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

                           CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
                                (18 U.S.C. 1350)

     In connection with the Annual Report of HST Global, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Ron Howell, Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350), that to 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: March 31, 2009

                                   \s\ Ron Howell
                                   --------------
                                   Ronald R. Howell
                                   Chief Executive Officer
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

 FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

 EASTERN DIVISION 

ELOI KOUEKASSAZO, 

 Plaintiff, 

 Case No.: 2:18-cv-61 

vs. JUDGE GEORGE C. SMITH 

 Magistrate Judge Jolson 

INTELLISOURCE, et al., 

 Defendants. 

 ORDER 

On February 2, 2018, the United States Magistrate Judge issued a Report and 

Recommendation granting Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis and on the intial 

screen, recommending dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims for failure to state a claim upon which 

relief may be granted. (See Report and Recommendation, Doc. 3). The parties were advised of 

their right to object to the Report and Recommendation and of the consequences of their failure 

to do so. The Court even gave Plaintiff additional time to file objections after the copy of the 

Report and Recommendation mailed to Plaintiff was returned as undeliverable. (See Doc. 5). 

There has nevertheless been no objection to the Report and Recommendation. 

 The Report and Recommendation is hereby ADOPTED and AFFIRMED. Plaintiff’s 

Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s claims are hereby DISMISSED

pursuant to Section 1915(e)(2) for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 

 
2 

The Clerk shall remove Document 3 from the Court’s pending motions list and terminate 

this case. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

/s/ George C. Smith__________________ 

GEORGE C. SMITH, JUDGE 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
----

Table ofContents

| Subsidiary Name                                                      |   | Jurisdiction of Incorporation or      Organization |   |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|----------------------------------------------------|--------|
|  Silicon      Image International LLC                           |   | Delaware                                           |   |
|  HDMI      Licensing, LLC                                       |   | Delaware                                           |   |
| Simplay      Labs, LLC                                               |   | Delaware                                           |   |
|  Silicon      Image, Cayman Islands Limited                     |   | Cayman      Islands                                |   |
|  Silicon      Image Electronics Technology (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. |   | China                                              |   |
| Silicon      Image Japan KK                                          |   | Japan                                              |   |
| Silicon      Image UK Limited                                        |   | United      Kingdom                                |   |
| Silicon      Image International B.V.                                |   | The      Netherlands                               |   |
| Silicon      Image Cooperatie U.A.                                   |   | The      Netherlands                               |   |
| Silicon      Image, GmbH                                             |   | Germany                                            |   |
| Silicon      Image Tasarim Merkezi Ticaret Limited                   |   | Turkey      **                                     |   |
| CMD      Technology Inc.                                             |   | California      *                                  |   |
| DVDO,      Inc.                                                      |   | California      *                                  |   |
| Zillion      Technologies, LLC                                       |   | California      *                                  |   |
| Fairview,      LLC                                                   |   | Delaware      *                                    |   |
| Slice      Acquisition Corp.                                         |   | Delaware      *                                    |   |
| TWN      Acquisition Corp.                                           |   | Delaware      *                                    |   |
| Serial      Port Memory Technology, LLC                              |   | Delaware                                           |   |

----
**Exhibit 31.2**

 

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER 

 

I, Jerry C. Young, as Chief Financial Officer of Da-Lite Screen Company, Inc., certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Da-Lite Screen Company, Inc.;

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement ofa material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary 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 report; 

 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this 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 report; 

 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: 

 

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensurethat material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; 

 

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controlsand procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and 

 

(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materiallyaffect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’sboard of directors: 

 

(a) All significant deficiencies andmaterial weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

 

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

 

Date: August 2, 2005
#### Home Mutual Fire Insurance Co. *v.*Walter Hagar et ux

5-4228

Opinion delivered May 29, 1967

*Peter G. Estes,*for appellant.

*Crouch, Blair*& *Cypert,*for appellee.

*694George Rose Smith, Justice.

This is an action by the appellees upon an extended-coverage insurance policy to recover $1,131.20 for hail damage to their dwelling house and trailer. The jury returned a $1,000 verdict for the plaintiffs.

The judgment must be reversed for error in the admission of evidence. The principal damage was to the aluminum siding on the house. Over the defendant’s objection the plaintiff was allowed to introduce a letter from an aluminum dealer in Missouri, stating that the damage could be repaired for $780. The author of the letter was not offered as a witness; so the letter was inadmissible, being hearsay evidence. *New Empire Ins. Co.*v. *Taylor,*235 Ark. 758, 362 S. W. 2d 4 (1962). It was unquestionably prejudicial, for the other estimates of damage did not amount to as much as the verdict.

The appellees argue that the appellant did not properly object to the letter. Counsel stated: “Note my exceptions and'objections, Your Honor, for the reason there is no proper foundation laid.” We think the objection as sufficient. .While counsel did not use the word “hearsay,” he did indicate his contention that the letter was not admissible without some foundation or identification, other than the plaintiff’s bare statement that it was an estimate from Southern Aluminum Discount Company. We used rather similar language in *Lynch*v. *Stephens,*179 Ark. 118, 14 S. W. 2d 257 (1929), where, in commenting upon the inadmissibility of a written statement apparently made by an engineer or a bookkeeper, we remarked: ‘ ‘ There is no explanation offered for the failure to put the engineer or the bookkeeper on the stand to testify, the only witnesses that could have testified about the amount of work done and the amount of money received.”

The only other asserted errors that might recur upon a new trial (appellant’s Points 1, 2, and 4) involve an interpretation of the application for the policy and the policy itself. Neither instrument is abstracted by the *695appellant; in fact, the policy .is' not even in the record. Hence we cannot review those assertions of error.

Reversed and remanded for a hew trial.
#### People v Klein,

No. 91061;

Court of Appeals No. 124442.
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 16 (Tuesday, January 25, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3830-3831]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-01364]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of 
Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which

[[Page 3831]]

would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious 
Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; Emergency Awards: Antiviral Drug 
Discovery (AViDD) Centers for Pathogens of Pandemic Concern (U19 
Clinical Trials Not Allowed).
    Date: February 9-17, 2022.
    Time: 10:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, 
National Institutes of Health, 5601 Fishers Lane, Room 3E70A, 
Rockville, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).
    Contact Person: Soheyla Saadi, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, 
Scientific Review Program, Division of Extramural Activities, 
National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National 
Institutes of Health, 5601 Fishers Lane, Room 3E70A, Rockville, MD 
20852, 301-435-0903, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#44372525202d372b2c042a2d252d206a2a2d2c6a232b32"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="4e3d2f2f2a273d21260e20272f272a6020272660292138">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, 
Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, 
Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes 
of Health, HHS)

    Dated: January 19, 2022.
Tyeshia M. Roberson-Curtis,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2022-01364 Filed 1-24-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
EXHIBIT 32.1

 

CERTIFICATION OF CEO AND CFO PURSUANT TO 

18 U.S.C. ss. 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

ss. 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB Reliant Home Warranty Corporation (the Company) for the six months period ended June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Jules Loeb, President of the Company, herby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of his/her knowledge, 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.

 

| By: | /s/ Jules Loeb |
|-----|----------------|

|   | ------------------------------------- |
|--------|---------------------------------------|

|   | Jules Loeb |
|--------|------------|

|   | President |
|--------|-----------|

 

|   | Aug 19, 2007 |
|--------|--------------|

 

This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to ss. 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 ss. 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

Cheryl L. Helber,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 2:18-cv-502

Commissioner of

Social Security,

Defendant.

ORDER

This matter is before the court for consideration of the March

11, 2019, report and recommendation of the United States magistrate

judge to whom this case was referred pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b). 

The magistrate judge concluded that the administrative law judge

did not adequately explain the weight given to the expert opinions

concerning plaintiff’s mental impairments. The magistrate judge

recommended that the Commissioner’s non-disability finding be

reversed, and that this case be remanded to the Commissioner and

the administrative law judge pursuant to 42 U.S.C.§405(g), sentence

four, for further proceedings.

The report and recommendation specifically advised the parties

that failure to object to the report and recommendation within

fourteen days of the report “will result in a waiver of the right

to have the district judge review the Report and Recommendation de

novo” and a “waiver of the right to appeal the decision of the

District Court adopting the Report and Recommendation.” Doc. 12,

p. 11. The time period for filing objections to the report and

recommendation has expired, and no party has objected to the report

and recommendation.
The court adopts the report and recommendation of the

magistrate judge (Doc. 12). The decision of the Commissioner is

reversed, and this case is remanded to the Commissioner and the

administrative law judge under 42 U.S.C. §405(g), sentence four,

for further proceedings consistent with the report and

recommendation. The clerk shall enter judgment remanding this case

to the Commissioner.

Date: March 27, 2019 s/James L. Graham 

 James L. Graham

 United States District Judge 

2
#### Donald WATTS v. Charles E. REYNOLDS and Helen I. REYNOLDS

692 S.W.2d 247

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Opinion delivered July 8, 1985

*426*Orvin W. Foster,*for appellant.

*Joe H. Hardegree,*for appellees.

Per Curiam.

A chancery decree was entered in this case on August 2,1984. A motion for new trial was filed August 8,1984. An order overruling the new trial motion was filed January 25, 1985. Notice of appeal was filed February 5, 1985. On May 29, 1985, the chancellor ordered his docket “completed and supplemented” to show he took the new trial motion under advisement on August 9, 1984.

Ark. R. App. P. 4(c) permits the time for filing a notice of appeal to be extended by filing a new trial motion. The thirty-day period for filing a notice of appeal runs from the expiration of thirty days after the motion is filed unless the motion is set for hearing or taken under advisement within thirty days after it is filed.

To comply with the requirement of Ark. R. App. P. 4(c), a written record of setting a hearing or taking the motion under advisement must have been made within thirty days of the filing of the new trial motion. See our per curiam order of this date in the case of *Brittenum & Assoc.*v. *Mayall.*This case is distinguishable from *Brittenum & Assoc.*v. *Mayall*because there the reconstruction of the record shows a written record of the setting of a hearing date did occur within the thirty-day period.

Motion for rule on the clerk denied.

Dudley, J., not participating.
|   | (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/              David F. Hakala                                                                                                                                               |
|        |   |   | David                F. HakalaActing                Chief Executive Officer, Chief                Operating Officer, Principal                Financial and Accounting Officer |
|        |   |   |                                                                                                                                                                                |

----
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

United States of America

v. 2:18-cr-25

Brandon T. Crawford 

ORDER

There being no objections, the court hereby adopts the Report

and Recommendation of the magistrate judge (Doc. 36) that the

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

defendant’s plea of guilty to Count 1 of the information, and he is

hereby adjudged guilty on that count. The court will defer the

decision of whether to accept the plea agreement until the

sentencing hearing.

Date: March 2, 2018 s\James L. Graham 

 James L. Graham

 United States District Judge
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997             DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1997             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997             JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                       1,103,630                       0
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,885                       0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,105,515                       0
<PP&E>                                      61,100,449                       0
<DEPRECIATION>                              21,592,683                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              40,613,281                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,105,515                       0
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                             0                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                  39,507,766                       0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                40,613,281                       0
<SALES>                                      3,252,445               6,367,035
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,257,610               6,376,550
<CGS>                                                0                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0                       0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                40,971                  90,376
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              3,216,639               6,286,174
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          3,216,639               6,286,174
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                 3,216,639               6,286,174
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     .536                   1.048
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     .536                   1.048
        

</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff, Case No. 3:17-CR-183
Judge Walter H. Rice
v. Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz
ROBERT A. STROUD,
Defendant.
OPINION AND ORDER

On January 22, 2018, United States Probation Officer (“U.S.P.O.”) Kevin Glover was
served a Subpoena to Produce Documents, Information, or Objects in a Criminal Case. The
Subpoena specifically requests “Robert A. Stroud’s probation check in dates and times from
August 1, 2016 through October 31, 2016 in case No. 1:09-cr-0004.” See S. D. Ohio Crim. R.
32.3. Because this request does not elicit confidential information, Court DIRECTS the

U.S.P.O. Glover to provide only Mr. Stroud’s probation check in dates and times from August 1,

2016 through October 31, 2016 in case No. 1:09-cr-0004.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
10-2 ~2018 LX
DATE ED A. SARGUS, JR.

CHIE ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE