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 Annual Report of eClic, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Evagelina Esparza Barrza, Chief Executive Officer, Principal Executive Officer,
Chief Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer of eClic, Inc.
(the "Registrant"), 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 Annual Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
Company.

Date: April 13, 2005
      --------------
                                           /s/ Evagelina Esparza Barrza
                                           ----------------------------
                                               Evagelina Esparza Barrza
                                               Chief Executive Officer
                                               Chief Financial Officer
# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 20

- 0718 V

UNPUBLISHED

FRANK POLETO

,

Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND

HUMAN SERVICES,

Respondent. Chief Special Master Corcoran

Filed: January 15, 2021

Special Processing Unit (SPU) ;

Rul ing on Entitlement; Concession;

Table Injury; Influenza (Flu) Vaccine;

Guillain

- Barre Syndrome (GBS)

Matthew F. Belanger, Faraci Lange, LLP, Rochester, NY , for petitioner.

Amanda Pasciuto , U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT 1

On June 15, 2020

, Frank Poleto filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa

- 10, et seq

. 2 (the “Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleges that he suffered from Guillain

- Barre Syndrome ( “ GBS ” )

as a result of a n influenz a ( “ flu ” ) vaccine receiv ed on January 5, 2019 . Petit ion at 1 . The

case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.

On January 15, 2021

, R espondent filed his Rule 4(c) report in which he concedes

that P etitioner is entitled to compensa tion in this case. Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report at 1. Specifically, R espondent agrees that “ petitioner suffere d f rom GBS, and that he has

satisfied the criteria set forth in the revi sed Vaccine Injury Table ( Table ) a n d the Qualifications and Aids to Interpretation ( “ QAI ” ) which afford him a presumpt ion of vaccine

1 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am required
to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website in accordance with the E

- Government Act

of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic Government
Services). This means the ruling will be available to anyone with access to the internet. In accordance
with Vaccine Rule 18(b), Petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to redact medical or other information,

the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, I agree that
the identified material fits within this definition, I will redact such material from public access.

2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99

- 660, 100 Stat. 3755

. Hereinafter, for ease
of citation, all “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subpara graph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa

(2012 ).2

causation if the onset of GBS occurs b etween three and f orty

- two days aft er a seasona l flu vaccination and there is no more likely alternative diagnosis and no apparent

alternative cause. ” Id. at 5

.

In view of R espondent’s position and the evidence of record, I find that

P etitioner is entitle d to compensation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Brian H. Corcoran

Brian H. Corcoran

Chief Special Master
Exhibit 32.1





CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND
 CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350 and in connection with the accompanying report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010 that contains financial statements for such period and that is being filed concurrently with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), each of the undersigned officers of Perficient, Inc. (the “Company”), hereby certifies that:


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





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





Date: March 3, 2011
By:
/s/ Jeffrey S. DavisJeffrey S. DavisChief Executive Officer and President





Date: March 3, 2011
By:
/s/ Paul E. MartinPaul E. MartinChief Financial Officer
**EXHIBIT 21** **SUBSIDIARIES    OF ART TECHNOLOGY GROUP, INC.**    **NAME OF ORGANIZATION** **JURISDICTION** ATG Securities Corporation     Massachusetts    Art Technology Group B.V.     Netherlands    Art Technology Group GmbH     Germany    Art Technology Group (Europe)    Limited     United Kingdom    Art Technology Group (Canada)    Inc.      Canada    Art Technology Group Canada ULC     Canada    Art Technology Group, S.A.R.L.     France    Estara Inc.      Maryland    Estara E.     France    Estara Asia Pte. Ltd     Singapore    Primus Knowledge Solutions,    Inc.      Washington    Primus Knowledge Solutions (UK)    Limited     United Kingdom    Primus Knowledge Solutions France     France    Amacis Ltd.      Northern Ireland
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATIONOF PERIODIC REPORT**

**PURSUANT TO SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I, the undersigned, Jay C. Peterson, Chief Financial Officer of ForgentNetworks, Inc. (the “Company”), do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,as adopted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1.                                       Thequarterly report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended January 31,2009 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 as amended, and

 

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

 
|   | /s/ JAY C. PETERSON     |
|--------|-------------------------|
|   | Jay C. Peterson         |
|   | Chief Financial Officer |
|   | March 13, 2009     |

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906 has been provided to ForgentNetworks, Inc. and will be retained by Forgent Networks, Inc. andfurnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff uponrequest.  The foregoing certification isbeing furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not beingfiled as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.

 

----
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

 DECEMBER 13, 2011

JOHN LEY

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

 ________________________

 No. 10-11937

Non-Argument Calendar

 ________________________

 D.C. Docket No. 1:09-cv-23628-PCH

CARLOS AMADOR RIVAS,

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant,

 versus

CARNIVAL CORPORATION,

d.b.a. Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc.,

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellee.

________________________

 Appeal from the United States District Court

 for the Southern District of Florida

 ________________________

(December 13, 2011)

Before CARNES, BARKETT and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:
Carlos Rivas appeals the district court’s order dismissing his case and

compelling arbitration. After we issued our opinions in Lindo v. NCL (Bahamas),

Ltd., 652 F.3d 1257 (11th Cir. 2011), and Henriquez v. NCL Bahamas(Ltd.), No. 09-

16344 (11th Cir. Sept. 6, 2011), we asked Rivas and Carnival Corporation to submit

supplemental letter briefs discussing the effect of those decisions on this appeal. In

his supplemental letter brief, Rivas concedesthat our decision in Lindo forecloses his

arguments in this appeal. We agree.

AFFIRMED.

2
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6435 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 6435

To ensure that a declaration for a major disaster or emergency is made 
   on a timely basis, rural areas receive assistance, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           November 15, 2023

  Mrs. Rodgers of Washington introduced the following bill; which was 
     referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To ensure that a declaration for a major disaster or emergency is made 
   on a timely basis, rural areas receive assistance, 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 ``Making Aid for Local Disasters Equal 
Now Act'' or the ``MALDEN Act''.

SEC. 2. RURAL ASSISTANCE.

    Section 326(c) of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and 
Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5165d(c)) is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (3)(D) by striking ``and'' at the end;
            (2) by redesignating paragraph (4) as paragraph (6); and
            (3) by inserting after paragraph (3) the following:
            ``(4) with respect to a rural area impacted by a wildfire, 
        work in coordination with the State or Tribal emergency 
        management agency to provide guidance to the emergency manager 
        of the rural area on developing a recovery team, including--
                    ``(A) by providing resources to help prevent 
                flooding, mudslides, rockslides or any other natural 
                disaster that could result after a wildfire; and
                    ``(B) by identifying available resources for both 
                short-term and long-term recovery, including resources 
                to help prevent a future natural disaster within the 
                burned area;
            ``(5) in a case in which a request for assistance to an 
        individual or household in a rural area under section 408 is 
        denied, work in coordination with the affected State or Tribal 
        emergency management agency to make case workers available to 
        the residents impacted by the major disaster or emergency; 
        and''.
                                 <all>
```
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 6487 

To amend title XI of the Social Security Act to prohibit health plans from 

imposing fees on health care providers for electronic funds transfers 

and health care payment and remittance advice transactions, and for 

other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 28, 2023 

Mr. MURPHY (for himself, Mr. GRIFFITH, Mrs. MILLER-MEEKS, Mr. KILMER, 

Mr. BERA, and Ms. SCHRIER) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to 

the Committee on Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions 

as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To amend title XI of the Social Security Act to prohibit 

health plans from imposing fees on health care providers 

for electronic funds transfers and health care payment 

and remittance advice transactions, and for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘No Fees for EFTs 

5 Act’’. 

2 

•HR 6487 IH

1 SEC. 2. PROHIBITING HEALTH PLANS FROM IMPOSING 

2 FEES ON HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS FOR 

3 ELECTRONIC FUNDS TRANSFERS AND 

4 HEALTH CARE PAYMENT AND REMITTANCE 

5 ADVICE TRANSACTIONS. 

6 Section 1173(g)(4)(B)(ii) of the Social Security Act 

7 (42 U.S.C. 1320d–2(g)(4)(B)(ii)) is amended— 

8 (1) in subclause (I), by striking at the end 

9 ‘‘and’’; 

10 (2) in subclause (II), by striking at the end the 

11 period and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and 

12 (3) by adding at the end the following new sub13 clause: 

14 ‘‘(III) prohibit the imposition of 

15 any charge, fee, or other payment (in16 cluding through a withhold from pay17 ment) by a health plan or entity com18 pleting the transaction on the plan’s 

19 behalf, on a health care provider for 

20 electronic fund transfers and health 

21 care payment and remittance advice 

22 transactions made on or after Janu23 ary 1, 2024.’’. 

Æ
#### NEXTPOINT, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant v. HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY, Hewlett Packard Enterprise, HP Inc., Defendants-Appellees

2016-2312

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

March 14, 2017

Matthew Topic, Loevy & Loevy, Chicago, IL, argued for plaintiff-appellant.

Barry Kenneth Shelton, Shelton IP Law, PC, Austin, TX, argued for defendants-appellees. Also represented by Brian Christopher Nash, David Nicholas Pa-tariu, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, Austin, TX.

*1010(Lourie, O’Malley, and Taranto, Circuit Judges).

JUDGMENT

Per Curiam

This Cause having been heard and considered, it is Ordered and Adjudged:

AFFIRMED. *See*Fed. Cir. R. 36.
#### Jane M. SOTANSKI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HSBC BANK USA, NA, as Trustee for the Holders of the Deutsche Alt-A Securities, Inc. Mortgage Loan Trust, Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2007-OA4; RTS Pacific, Inc., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 15-16798

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*1000Submitted December 14, 2016 *

Filed December 22, 2016

Jane M. Sotanski, Pro Se

Megan Elizabeth Gruber, Esquire, Attorney, Jon D. Ives, Esquire, Attorney, Severson & Werson APC, San Francisco, CA, for Defendant-Appellee HSBC Bank USA, NA

Melissa N. Armstrong, Esquire, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellee RTS Pacific, Inc.

Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges,

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Jane M. Sotanski appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing her action alleging Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”) and state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). *Doe v. Abbott Labs.,*671 F.3d 930, 933 (9th Cir. 2009). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed as time-barred Sotanski’s TILA claim for rescission because Sotanski did not deliver- a notice of rescission within three years of consummation of the loan. *See*15 U.S.C. § 1636(f) (imposing three-year period to exercise right of rescission under TILA); *Jesinoski v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.,*— U.S. -, 135 S.Ct. 790, 792, 190 L.Ed.2d 650 (2015) (a borrower exercises her right of rescission by notifying the creditor of intent to rescind within three years after the transaction is consummated). The district court properly dismissed Sotanski’s wrongful foreclosure claim because Sotanski’s claim was contingent on her TILA claim not being time barred. *See Yvanova v. New Century Mortg. Corp.,*62 Cal.4th 919, 199 Cal.Rptr.3d 66, 365 P.3d 845, 850 (2016) (explaining that the beneficial holder of a deed of trust can initiate nonjudicial foreclosure proceedings under Cal. Civ. Code § 2924).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. *See Padgett v. Wright,*587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-1545

A. CORWIN TAYLOR, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JOSEPH R. FRAZER; D. KENT GILLIAM; WAYNE K. TAYLOR; DEBRA C. TAYLOR; NATHANIEL M. COLLIER, III; WILLIAM B. CAVE; PLATO GEORGE ELIADES, II; THOMAS GORDON; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA; MARK L. EARLEY; RANDOLPH A. BEALES; JUDITH W. JAGDMANN; GREGORY E. LUCYK, SR.; PETER R. MESSITT; VIRGINIA STATE BAR; MARY MARTILINO; EDWARD L. DAVIS; R. CRAIG HOPSON; WILLIAM S. FRANCIS; MELISSA HOY; D.T.T. INCORPORATED; WILLIAM R. SHELTON, Judge, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge. (CA-01-680-3) Submitted: August 15, 2002 Decided: August 19, 2002 Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.2 A. Corwin Taylor, Appellant Pro Se. Nathaniel Macon Collier, III, Colonial Heights, Virginia; Hugh McCoy Fain, III, Mary Elizabeth Davis, SPOTTS, FAIN, CHAPPELL & ANDERSON, Richmond, Virginia; Jeffrey Hamilton Geiger, SANDS, ANDERSON, MARKS & MILLER, Richmond, Virginia; Plato George Eliades, II, HILL, RAINEY & ELIADES, Hopewell, Virginia; Thomas Gordon, GORDON, DODSON & GORDON, Chesterfield, Virginia; Peter Robert Messitt, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia; William S. Francis, Jr., Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: A. Corwin Taylor appeals the district court’s orders adopting the two reports and recommendation of the magistrate judge and finally dismissing this civil action. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Taylor v. Frazer , No. CA-01-680-3 (E.D. Va. Feb. 25, 2002, May 8, 2002). We dispense with oral argument and deny Taylor’s pending motion for the appointment of counsel because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### Richard S. Childs, Appellant, *v.*Robert Moses et al., Respondents.

Submitted June 7, 1943;

decided June 18, 1943.

Motion to amend remittitur granted. Return of remittitur requested, and when returned it will be amended by providing that the judgment is affirmed “ without costs.” (See 290 N. Y. 828.)
Exhibit 32.2



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 Internet Capital Group, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K/A for the period
ending December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Anthony P. Dolanski, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted
pursuant to § 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 position and results of operations of the Company.
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                          
|----------------------------------------------------------
|                                                          
|/s/    Anthony P. Dolanski                                
|                                                          
|Anthony P. Dolanski Chief Financial
Officer April 14, 2004
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 22

- 00013

- CR

Valentin Torres Alvarez a/k/a Valentin Torres a/k/a Valentin Alvarez Torres
v. The State of Texas

On Appeal from the 103rd District Court of Cameron County , Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2017DCR2121

JUDG MENT
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on
appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed

. The Court
orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED

. We further order this decision certified below for observance.
August 25 , 2022
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

PASCAL LARRIEUX,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D19-2255

[October 31, 2019]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for 

the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Martin S. Fein, Judge; 

L.T. Case No. 11-18070CF10A.

Pascal Larrieux, Crawfordville, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

CONNER, FORST and KUNTZ, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Armand E. Camgros and Barnet M. Sacks. Firm Amusement Corporation et al., Appellants. Frieda S. Miller, as Industrial Commissioner, et al., Respondents.

Argued April 6, 1943;

decided May 27, 1943.

*840
      *Theodore Kiendl, William Klein, Milton R. Weinberger, Adolph Lund*and *Leopold Friedman*for Firm Amusement Corporation, appellant.

*Thomas Kiernan, Irving L. Rollins*and *Joseph Goldberg*for Joseph P. Day, Inc., appellant.

*Charles J. Campbell*and *Henrietta Isaacson*for New York Hotel Statler Company, Inc., and another, appellants.

*Nathaniel L. Goldstein, Attorney-General (Orrin G. Judd, W. Gerard Ryan*and *Francis R. Curran*of counsel), for Frieda S. Miller, as Industrial Commissioner, respondent.

Upon the appeals by Joseph P. Day, Inc., New York Hotel Statler Company, Inc., and Hotels Statler Company, Inc.: Order affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Loughran, Rippey, Lewis and Desmond, JJ. Dissenting: Lehman, Ch. J., and Conway, J. Taking no part: Finch, J.

Upon the appeal by Firm Amusement Corporation: Order of Appellate Division and decision of Unemployment Board reversed, and claim dismissed, with costs in all courts, upon the ground that there is no evidence to support the finding that the musicians were employees of the operator of the theatre.

Concur: Lehman, Ch. J., Loughran, Rippey, Lewis, Conway and Desmond, JJ. Taking no part: Finch, J.
| (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:                November 9, 2007 | By:       /s/                David A. Heaberlin |
|---------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                  | David                A. Heaberlin                                                  |
|                                  | Chief                Financial Officer                                             |