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



ANGIOGENEX, INC.



SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATIONS



In connection with the periodic Report of ANGIOGENEX, INC., a Nevada corporation (the Company), on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, RichardSalvador, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, that to the best of my knowledge:



(1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 at the dates and for the periods indicated.



This Certification has not been, and shall not be deemed, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.



Date: April 10, 2009

| |                  |                     
| | ---------------- | --------------------
| |                  |                     
| |                 
| | By:              | /s/ Richard Salvador
| | Richard Salvador
| |                 



In connection with the periodic Report of ANGIOGENEX, INC., a Nevada corporation (the Company), on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Martin Murray, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, that to the best of my knowledge:



(1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 at the dates and for the periods indicated.



This Certification has not been, and shall not be deemed, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.



Date: April 10, 2009

| |               |                  
| | ------------- | -----------------
| |               |                  
| |              
| | By:           | /s/ Martin Murray
| | Martin Murray
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Keith Robinson, Also Known as Keith Roberts, Appellant.

[770 NYS2d 618]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Arlene Silver-man, J.), rendered March 22, 2001, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of burglary in the second degree, and sentencing him to a term of six years, unanimously affirmed.

Although the court’s participation in examining witnesses was extensive, it was within reasonable bounds and did not deprive defendant of a fair trial. The court did not take on either the function or appearance of an advocate *(see People v Arnold,*98 NY2d 63, 67 [2002]; *People v Yut Wai Tom,*53 NY2d 44 [1981]).

The court properly exercised its discretion in imposing fair restrictions on cross-examination, primarily involving matters of form rather than substance, that did not interfere with defendant’s defense *(see Delaware v Van Arsdall, 475*US 673, 678-679 [1986]). Concur—Buckley, P.J, Mazzarelli, Saxe, Sullivan and Rosenberger, JJ.
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 ADOPTED
           PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report of Excalibur
Industries, Inc., a Delaware corporation, (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the
year ending December 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Larry C. Shumate, Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, certify the following pursuant to Section 18,
U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002:

      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/ Larry C. Shumate
---------------------
Larry C. Shumate, Chief Executive Officer
July 21, 2005
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

April 24, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 132541 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 132541 

 COA: 269783 

Cheboygan CC: 03-002709-FH

JOHN LAVELL WILLIAMS, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 26, 2006 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D). 

KELLY, J., would grant leave to appeal. 

d0416 

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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. 

April 24, 2007 

 Clerk
**Exhibit
      32.2**














**CERTIFICATION
      OF CHIEF FINANCIAL**


**OFFICER
      REGARDING PERIODIC REPORT CONTAINING**


**FINANCIAL
      STATEMENTS**









I,
      Jeffrey T. Fisher, the Chief Financial Officer of Charter Communications
      Holdings, LLC and Charter Communications Holdings Capital Corporation (the
      "Company") in compliance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
      Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, hereby certify that, the
      Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2005 (the
      "Report") filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission:




·
            fully
                complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities
                Exchange
                Act of 1934; and




·
            the
                information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
                respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
                Company.









/s/
      Jeffrey T. Fisher


Jeffrey
      T. Fisher


Chief
      Financial Officer


(Principal
      Financial Officer)


March  29,
      2006
D.E. v. RUSSELL COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES

2160448

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

May 31, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
#### Shannon Lee STARR, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. OAKLAND POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 15-16447

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted January 18, 2017 *

Filed January 26, 2017

Shannon Lee Starr, Pro Se

Before: TROTT, TASHIMA, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Shannon Lee Starr appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deprivation of the right to a fair trial. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. *Hamilton v. Brown,*630 F.3d 889, 892 (9th Cir. 2011) (dismissal for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A); *Whitaker v. Garcetti,*486 F.3d 572, 579 (9th Cir. 2007) (dismissal under *Heck v. Humphrey,*512 U.S. 477, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994)). We affirm.

*796The district court properly dismissed Starr’s action as Heck-barred because success on Starr’s claims would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction or sentence, and Starr failed to allege that his conviction had been invalidated. *See Heck,*512 U.S. at 486-87, 114 S.Ct. 2364 (if “a judgment in favor of the plaintiff would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction or sentence ... the complaint must be dismissed unless the plaintiff can demonstrate that the conviction or sentence has already been invalidated”).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
GARY M. RIDLEY

Secretary ofTrnnspot1ation

MARY FALLIN

Governor

STATE OF OKLAHOMA

July 22, 2013

Brooke chapman, Associate Director

Small Community Air Service Development Program

U. S. Department of Transportation

1200 New Jersey Ave. SE W86-310

Washington, DC 20590

Dear Ms. Chapman,

~,

c'

1]

ry

w

.cr

Air Service is vitally important to the economic wellbeing of business in the Southwest Region

of the state of Oklahoma. Regional business growth and sustainment depends, in part, on the

ability to meet the air tTavel needs of existing locll!businesses and institutions as well as

companies considering Lawton as a location for their operations. As a Metropolitan Statistical.

Area (MSA) with a population of 124,089 as identified in the 2010 census, Lawton has the

population needed to support good commercial air servicc. Retaining this commercial air serVice

is critical to not only their local economy, but to the state as well. The proposed plan will do this

by supporting scheduled service and finding new ways to market and advertise .the service to the

local community.

The cost of driving to alternate airports results in lost productivity and increases the cost of

travel. In the world of business, time is money. Lost time in driving another hour or two to the

nearest airport can't be recovered. Thc proposed air service marketing initiative is an important

step in the right direction to kccp commercial air service in Lawton.

We are pleased to have the opportunity to support the grant application, and assure you that we

will work diligently with airport administration to insure the long-term success of air service in

the Lawton community.

Sincerely,

3500MARrl1'l LUTHER KINO AVENUE. P. O. BOX 11357. OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73136-0357.405-425-3601
#### Jerome WANT, Lead Plaintiff, Elderly & Handicapped Riders of Washington County Transit, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Kevin CERRONE, Director, Washington Co. Transit; James Sterling, Director of Public Works; Terry L. Baker, Chairman of the County Board of Supervisors; Pete K. Rahn, Secretary, Maryland State Department of Transportation, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-2105

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 25, 2017

Decided: May 3, 2017

Jerome Want, Appellant Pro Se.

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Jerome Want seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing some of the claims in his civil complaint with prejudice and the remainder without prejudice. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); *Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp.,*337 U.S. 541, 545-47, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). Because the district court identified deficiencies that Want may remedy by filing an amended complaint, we conclude that the order Want seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an ap-pealable interlocutory or collateral order. *See Goode v. Cent. Va. Legal Aid Soc’y, Inc.,*807 F.3d 619, 623-24 (4th Cir. 2015); *Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392,*10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, we deny Want’s motion to appoint counsel, deny as moot his motion to expedite, and dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We “remand the case to the district court with instructions to allow [Want] to amend his complaint.” *Goode,*807 F.3d at 630. 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.

*DISMISSED AND REMANDED*
Nikhil Sen SHARMA, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-3731

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Opinion filed May 15, 2018

Martin P. McDonnell, of Law Offices of Martin P. McDonnell, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Kaylee D. Tatman, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. *See**Ortiz v. State* , 227 So. 3d 682, 684 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) ; *Callaway v. State* , 202 So. 3d 901, 905 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016).

PALMER, LAMBERT and EISNAUGLE, JJ., concur.
Johnny T. ALLEN, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-2912

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

October 11, 2017

BY ORDER OF THE COURT:

Petitioner's petition for writ of mandamus is dismissed for petitioner's failure to respond to this court's order of August 2, 2017.

KELLY, VILLANTI, and SLEET, JJ., Concur.
<PAGE>

Exhibit 11.1
                           VANSTAR CORPORATION
                STATEMENT OF COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
                    (In thousands, except per share data)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                    THREE MONTHS ENDED
                                                        JULY 31,
                                                  --------------------
                                                    1997       1996
                                                  ---------  ---------
<S>                                               <C>        <C>

PRIMARY EARNINGS PER SHARE:
   Weighted average number of 
     common shares outstanding.................      42,919     40,475
   Common equivalent shares from stock options
     using the treasury stock method...........       1,114      2,666
                                                  ---------  ---------
   Shares used in per share calculation........      44,033     43,141
                                                  ---------  ---------
                                                  ---------  ---------
   Net Income..................................   $   6,560  $   9,763
                                                  ---------  ---------
                                                  ---------  ---------
   Earnings per share..........................   $    0.15  $    0.23
                                                  ---------  ---------
                                                  ---------  ---------

FULLY DILUTED EARNINGS PER SHARE:

   Weighted average number of
     common shares outstanding.................      42,919     40,475
   Common equivalent shares from stock options
     using the treasury stock method...........       1,314      2,698
                                                  ---------  ---------
   Shares used in per share calculation........      44,233     43,173
                                                  ---------  ---------
                                                  ---------  ---------
   Net Income..................................   $   6,560  $   9,763
                                                  ---------  ---------
                                                  ---------  ---------
   Earnings per share..........................   $    0.15  $    0.23
                                                  ---------  ---------
                                                  ---------  ---------
</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Juston Brazil TRUEHEART, also known as Juston Trueheart, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-50405 Conference Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Date Filed: 12/20/2016

Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Juston Brazil Trueheart, Pro Se

Before DENNIS, PRADO, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent Ju-ston Brazil Trueheart has moved for leave *934to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Trueheart has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be *934published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
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 Mortons Restaurant Group, Inc. (Mortons) on
Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Thomas J. Baldwin, the Chief Executive Officer of Mortons, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(i) The Report fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(ii) The information contained in
the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Mortons.

Date: October 31, 2007



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ THOMAS J. BALDWIN  
|Thomas J. Baldwin      
|Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 99.6



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION
1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Annual Report of
Brookfield Office Properties Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 40-F for the year ended December 31, 2013, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Bryan K. Davis, Chief Financial Officer
of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that to the best of my knowledge:



|1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------





|By:   /s/ Bryan K. Davis
        Bryan K. Davis
        Chief Financial Officer
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                               



March 31, 2014
From: Sharon Nizich/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Sent: 06/13/2012 10:00 AM

To: "Higgins, Cortney" <Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov>, Keith 

Barnett/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Cc:

Subject: Fw: demo analysis

CourtneyYour new comment number 18 asks where the analysis is. We did NOT redo this analysis since we did 

NOT expect these statistics to change. I believe this was your comment/question.

Sharon V. Nizich

Minerals and Manufacturing Group (MMG)

Sector Policies and Programs Division

OAQPS - US EPA

RTP NC 27711

919/541-2825
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael Paul PUZEY, a/k/a Big Pete, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-6316

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: July 20, 2017

Decided: July 25, 2017

Michael Paul Puzey, Appellant Pro Se. Paul Thomas Camilletti, Assistant United States Attorney, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellee,

Before DUNCAN and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge,

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Michael Paul Puzey appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to alter or amend judgment, Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e), in which he sought reconsideration of the court’s prior order denying relief on Puz-ey’s Fed. R Civ. P. 60(d) (3) motion challenging his underlying conviction. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *United States v. Puzey,*Nos. 3:00-cr-00057-GMG-RWT-16; 3:00-cr-00064-GMG-2 (N.D.W. Va. Feb. 21, 2017). We deny Puze/s motions for appointment of counsel and for bail or release pending appeal; we grant Puzey’s motion to file a reply to the Government’s objection to his motion for release, 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*
#### Jeffrey JONES, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Officer Alex SHIVERS, Individual and Official Capacity; Corporal Nick Emmons, Individual and Official Capacity, Defendants-Appellees

No. 16-41347

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed September 6, 2017

James Michael Young, Roger Dickert Sanders, Roger Dickert SandersSanders, O’Hanlon, Motley & Young, P.L.L.C., Sherman, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellant

Darrell Gerard-Marc Noga, David Denny, Cantey Hanger, L.L.P., Dallas, TX, Timothy Derek Carson, Cantey Hanger, L.L.P., Fort Worth, TX, for Defendants-Appellees

Before REAVLEY, SOUTHWICK, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

This is a qualified immunity case. While executing an arrest warrant, the defendant, Officer Alex Shivers, was posted at the rear of the suspect’s house. The plaintiff, Jeffrey Jones (a firefighter, bounty hunter, and licensed peace officer), believed himself to be assisting in the operation and thought that he was supposed to “watch the rear.” While Shivers held his position, Jones came up from behind. Dressed in plain clothes, Jones entered the back yard by stumbling over a fence, rising with a weapon in hand. The weapon was a Taser, but Shivers did not know that. And Shivers did not know that Jones was a friend; he perceived an armed man who had just crossed over a back yard fence to interfere with the execution of a warrant. Reacting to Jones’ unanticipated arrival, Shivers took a spill of his own, falling behind a doghouse. Upon rising, Shivers shot Jones twice.

There is a factual dispute over whether Jones was aiming the Taser at Shivers, but not over whether the weapon was unhol-stered and in his hand. A police officer does not have to permit a suspect to aim his weapon before answering the threat. *See Salazar-Limon v. City of Houston,*826 F.3d 272, 279 n.6 (5th Cir. 2016), as revised (June 16, 2016), There is a factual dispute over whether the officer in charge at the scene had told Shivers about Jones being there or instructed Jones to assist by mov-*335mg to the rear of the home, but there is no genuine dispute as to whether Shivers was expecting Jones to help him guard the backyard. He was not. While facts are viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmovant, we must consider “only the facts that were knowable to” Shivers. *White v. Pauly,*— U.S. -, 137 S.Ct. 548, 550, 196 L.Ed.2d 463 (2017). Finally, on these particular facts, Shivers’ failure to issue a verbal warning prior to shooting is no bar to the grant of qualified immunity. *Id.*at 551-52.

Ultimately, this case involves a highly unusual fact pattern—multiple miscommu-nications and mistakes of fact that led to a friendly-fire incident. Under the circumstance, whether or not the shooting represented a Fourth Amendment violation, Shivers is entitled to qualified immunity. AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. 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 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.