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 Data Systems & Software Inc. (the
"Company")  on Form 10-Q for the three and six month periods ended June 30, 2003
as filed with the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission  on the date hereof (the
"Report"),  I, Yacov Kaufman,  Chief Financial Officer of the Company,  certify,
pursuant  to 18  U.S.C.  ss.  1350,  as  adopted  pursuant  to  ss.  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.

/s/ YACOV KAUFMAN
----------------------------
Yacov Kaufman
Chief Financial Officer
August 14, 2003
SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

I947A 

default judgment, which was denied by the district court. These appeals 

followed.' 

The district court has broad discretion in deciding whether to 

grant or deny an NRCP 60(b) motion to set aside a judgment, and this 

court will not disturb that decision absent an abuse of discretion. Cook v. 

Cook, 112 •Nev. 179, 181-82, 912 P.2d 264, 265 (1996); see also NC-DSH, 

Inc. v. Garner, 125 Nev. 647, 657-58, 218 P.3d 853, 861 (2009) (specifying 

that this court reviews a district court's denial of NRCP 60(b) relief for an 

abuse of discretion). Having reviewed the parties' briefs and appendices, 

we perceive no abuse of discretion in the district court's denial of 

appellant's NRCP 60(b) motion. The district court found that appellant 

failed to promptly move to set aside the default judgment, he did not show 

that he lacked intent to delay by failing to respond to the discovery 

requests and motions in the case, and he demonstrated inexcusable 

neglect by willfully failing to respond to or participate in the action. See 

Kahne v. Orme, 108 Nev. 510, 513-516, 835 P.2d 790, 792-94 (1992) 

(setting forth the factors a district court must consider in deciding an 

NRCP 60(b) motion), overruled in part by Epstein v. Epstein, 114 Nev. 

1401, 950 P.2d 771 (1997). Accordingly, we affirm the district court's 

denial of appellant's NRCP 60(b) motion. 

We further conclude that the district court did not abuse its 

discretion in awarding attorney fees and costs to respondent. Although 

NRS 598.0999(2) addresses public causes of action, NRS 41.600 provides 

for a private cause of action for deceptive trade practices under NRS 

'We elect to consolidate these appeals for disposition. See NRAP 

3(b). 

2 
Gibboffs 

J. 

Pickering 

598.0915 to NRS 598.0925 and mandates the award of attorney fees and 

costs to the claimant if they are the prevailing party. We further conclude 

that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding respondent's 

counsel's hourly rate reasonable. See Gunderson v. D.R. Horton, Inc., 130 

Nev., Adv. Op. 9, 319 P.3d 606, 615 (2014) (stating that this court reviews 

an award or denial of attorney fees and costs for an abuse of discretion); 

Brunzell v. Golden Gate Nat'l Bank, 85 Nev. 345, 349-50, 455 P.2d 31, 33 

(1969). Accordingly, we perceive no abuse of discretion in the district 

court's decision and affirm its award of attorney fees and costs. 

It is so ORDERED. 

C-5ithesJ. 

Saitta 

cc: Hon. James Todd Russell, District Judge 

David Wasick, Settlement Judge 

Kaempfer Crowell/Carson City 

Kaempfer Crowell/Reno 

Watson Rounds 

Carson City Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

10) 1947A eo 

3
Case: 3:17-mj-00395-MJN Doc #: 7 Filed: 08/30/17 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: 25
Exhibit 31.2



I, Mark E. Ties, certify that:



|1. |  | I have reviewed this annual report of Velocity Express Corporation;
|-- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. |  | Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements made,
in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this annual report;
|-- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|3. |  | Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,
results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report.
|-- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Dated: July 28, 2003



/S/    MARK E.
TIESMark E. Ties Chief Financial Officer




1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0001003130
<NAME> LCA-VISION INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                              JAN-1-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                             802
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,490
<ALLOWANCES>                                       207
<INVENTORY>                                        606
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 4,190
<PP&E>                                          11,463
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,818
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  13,983
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,931
<BONDS>                                          5,057
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            78
<OTHER-SE>                                       1,703
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    13,983
<SALES>                                            147
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                10,455
<CGS>                                              163
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    5,030
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 7,990
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 541
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,525)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        43
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,568)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.13)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.13)


</TABLE>
Exhibit 10.1


 


Fiscal Year 2016 Executive Annual Cash Incentive Plan of Hutchinson
Technology Incorporated


 


Our board of directors has adopted an annual cash incentive plan
for fiscal year 2016 for company executives, including its named executive officers. The plan is designed to create an incentive
for these executives to achieve goals that our board of directors believes align with the short- and long-term interests of our
shareholders. The plan incorporates company financial and operational measures.


 


Each participant in the plan is eligible for a target cash incentive
opportunity equal to a specified percentage of his or her respective base salary. Achievement of the threshold performance level
for a particular goal is required before a participant is eligible to receive a payout for that goal. Performance at the threshold
level results in a payout of 50% of the applicable target amount, performance at or above the maximum level results in a payout
of 200% of the target amount, and performance between threshold and target levels or between target and maximum levels will result
in a pro rata payout.


 


For fiscal year 2016, a portion of each participant’s annual
cash incentive opportunity is based on achievement of three company financial goals: (i) annual revenue related to the company’s
suspension products business, (ii) annual revenue unrelated to the company’s suspension products, and (iii) the level of the company’s profitability (measured by operating income) during the course of fiscal year 2016.


 


The remaining portion of each participant’s annual cash incentive
opportunity for fiscal year 2016 is based on achievement of one company operational goal involving average cost per suspension
assembly produced.


 


The total payout under the plan to any participant will be capped
at the target level payout if the company does not report positive earnings before taxes for the full fiscal year.


 


The decision to make cash incentive payments and on payment amounts
are made annually, and payments are made in cash in the first quarter of the following fiscal year.  The compensation committee
retains authority to adjust performance goals to exclude the impact of charges, gains or other factors that the compensation committee
believes are not representative of the underlying financial or operational performance of our company.
#### Velez v Ford Motor Company,

No. 90890;

Court of Appeals No. 132643.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4445 Engrossed in House (EH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4445

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
   To amend Public Law 95-232 to repeal a restriction on treating as 
 Indian country certain lands held in trust for Indian pueblos in New 
                                Mexico.

    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 ``Indian Pueblo Cultural Center 
Clarification Act''.

SEC. 2. REPEAL OF RESTRICTION ON TREATING AS INDIAN COUNTRY CERTAIN 
              LANDS HELD IN TRUST FOR INDIAN PUEBLOS IN NEW MEXICO.

    Public Law 95-232 is amended in the first section in subsection (b) 
by striking ``However, such property shall not be `Indian country' as 
defined in section 1151 of title 18, United States Code.''.

SEC. 3. PROHIBITION ON GAMING.

    Public Law 95-232 is amended in the first section by adding at the 
end the following:
    ``(e) Prohibition on Gaming.--Gaming, as defined and regulated by 
the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.), shall be 
prohibited on land held in trust pursuant to subsection (b).''.

            Passed the House of Representatives June 30, 2010.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
111th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 4445

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

   To amend Public Law 95-232 to repeal a restriction on treating as 
 Indian country certain lands held in trust for Indian pueblos in New 
                                Mexico.
```
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION

ANTUAN BURRESS-EL,

Case No. 1:18-cv-40

Plaintiff, Barrett, J.

Bowman, M.J.

v. 

HAMILTON COUNTY JUVENILE COURTS,

Defendant.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

On January 19, 2018, Plaintiff Antuan Burress-El1filed an unsigned motion 

seeking leave to file a fourth complaint in this Court in forma pauperis, or without payment 

of fees. (Doc. 1). The sole Defendant was identified as the Hamilton County Juvenile 

Courts. On January 26, 2018, the undersigned filed a Report and Recommendation 

(“R&R”) that recommended that Plaintiff’s compliant be dismissed with prejudice, 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), for failure to state any claim. (Docs. 2, 4). That 

R&R remains pending before the presiding district judge.

On April 24, 2018, Plaintiff filed three additional motions, all of which seek the entry 

of default judgment against the Defendant. In light of the pending R&R to dismiss this 

case with prejudice, and because there is no legal or factual basis to support the entry of 

 

1The same Plaintiff appears to have filed three prior lawsuits in this Court, all of which have been dismissed 

at the screening level, including Case No. 1:17-cv-866-TSB-KLL. Two additional lawsuits were filed in 2014 

under the name Antuan L. Burress (with the same address and what appears to be the same signature, 

other than the absence of the “El” portion of his current surname). See Case Nos. 1:14-cv-390, 1:14-cv391.

Case: 1:18-cv-00040-MRB-SKB Doc #: 15 Filed: 12/18/18 Page: 1 of 3 PAGEID #: 73
2

default judgment, IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT Plaintiff’s three motions seeking entry of 

default judgment (Docs. 12, 13, 14) be DENIED.

 

 s/ Stephanie K. Bowman 

Stephanie K. Bowman 

United States Magistrate Judge

Case: 1:18-cv-00040-MRB-SKB Doc #: 15 Filed: 12/18/18 Page: 2 of 3 PAGEID #: 74
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION

ANTUAN BURRESS-EL,

Case No. 1:18-cv-40

Plaintiff, Barrett, J.

Bowman, M.J.

v. 

HAMILTON COUNTY JUVENILE COURTS,

Defendant.

NOTICE

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P 72(b), any party may serve and file specific, written 

objections to this Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) within FOURTEEN (14) DAYS of 

the filing date of this R&R. That period may be extended further by the Court on timely 

motion by either side for an extension of time. All objections shall specify the portion(s) of 

the R&R objected to, and shall be accompanied by a memorandum of law in support of 

the objections. A party shall respond to an opponent’s objections within FOURTEEN (14) 

DAYS after being served with a copy of those objections. Failure to make objections in 

accordance with this procedure may forfeit rights on appeal. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 

140 (1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981).

Case: 1:18-cv-00040-MRB-SKB Doc #: 15 Filed: 12/18/18 Page: 3 of 3 PAGEID #: 75
## FOURTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS INFORMATION SHEET BY COURT REPORTERS


### You are expected tofile the reporter's record by 

### the original due date. See Tex. R. App. P.35. 

## If
a reporter determines that the due date may not be met, please advise the Clerk of the Court of Appeals immediately in writing, stating the reason and the due date by which the record will be filed Generally speaking, for good cause shown, the Court will grant no more than two extensionsfrom the original record due date, each extension not to exceed 30 days in regular appeals and 10 days in accelerated appealsfor a totalperiod not to exceed 60 days in regular appeals and20 days in acceleratedappeals. Appellate Case Number:\

# 't

.. l

# 5""

...000 \S-CAtTrial Court Case Number: 

## 2o)**~-** 0

## ~~

## c; 

# 1 :f I 

# 11!2 Is there a Reporter's Record? 

# I\IJY 

# I IN I

(2) Are you the only court reporter involved in this appeal? If not, please provide the names and addresses ofall other court reporters below.

(3) Has the appellant requested that the reporter's record be prepared or has the trial court ordered that the record be re ared? (4) Please select from the following options: A. The appellant has paid for the record. B. The appellant has made arrangements to pay for the record C. The appellant is appealing as indigent. D. The appellant has not paid or made arrangements to pay for the record and is not appealing as indigent. (5) Extension {fill out ifextension is required for anroeason other than payment) I was unable to file the record in this appeal by 

# ::nl6?/J5"". I expect the record in Jhis appeal to be approximately

### ~JO-t pages. The recwd

### ~overs

### ___,f:J~_days oftestimony. I believe that I can file the record by 

# c.ftZ..1f(!J. I ask that the court grant an extension until that time for filing the record. Additional Comments:



# -------------------------------------

Court Reporter's Signature, Full Address, Email Address and Telephone Number:

# ~ , /zoo

# ~s

# 1 7f!L Ftm 1 

# I@., 

# TX 11arz. f!A,rA..**~fqnnir** @

# ~jf**.~** 

# ]t?-

# Zov L/467P
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 10 (Friday, January 14, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 2413]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-00632]



[[Page 2413]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

[B-66-2021]


Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 84--Houston, Texas; Authorization of 
Production Activity; Mitsubishi Logisnext Americas (Houston) Inc. 
(Forklifts/Work Trucks and Related Subassemblies/Kits); Houston, Texas

    On September 10, 2021, Mitsubishi Logisnext Americas (Houston) 
Inc., submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the 
FTZ Board for its facility within FTZ 84, in Houston, Texas.
    The notification was processed in accordance with the regulations 
of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400), including notice in the Federal 
Register inviting public comment (86 FR 53945, September 29, 2021). On 
January 10, 2022, the applicant was notified of the FTZ Board's 
decision that no further review of the activity is warranted at this 
time. The production activity described in the notification was 
authorized, subject to the FTZ Act and the FTZ Board's regulations, 
including Section 400.14.

    Dated: January 10, 2022.
Andrew McGilvray,
Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-00632 Filed 1-13-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4453 

To require the President to revoke Executive Order 13524 and restore the 

words removed by that Order. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 13, 2010 

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan (for himself, Mr. BUCHANAN, Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN, 

and Mr. MARCHANT) introduced the following bill; which was referred to 

the Committee on Foreign Affairs 

A BILL 

To require the President to revoke Executive Order 13524 

and restore the words removed by that Order. 

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 ‘‘INTERPOL Immuni5 ties Oversight Act of 2010’’. 

6 SEC. 2. DUTY TO REVOKE EXECUTIVE ORDER 13524 AND RE7 STORE THE WORDS REMOVED BY THAT 

8 ORDER. 

9 (a) IN GENERAL.—The President shall— 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4453 IH

1 (1) revoke Executive Order 13524 (74 Fed. 

2 Reg. 67803); and 

3 (2) amend Executive Order 12425 (48 Fed. 

4 Reg. 28069) so as to restore the words removed by 

5 Executive Order 13524. 

6 (b) TIMING.—The President shall comply with sub7 section (a) by no later than 7 days after the date of the 

8 enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
Case: 1:17-cv-00615-SJD Doc #: 9 Filed: 11/30/17 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: 56
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

United States of America

v. 2:17-cr-54-1

Za Darrick J. Brooks 

ORDER

There being no objections, the court hereby adopts the Report

and Recommendation of the magistrate judge (Doc. 139) that the

defendant’s guilty pleas be accepted. The court accepts the

defendant’s pleas of guilty to Counts 1 and 5 of the superseding

indictment, and he is hereby adjudged guilty on those counts. The

court will defer the decision of whether to accept the plea

agreement until the sentencing hearing.

Date: January 26, 2018 s\James L. Graham 

 James L. Graham

 United States District Judge
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4366 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 4366

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the deduction for 
             qualified motor vehicle taxes for motor homes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           December 16, 2009

   Mr. Donnelly of Indiana introduced the following bill; which was 
              referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the deduction for 
             qualified motor vehicle taxes for motor homes.

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

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF DEDUCTION FOR QUALIFIED MOTOR VEHICLE TAXES.

    (a) In General.--Subparagraph (G) of section 164(b)(6) of the 
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by inserting ``(December 31, 
2010, in the case of a motor home)'' after ``December 31, 2009''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
apply to purchases after December 31, 2009, in tax years ending after 
such date.
                                 <all>
```