUSTIN, TEXAS

RAFAEL HERNANDEZ

- PRADO
, Appellant

vs.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Appeal from the 33rd Judicial District Court
Cause No. 9767

Burnet County, Texas

The Honorable J. Allan Garrett , Judge Presiding

APPELLANT'S SECOND MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

Gary E. Prust
State Bar No. 24056166
1607 Nueces Street Austin, Texas 78701 (512) 469

- 0092 Fax: (512) 469

- 9102

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ACCEPTED
03-15-00289-CR
8210662 THIRD COURT OF APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS
12/11/2015 7:49:54 PM
JEFFREY D. KYLE

CLERKORAL ARGUMENT IS NOT REQUESTED

APPELLANT’S SECOND MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME
TO FILE BRIEF

Appellant, Rafael Harnandez

- Prado , file s this, his “ Second Motion for

Extension of Time to File Brief,” and in support thereof shows as follows.

I.

1. Appellant's Motion is brought pursuant to TEX.R.APP.P 10.5(b).

2. Appellant has once requested previously an extensi on of time within which

to file his brief.

3. Appel l ant's brief is due on December 14 , 2015

.

4. Appellant's attorney had a very busy trial schedule in November and into

December 2015

. Counsel also had a busy appellate schedule during this time,

including two additional briefs due the same day the brief in this cause is due

.

5. Appellant had completed and will timely file the brief in a closely related

case to this one, cause no. 03

- 15

- 00290

- CR. However, i n order to address the

issues raised in the present appeal thoroughly, Appella nt's attorney will require

more time to complete his brief

. Appellant’s attorney will require until January 15,

2016 to complete his brief

.

6. Accordingly, Appellant request s that this Court allow him until January 15,

2016 to file his brief.Respectfully submitted,

Gary E. Prust
SBN 24056166
1607 Nueces Street Austin, Texas 78701 (512) 469

- 0092 Fax: (512) 469

- 9102 gary@prustlaw.com Attorney for Appellant

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

In compliance with Rule 9.5(d) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, the undersigned attorney certifies that a true and correct copy of the foregoing
Motion was served Mr. Gary Bunyard of the 33 rd and 424 th District Attorney’s
Office via electronic se rvice through efile.txcourts.gov on this 11th day of December, 201 5

.

Gary E. PrustCERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE

In compliance with Rule 10.1(a)(5) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, the undersigned attorney certifies he conferred with the 33rd and 424th District Attorney’s Office via email communication concerning this motion on the
11th day of December , 2015.

Gary E. Prust

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

Pursuant to T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 9.4(i )(3), I hereby certify this brief contains 170 words. This is a computer

- generated document created in Microsoft word, using

14

- point typeface. In making this this certificate, I rely on the word county provided by the software use to prepare the document.

Gary E. Prust
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Abraham Raymundo Martinez v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01-16-00714-CR

Trial court case number: 1467161

Trial court: 208th District Court of Harris County

On October 13 2016, we issued an order, abating the appeal and remanding to the trial 

court to hold a hearing and enter findings concerning the certification of defendant’s right to 

appeal. A supplemental clerk’s record was filed on December 5, 2016, containing the trial 

court’s certification that this is not a plea-bargain case and the defendant has the right to appeal. 

Accordingly, we lift the abatement and reinstate the appeal on the active docket. 

Appellant’s brief and the State’s waiver have been filed. The pro se response is due on 

December 29, 2016. 

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Harvey Brown

 Acting individually 

Date: December 8, 2016
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1


                        CERTIFICATION OF CEO 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/A of Panavision Inc. (the
"Company") for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Robert
L. Beitcher, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. (ss.)1350, as adopted pursuant to (ss.)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.


/S/ ROBERT L. BEITCHER
-----------------------------------------------
Name: Robert L. Beitcher
Title: President and Chief Executive Officer
Date:  April 22, 2004
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

 FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

DONALD R. LEGRANDE,

Appellant,

v. Case No. 5D16-1606

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

________________________________/

Opinion filed December 9, 2016

3.850 Appeal from the Circuit Court 

for Orange County,

Keith A. Carsten, Judge.

Donald R. Legrande, Lowell, pro se.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, 

Tallahassee, and Kaylee D. Tatman, 

Assistant Attorney General, Daytona 

Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Donald R. LeGrande appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconviction 

relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We affirm as to Grounds 

One, Four, and Five. However, because the record does not conclusively refute 

LeGrande’s claim that counsel was ineffective for failing to file a motion for new trial and 

failing to request a limiting jury instruction indicating that the “principals” instruction did 
2

not apply to conspiracy, we reverse the summary denial of Grounds Two and Three and 

remand for attachment of portions of the record conclusively refuting those claims or for 

an evidentiary hearing. See Freeman v. State, 761 So. 2d 1055, 1061 (Fla. 2000) (“[A] 

defendant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on a postconviction relief motion unless (1) 

the motion, files, and records in the case conclusively show that the prisoner is entitled to 

no relief, or (2) the motion or a particular claim is legally insufficient.” (citing Maharaj v. 

State, 684 So. 2d 726 (Fla. 1996))). As two of LeGrande’s claims require reversal for 

attachment of the record or evidentiary hearing, we also remand Ground Six, which 

alleges cumulative error, for further consideration.

AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED.

PALMER, TORPY and BERGER, JJ., concur.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

October 28, 2015

d1019 

# Order

Clerk October 28, 2015

148794

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 148794

COA: 318881

Clinton CC: 12

- 009012

- FC

JAMES DUANE YANNA,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

By order of July 29, 2014, the application for leave to appeal the January 22, 2014

order of the Court of Appeals was held in abeyance pending th e decision in People v

Lockridge (Docket No. 149073). On order of the Court, the case having been decided on

July 29, 2015, 498 Mich 358 (2015), the application is again considered. Pursuant to

MCR 7.305(H)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we REM AND this case to the

Clinton Circuit Court to determine whether the court would have imposed a materially

different sentence under the sentencing procedure described in Lockridge . On remand,

the trial court shall follow the procedure described in Part VI of our opinion. If the trial

court determines that it would have imposed the same sentence absent the

unconstitutional constraint on its discretion, it may reaffirm the original sentence. If,

however, the trial court determines that it would not have imp osed the same sentence

absent the unconstitutional constraint on its discretion, it shall resentence the defendant.

In all other respects, leave to appeal is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the

remaining question presented should be reviewed by this Court.

We do not retain jurisdiction.