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


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

In connection with the annual report of Pivotal Corporation (the "Company") on
Form 10-K for the year ended June 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Kent Roger (Bo)
Manning, the President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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 results of operations
          of the Company.

                                        /s/ Kent Manning
                                        ----------------------------------
                                        Kent Roger (Bo) Manning
                                        President, Chief Executive Officer
                                        and Director
                                        September 29, 2003


<PAGE>


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

In connection with the annual report of Pivotal Corporation (the "Company") on
Form 10-K for the year ended June 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Divesh Sisodraker, the
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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

                                        /s/ Divesh Sisodraker
                                        -----------------------
                                        Divesh Sisodraker
                                        Chief Financial Officer
                                        September 29, 2003


                                       2
Exhibit 13.2

 

MICROMEM TECHNOLOGIES INC.

CERTIFICATION OF DAN AMADORI, CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER OFMICROMEM TECHNOLOGIES INC., PURSUANT TO SECTION 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 Micromem Technologies Inc. (the"Company") on Form 20-F/A for the period ending October 31, 2004, as filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), theundersigned hereby certifies that to the best of his knowledge: 

1.    The Report fully complies withthe requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934; and 
2.     The information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company. 

 
    Date:    June 22, 2005      /s/ DAN AMADORI    Name:Dan Amadori  Title:Chief Financial Officer
#### Ashok Kumar, Appellant, v Stahlunt Associates, LLC, et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants.

[769 NYS2d 884]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Leland DeGrasse, J.), entered October 15, 2002, which, to the extent appealed from, denied plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment on liability with respect to his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The differing accounts of the manner in which plaintiff’s construction site accident occurred and the conflicting expert affidavits as to which protective devices should have been utilized raise triable issues of fact as to whether the safety devices provided afforded proper protection *(see Weber v 1111 Park Ave. Realty,*253 AD2d 376 [1998]), and whether plaintiffs conduct constituted the sole proximate cause of the accident *(see Bahrman v Holtsville Fire Dist.,*270 AD2d 438 [2000]). Based on this record, we reject defendants-respondents’ contention that plaintiff was a recalcitrant worker *(see Jastrzebski v North Shore School Dist.,*223 AD2d 677 [1996], *affd*88 NY2d 946 [1996]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Sullivan, Ellerin, Marlow and Gonzalez, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
                              CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND THE 
                              CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0001005127
<NAME>                        THE INDUS GROUP, INC.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                                 JUL-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                          2,203
<SECURITIES>                                   29,781
<RECEIVABLES>                                  27,235
<ALLOWANCES>                                      449
<INVENTORY>                                         0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               50,437
<PP&E>                                         10,094
<DEPRECIATION>                                  4,968
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 66,914
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          18,058
<BONDS>                                             0
<COMMON>                                           18
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<OTHER-SE>                                     48,838
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   66,914
<SALES>                                             0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               54,463
<CGS>                                               0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  22,599
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               21,565
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                11,112
<INCOME-TAX>                                    4,594
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             6,518
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                       6,700
<NET-INCOME>                                     (182)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    0.35
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    0.35
        


</TABLE>
[S. F. No. 5879.

Department One.

September 4, 1912.]

#### GEORGE F. WITTER Jr., Appellant, v. JOSEPHINE A. PHELPS, Respondent.

Practice — Dismissal — Delay in Service of Summons.—Judgment affirmed on the authority of *Witter*v. *Phelps, ante,*p. 655, [126 Pac. 593.]

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Mateo County. George A. Sturtevant, Judge presiding.

The facts are similar to those stated in the opinion in *Witter*v. *Phelps, ante,*p. 655, [126 Pac. 593].

George F. Witter, and Henry G. Tardy, for Appellant.

Ross & Ross, for Respondent.

THE COURT.

Appeal by plaintiff from a judgment dismissing the action.

The facts are, in all material respects, like those in *Witter v. Phelps, ante,*p. 655, [126 Pac. 593], just decided, except that this action was commenced at an earlier date, and the delay in service was some months longer than in the case referred to. For the reasons stated in S. F. No. 5878, the judgment is affirmed.

Hearing in Bank denied.
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

The undersigned, Kenneth A. Shewer, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) | The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Futures Strategic Trust for the period ended March 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Quarterly 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 Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Registrant.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                      |  |                                      
|--------------------- |  | -------------------------------------
|                      |  |                                      
|                     
|/s/ Kenneth A. Shewer
|Name:                 |  | Kenneth A. Shewer                    
|Title:                |  | Co-Chief Executive Officer           
|                      |  | (Principal Executive Officer)        
|                      |  | Preferred Investment Solutions Corp.,
|                      |  | Managing Owner of                    
|                      |  | Futures Strategic Trust              
|                      | 
|Date:                 |  | May 15, 2009                         



49
Opinion issued June 5, 2014

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01 - 14 - 00321 - CR

——————————— RONALD WAYNE SCHOFIE LD , Appella nt

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appell e e On Appeal from the 239th District Court Brazoria County, Texas Trial Court Ca se Nos. 34910 (Counts I & II) MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant, Ronald Wayne Schofield, attempts to appeal from an order of the trial court denying his motion for judgment nunc pro tunc. The denial of a motion for judgment nunc pro tunc is not an appealable order. See Lozano v. State , No. 01 - 13 - 00180 - CR, 2013 WL 2106570, at *1 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] May2

14, 2013, no pet. ) (mem. op., not designated for publication); Zelaya v. State , Nos. 01 - 11 - 00977 - CR, 01 - 11 - 00978 - CR, 01 - 11 - 00979 - CR, 2013 WL 127439, at *1 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] Jan. 10, 2013, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication); Everett v. State , 8 2 S.W.3d 735, 735 (Tex. App.

— Waco 2002, pet. dism’d) ; see also Ex parte Florence , 319 S.W.3d 695, 696 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (“If the trial court denies the motion for judgment nunc pro tunc or fails to respond, relief may be sought by filing an applicatio n for writ of mandamus in a court of appeals.”) . Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. We dismiss all pending motions as moot. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Higley and Brown. Do not p ublish. T EX . R. A PP . P. 47.2(b).
Sanitized Cons olidated Chemical Substance 2: Manufacture of

Pre - Impregnated Substrates
498 A.2d 621

#### In the Matter of the RESIGNATION OF Michael Owen HOWELL.

Misc. Docket (Subtitle BV) No. 27,

Sept. Term, 1985.

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

Filed Oct. 7, 1985.

Submitted to MURPHY, C.J., and SMITH, ELDRIDGE, COLE, RODOWSKY, COUCH and McAULIFFE, JJ.

ORDER

WHEREAS, Michael Owen Howell, a member of the Bar of the State of Maryland, wrote a letter dated September 8, 1985 and filed in this Court on September 10, 1985 in which he stated that “... due to emotional and reasons of conscience I do not feel that I can continue to practice law in this jurisdiction” and tendered his resignation from the Bar of this State, and

*216WHEREAS, pursuant to Maryland Rule BV12, the Court notified Bar Counsel of the filing of the application to resign and requested Bar Counsel to submit a recommendation as to Howell’s application, and

WHEREAS, Bar Counsel thereafter filed a recommendation that Howell’s resignation be accepted by the Court,

NOW, THEREFORE, it is this 7th day of October, 1985

ORDERED, by the Court of Appeals of Maryland, that the application to resign from the further practice of law in this State filed by Michael Owen Howell be, and it is hereby, accepted, and it is further

ORDERED that the Clerk of this Court shall strike the name of Michael Owen Howell from the register of attorneys, and pursuant to Maryland Rule BV13, shall certify that fact to the Trustees of the Clients’ Security Trust Fund and the Clerks of all judicial tribunals in this State.
#### FUIMAONO, AFALAVA and SALA, Plaintiffs and Appellees v. LEASIOLAGI and FOUMAI, Defendants and Appellants

No. 8-1909

High Court of American Samoa Civil Jurisdiction, Appellate Division

August 8, 1910

[Names of Judges unknown]

DECISION ON APPEAL

An appeal has been filed from the decree of the High Court in the case of *Fuimaono, et al. v. Leasiolagi, et al.,*awarding the title of the lands in dispute to the plaintiffs.

Although no grounds for appeal were stated, other than “matou le malie” the proceedings and voluminous testimony in this case have been given the fullest measure of consideration, and the President of the High Court has *635endeavored to view the case from all angles, and to determine whether the evidence produced justified the findings of fact and law by the trial court.

Defendants’ claim is based primarily upon shadowy and uncertain tradition, supported by evidence as to efforts of Leasiolagi to secure possession of the land during the present generation. These efforts were evidently abandoned before the year 1900, and at the time of the establishment of this Government, Fuimaono and his family were peaceably occupying the land. In view of his continuous resistance of the claims of Leasiolagi, it is futile to ask the Court to believe that he was merely a tenant at the pleasure of Leasiolagi. It must be presumed, instead, that Fuimaono’s resistance was successful.

Plaintiffs’ claim, on the other hand, begins with the usual traditional title, but is strengthened beyond all possibility of doubt by their continued possession and cultivation up to and beyond the time of the establishment of this Government, and their persistent and warlike defiance of the traditional claims of defendants.

No impartial tribunal would render a different decision. The case has been properly tried and both sides have been granted every reasonable indulgence.

The appeal is denied and the decree AFFIRMED.
#### James Russell MILLER, Plaintiff-Appellant v. MANAGEMENT & TRAINING CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellant

No. 17-60214 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed September 21, 2017

James Monroe Scurlock, Wallace, Martin, Duke & Russell, P.L.L.C., Little Rock, AR, Matthew Reid Krell, Esq., Law Offices of Matthew Reid Krell, Tuscaloosa, AL, for Plaintiff-Appellant

Richard Jarrad Garner, Esq., Hiram Richard Davis, Jr., Esq., Adams & Reese, L.L.P., Ridgeland, MS, for Defendant-Ap-pellee

Before WIENER, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Plaintiff-Appellant James Russell Miller appeals the ruling of the district court that Defendant-Appellee Management and Training Corporation is entitled to summary judgment on his claims of gender *409discrimination under Title VII, race discrimination under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and wrongful termination. Miller’s only claim on appeal necessitates evidence that he was fired for reporting or objecting to criminal violations of a consent decree. Miller has 'not challenged the district court’s determination that he was fired for inappropriate sexual conduct with a subordinate coworker and that there was no evidence this reason was pretextual.

The district court’s judgment is, in all respects,

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.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6540 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 6540

  To realign L-29 at full Federal expense for the Miccosukee Tribe to 
  expand the area for the Tigertail camp, which is a residential area.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           November 30, 2023

  Ms. Wasserman Schultz (for herself and Ms. Salazar) introduced the 
 following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation 
                           and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To realign L-29 at full Federal expense for the Miccosukee Tribe to 
  expand the area for the Tigertail camp, which is a residential area.

    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 ``Tigertail Historical Tree Island 
Repatriation Act of 2023''.

SEC. 2. CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA PROJECT, MODIFICATION OF THE L-29 
              LEVEE.

    In consultation with the South Florida Water Management District, 
the Secretary of the Army is authorized to design and construct, at 
full Federal expense, modifications to the L-29 Levee component of the 
Central and Southern Florida Project, to realign a portion of the L-29 
Section 3 Levee Segment to reconfigure the levee in the vicinity of the 
Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida's Tigertail Camp, as expanded 
pursuant to the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida's lease from the 
South Florida Water Management District. Any necessary lands, 
easements, rights-of-way, relocations, and dredge disposal areas 
(LERRDs) for such a modification would be provided by the South Florida 
Water Management District.
                                 <all>
```
#### PEOPLE *v.*MAYS.

Criminal Law — Evidence—Larceny from the Person.

, Testimony by complaining, witness that he was sure that a man he pointed out to a police officer had taken his wallet from his pocket, coupled with the testimony of the arresting officer that the defendant was the one pointed out by complainant, *held,*sufficient to support a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, even though the complaining witness at the trial for larceny from the person eould not identify the defendant as the man he had pointed out to the arresting policeman (CL 1948, § 750.357).

References for Points in Headnote

29 Am Jur 2d, Evidence §§ 367, 371-373; 32 Am Jur, Larceny § 135 *et seq.*

*635Appeal from Recorder’s Court of Detroit, Leonard (Donald S.), J.

Submitted Division 1 May 16, 1968, at Detroit.

(Docket No. 4,489.)

Decided June 3, 1968.

John Mays was convicted of larceny from the person. Defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

*Frank J. Kelley,*Attorney General, *Robert A. Derengo ski,*Solicitor General, *William L. Gahalan,*Prosecuting Attorney, *Samuel J. Torina,*Chief Appellate Lawyer, and *Thomas*P.Smith,-Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for the'people.

*John R. Jones,*for defendant.

Per Curiam.

Defendant was convicted in a non-jury trial of larceny from the person* and sentenced to a term of 4 to 10 years. He has appealed.

The issue on appeal is whether there was produced at trial evidence sufficient to convince beyond a reasonable doubt of defendant’s guilt..

The complainant testified that he felt his wallet being removed from his pocket and at that’time he was sure that the man he then pointed out to the police was the man who had removed it.. A1-. though at the trial the complainant- c.ould npt be sure the defendant was the man he had pointed, put, the arresting officer testified that the defendant was the man pointed out.

Thus we find that the record discloses evidence sufficient, if believed by the trier of fact, to shpport the finding of guilty beyond a reasonable doiiBt.

Affirmed.

T. G. Kavanagh, P. J., and Holbrook and Beer, JJ., concurred. :

*

 CL 1948, § 750.357 (Stat Ana 1954 Rev § 28.589).
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

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 would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Special Emphasis Panel; Immune Responses to Blood Transfusion.                    

*Date:*                         March 22, 2022.                    

*Time:*                         1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Institutes of Health, 6705 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20817 (Virtual Meeting).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Michael P. Reilly, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Office of Scientific Review/DERA, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, National Institutes of Health, 6705 Rockledge Drive, Room 208-Z, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 827-7975,                         *reillymp@nhlbi.nih.gov*.                    

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.233, National Center for Sleep Disorders Research; 93.837, Heart and Vascular Diseases Research; 93.838, Lung Diseases Research; 93.839, Blood Diseases and Resources Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS) 

Dated: February 22, 2022.

David W. Freeman,

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2022-04126 Filed 2-25-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P