alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32.1
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this periodic report on Form 10-Q of the Company;2.
    
    This quarterly report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and3.
    
    The information contained in this quarterly report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
  /s/ Norman C. ChambersNorman C. ChambersChairman of the Board,
President and Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)   47
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 3.89

                    CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT OF ARTICLES OF
                                INCORPORATION OF
                INTEGRATED SPECIALISTS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC.

     Stephen N. Rogers, MD and Christopher W. Cary certify that:


     1.   They are the President/Chairman and the Secretary, respectively, of
Integrated Specialists Management Services, Inc., a California corporation.

     2.   The Board of Directors of Integrated Specialists Management Services,
Inc. has approved the following amendment to the articles of incorporation:

     Article Four of the articles of incorporation is amended to read in its
entirety as follows: The corporation is authorized to issue only one class of
shares, which shall be Common Stock, in a total number of two million shares. On
the amendment of this article, each outstanding share of Common Stock is split
up and converted into two shares of Common Stock.

     3.   This amendment may be adopted with approval by the Board of Directors
alone because the corporation has one class of shares outstanding and the
amendment effectuates only a stock split, as defined in Corporations Code
Section 188. Corporation Code Section 902(c) authorizes the adoption of this
type of amendment with approval by the Board alone.

     We declare under penalty of perjury that the statements set forth in this
certificate are true and correct of our own knowledge and that this declaration
was executed on __________ at San Diego, California.

     Dated: January 29, 1997

/s/ Stephen N. Rogers, MD [signature]  /s/ Christopher W. Cary, MD [signature]
------------------------               ---------------------------
Stephen N. Rogers, MD   [printed name] Christopher W. Cary, MD    [printed name]
------------------------               ---------------------------
President/Chairman      [title]        Secretary                  [title]
------------------------               ---------------------------
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

DA 23-0131

_________________

ALLEN MUNRO and LINDA MUNRO,

 Plaintiffs and Appellees,

 v.

JOHN MUNRO,

 Defendant and Appellant.

O R D E R

_________________

Appellant John Munro was granted an extension of time to file and serve the opening 

brief on or before April 23, 2023. The opening brief is now overdue.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Appellant shall prepare, file, and serve the 

opening brief on appeal no later than May 26, 2023. Failure to file the brief within that 

time will result in dismissal of this appeal with prejudice and without further notice. 

The Clerk is directed to provide copies of this Order to all counsel of record. 

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

April 26 2023

04/26/2023

Case Number: DA 23-0131
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 Nanoscience Technologies, Inc.,
(the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending September 30, 2004 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, David Rector, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

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

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

/s/ David Keenan
-------------------------
DAVID KEENAN
Chief Executive Officer
January 17, 2006

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
The foregoing certifications are accompanying the Company's Form 10-QSB solely
pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and
(b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code) and is not
being filed as part of the Form 10-QSB or as a separate disclosure document.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from audited
financial statements for the three month period ending March 31, 1997 and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000883424
<NAME> WINTHROP MIAMI ASSOCIATES L.P.
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                       9,302,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                4,272,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (4,000)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            14,289,000
<PP&E>                                      58,725,000
<DEPRECIATION>                            (10,351,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              68,030,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,613,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  11,470,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                68,030,000
<SALES>                                      2,927,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,060,000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,526,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,150,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (2,953,622)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (2,953,622)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (2,953,622)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (2,055)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (2,055)
        



</TABLE>
Exhibit 23.01
  CONSENT
    OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
    Form S-8 (No. 333-160632), 333-123299, 333-132398, 333-141115, 333-149533 333-157781), (No. 333-72192), (No. 333-58510), (No. 333-55828), 333-54886, 333-46252, 333-89170, 333-113662), 333-48582), (No. 333-84545), (No. 333-89172);
  Form S-3 333-107963, 333-72746 333-61410; and
  Form S-1 No. 333-80419
  (Form 10-K)
EXHIBIT 21.1  Panolam
Industries International, Inc. Listing
of Subsidiaries  List
  of Subsidiaries
  
  State/Country of
  Incorporation
  
  Name(s) under which
  Subsidiary does businessPanolam Industries,
  Ltd.
  
  Ontario, Canada
  
  Panolam Canada,
  HuntsvillePanolam
  Industries, Inc.
  
  Delaware, U.S.A.
  
  Panolam
  Industries, Inc.Pioneer Plastics
  Corporation
  
  Delaware, U.S.A.
  
  Pioneer Plastics
  CorporationNevamar Holding Corp.
  
  Delaware, U.S.A.
  
  Nevamar Holding Corp.Nevamar Holdco, LLC
  
  Delaware, U.S.A.
  
  Nevamar Holdco, LLCNevamar Company, LLC
  
  Delaware, U.S.A.
  
  Nevamar Company, LLC
**EXHIBIT 32.01**

**SECTION1350 CERTIFICATION**

In connection with thisquarterly report of ML JWH Strategic Allocation Fund  L.P. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for theperiod ended September 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (this “Report”), I, Benjamin Weston, ChiefExecutive Officer and President, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,as adopted pursuant of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1. This Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

2. The informationcontained in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 
| Date: November 14, 2006               |                |
|---------------------------------------|---------------------|
|                                  |                |   |
| By                                    | /s/ BENJAMIN WESTON |   |
| Benjamin Weston                       |
| Chief Executive Officer and President |
| (Principal Executive Officer)         |

 

1

----
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">431 Audubon LLC, Petitioner-Landlord-Respondent,<br><br>against<br><br>Rosa Jiminian, Respondent-Tenant-Appellant, and Ashley Garcia, Respondent-Undertenant.</font></b></div><br><br><p>Tenant appeals from an amended order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Heela D. Capell, J.), dated August 15, 2018, which denied her motion to stay execution of the warrant of eviction in a holdover summary proceeding.</p><p>Per Curiam.</p><p>Amended order (Heela D. Capell, J.), dated August 15, 2018, reversed, without costs, tenant's motion to stay execution of the warrant of eviction is granted, and the probationary period under the parties' stipulation is extended through December 31, 2019.</p><p>In the particular circumstances of this case, including the long-term (36-year) stabilized tenancy, the presence of minor children in the apartment (<a href="../2016/2016_50692.htm" target="_blank"><i>see 1240 Sheva Realty Assoc., LLC v Ramos</i>, 51 Misc 3d 143</a>[A], 2016 NY Slip Op 50692[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2016]), the indigent tenant's in-court showing that she possessed the full rent arrears then due landlord and, significantly, the documentary proof showing that, after a bureaucratic delay, tenant's share of the rent has been prospectively reduced by the FHEPS program from $653.68 to $253.93, an affordable sum relative to her income, we favorably exercise our discretion to stay execution of the warrant of eviction (<a href="../2012/2012_05116.htm" target="_blank"><i>see Harvey 1390 LLC v Bodenheim</i>, 96 AD3d 664</a> [2012]; <a href="../2008/2008_05569.htm" target="_blank"><i>see also 2246 Holding Corp. v Nolasco</i>, 52 AD3d 377</a> [2008]).</p><p>We note that tenant's attorney consented at oral argument to an extension of the probationary period.</p><p>THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.</p><br>I concur I concur I concur<br>Decision Date: February 19, 2019<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_1_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
#### Breanne WALDEN; et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. MARYLAND CASUALTY COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 15-35870

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted June 13, 2017 * Seattle, Washington

Filed June 15, 2017

Keith D. Marr, Dennis Patrick Conner, Esquire, Conner *&*Marr, PLLP, Great Falls, MT, for Plaintiffs-Appellants

David Clukey, Esquire, William J. Mat-tix, Attorney, Monique P. Voigt, Crowley Fleck PLLP, Billings, MT, for Defendant-Appellee

Before: D.W. NELSON, M. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Plaintiffs appeal from the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Maryland Casualty Company. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings.

We affirm the district court’s determination that Maryland Casualty did not breach its duty to defend Dahl’s College of Beauty against plaintiffs’ complaint and First Amended Complaint under Coverage B of the policy. As relevant, Coverage B covered “personal and advertising injury” arising out of “[t]he wrongful eviction from, wrongful entry into, or invasion of the right of private occupancy of a room, dwelling or premises that a person occupies, committed by or on behalf of its owner, landlord or lessor.” We see no error in the district court’s application of the ordinary, common understanding that “eviction” involves denying a possessory interest in real property, nor in its conclusion that Maryland Casualty did not breach its duty to defend by failing to equate expulsions with Coverage B “evictions.”

In light of *Employers Mutual Casualty Co. v. Fisher Builders, Inc.,*383 Mont. 187, 371 P.3d 375 (2016), the district court erred by concluding that the policy excluded coverage for bodily injuries that were the unintended or unexpected consequences of intentional acts. Although plaintiffs complained of only intentional acts, the district court concluded: “Though Plaintiffs’ collective emotional distress, and the physical manifestations accompanying *477it, was likely unforeseen and unintended by the Dahl’s defendants, that is simply not the focus of the coverage analysis.” Contrary to this ruling, *Fisher*explained that, under Montana law, an “occurrence” is excluded from coverage if: “1) the act itself was intentional, *and*2) ... the consequence or resulting harm stemming from the act was intended or expected from the actor’s standpoint.” *Id.*at 378 (emphasis added). In light of *Fisher,*we reverse the district court’s October 7, 2015 order and remand for further proceedings.

AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### GAJEWSKI *v.*SIMONIAK.

Negligence — Contributory Negligence — Directed Verdict.

Directed verdiet of no cause of action on counterclaim, granted on the basis that plaintiff eounterelaimants were guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law, is reversed where, viewed in the light most favorable to eounterelaimants, the record presents a question of faet as to their contributory negligence.

Reference for Points in Headnote

38 Am Jur, Negligence § 348.

Appeal from Wayne, Gilmore (Horace W.), J.

Submitted Division 1 June 4, 1968, at Detroit.

(Docket No. 3,919.)

Decided June 10, 1968.

Complaint by Chester Simoniak, Elizabeth Simon-iak, and Constance Simoniak, a minor, by her next friend Chester Simoniak, against Clarence Gajewski *652and William Gajewski, for injuries arising from an automobile accident. Counterclaim by Gajewskis against Simoniaks for injuries arising from the same accident. Plaintiffs’ motion for directed verdict on the counterclaim granted. Counterclaimants Gajewski appeal.

Reversed.

*Cary, BeGole, Martin, Bohall & Joselyn (William G. Jamieson,*of counsel), for counterclaimants Ga-jewski.

*Bipple, Chambers & DeWitt (Donnelly W. Had-den,*of counsel), for counterdefendants.

Per Curiam.

Plaintiffs appeal from a directed verdict of no cause of action granted on the basis plaintiffs were guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law. Viewed in the light most favorable to plaintiffs we find the record presents a question of fact as to plaintiffs’ contributory negligence.

Reversed, with costs to plaintiffs.

Quinn, P. J., and Fitzgerald and J. H. Gillis, JJ., concurred.
#### Charles Edward BLACK Plaintiff-Appellant v. James LINKER, Lieutenant, Pope County Detention Center, et al. Defendants-Appellees

No. 16-3894

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: July 27, 2017

Filed: August 1, 2017

*458Charles Edward Black, Pro Se

John Myers, Hot Springs, AR, Clyde Burt Newell, Law Offices of C. Burt New-ell, Hot Springs, AR, for Defendant-Appel-lee James Linker, Crystal Hull, Ballinger

Paul D. McNeill, RMP, LLP, Jonesboro, AR, for Defendant-Appellee Nathan Neil-son

Before WOLLMAN, LOKEN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Former Arkansas inmate Charles Black appeals the district court’s1 adverse grant-of summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, in which he alleged that defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs. Upon careful de novo review, see Peterson v. Kopp, 754 F.3d 594, 598 (8th Cir. 2014) (standard of review), we conclude that summary judgment was proper because Black failed to show that the alleged delays had a detrimental effect on his health, see Jackson v. Riebold, 815 F.3d 1114, 1119-20 (8th Cir. 2016); that defendants were deliberately indifferent, see Fourte v. Faulkner Cty., Ark., 746 F.3d 384, 387 (8th Cir. 2014); or that he was denied pain medication.

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir, R. 47B.

1

. The Honorable James M. Moody, Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable J. Thomas Ray, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas,
U.S. DepartmentofTransportation,Docket Operations WestBuildingGroundFloor, Room W12-140 1200NewJerseyAvenue, SE Washington, DC 20590



### Re: Exemption Request Section 333 of the FAA Reform Act of the Federal Aviation Regulationsfrom 14 C.F.R. 45.23(b); 14 C.F.R. Part 21; 14C.F.R. 61.113(a)&(b); 91.7(a); 91.9(b) (2); 91.103 (b); 91.109; 119.121; 91.151 (a); 91.203(a)&(b); 91.405(a); 91.407(a) (1); 91.409(a) (2); 91.417(a)&(b

Dear sir or Madam, We have established a Quad/ UAS club /school for the purpose of licensing, certifying and the education of correct flying techniques
, and feel it necessary that the public understand and abide bythe flight rules set bythe FAA. We are committed to safety in this new industryfrom the hobbiest to the professional UAS Pilot. All our training is done indoors and designated RC areas. All our instructors have years of RC and or private and commercial Pilot licenses

. This is to sure proper procedures and protocols are followed. 

### Granting my request comports with the Secretary of Transportation's (FAA Administrator's) responsibilities and authorityto not only integrate UAS's into the national airspace system, but to "

...establish requirements for the safe operation of such aircraft systems [UAS's] in the national airspace system" under Section 333(c) of the Reform Act specific to the use of UAS'sfor educational purposes. Further Iwill conduct my operations in compliance with the protocols described herein or as otherwise established bythe FAA

Thank you John Alonso groundcontroldrones.com Po Box 4851 Seminole, Fl. 33775 727-394-0232
ex10-05.htm




Exhibit 10.05

















 




  





1











  









 




  





2











  









 




  





3











  









 




  





4











  









 




  





5











  










6
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                          34,530
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   31,934
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                68,603
<PP&E>                                          40,721
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,552
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 105,420
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           39,116
<BONDS>                                            353
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        54,898
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   105,420
<SALES>                                         51,451
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                51,451
<CGS>                                           43,141
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   43,141
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,825
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   853
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (488)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  4,120
<INCOME-TAX>                                      1658
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,462
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.13
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### Kevin SCHAAP, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. KENTUCKY HIGHER EDUCATION STUDENT LOAN CORPORATION; Kentucky Higher Education Assistance Agency; Equifax Information Services; Experian Information Services; Transunion, LLC., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-1491

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: August 24, 2017

Decided: August 28, 2017

Kevin Schaap, Appellant Pro Se. Russell M. Racine, Virginia Marie Wooten, CRAN-FILL, SUMNER & HARTZOG, LLP, Charlotte, North Carolina; Rita Bolt Barker, WYCHE, P.A., Greenville, South Carolina; Norman Charles Campbell, II, KING & SPALDING, LLP, Atlanta, Georgia; William Henry Rooks, JONES DAY, Atlanta, Georgia; Lyndey Ritz Zwingel-berg, ADAMS & REESE, LLP, Columbia, South Carolina; Russell Grainger Hines, Wilbur Eugene Johnson, YOUNG CLEMENT RIVERS, LLP, Charleston, South Carolina; Amanda P. Loughmiller, STRASBURGER & PRICE, LLP, Frisco, Texas, for Appellees.

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and SHEDD and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

*642PER CURIAM:

Kevin Schaap seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s text order denying Schaap’s motion for extensions of multiple filing deadlines in his underlying civil action. 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, 545-46, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). The order Schaap seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we grant Defendants’ motions to dismiss and dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We deny Schaap’s motions for judicial notice of fraud on the court and for a stay of these proceedings. 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*