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


                                   IDNA, INC.
                  CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                           PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. 1350
                 (SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002)

I, James J. McNamara, Chief Executive Officer of iDNA, Inc., a Delaware
corporation (the "Registrant"), in connection with the Registrant's Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended April 30, 2006, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), do hereby
represent, warrant and certify 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, as amended; and

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


/s/ James J. McNamara
-------------------------------------
Name: James J. McNamara
Title: Chief Executive Officer
(principal executive officer)
Date: June 16, 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
required by Section 906, has been provided to iDNA, Inc. and will be retained by
iDNA, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.`
#### Warren FRANK, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. E. SHINNETTE; K. Mohr, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-16728

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted July 11, 2017 *

Filed July 18, 2017

Warren Frank, Jr., Pro Se

Alicia Anne Bower, Deputy Attorney General, AGCA—Office of the Attorney General, Oakland, CA, for Defendants-Ap-pellees

• Before: CANBY, KOZINSKI, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.

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

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Warren Frank, Jr. appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing for failure to exhaust administrative remedies his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging excessive force. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. *Albino v. Baca,*747 F.3d 1162, 1171 (9th Cir. 2014) (en banc) (legal rulings of exhaustion); *Thompson v. Paul,*547 F.3d 1055, 1058-59.(9th Cir. 2008) (dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)). We reverse and remand.

The district court dismissed Frank’s action for failure to exhaust administrative remedies as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), finding that Frank filed the complaint before he resubmitted his third level appeal. However, the district court did not expressly consider Frank’s allegation that he submitted the required medical report with his third level appeal and that the third level appeal was improperly rejected. *See Ross v. Blake,*— U.S. -, 136 S.Ct. 1850, 1856, 1860, 195 L.Ed.2d 117 (2016) (explaining that proper administrative exhaustion under the PLRA is mandatory, but may not be required when “prison administrators thwart inmates from taking advantage of a grievance process through machination, misrepresentation, or intimidation”); *Nat’l*
      *513
      *Ass’n for the Advancement of Psychoanalysis v. Cal. Bd. of Psychology,*228 F.3d 1043, 1049 (9th Cir. 2000) (in determining whether the complaint states a claim for relief, “we may consider facts contained in documents attached to the complaint”). We reverse the judgment and remand for further proceedings.

We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal, *See Padgett v. Wright,*587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009). We do not consider documents and facts not presented to the district court. *See United States v. Elias,*921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990) (“Documents or facts not presented to the district court are not part of the record on appeal.”).

REVERSED and REMANDED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 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 result of operations of the Company.
 Date: March 31, 2011
    
    By:
    
    /s/ Richard M. Osborne

Richard M. OsborneChairman of the Board and Chief Executive OfficerDate: March 31, 2011
    
    By:
    
    /s/ Carolyn Coatoam

Carolyn CoatoamChief Financial Officer
#### Daniel S. Read et al. *v.*The President, etc., of the Delaware and Hudson Canal Company.

(Argued February 32, 1872;

decided March 26, 1872.)

Action on a contract by which defendants agreed to deliver a quantity of coal to plaintiffs at Rondout in October, 1868, on board of boats to be furnished by plaintiffs. On account of the crowd of boats waiting for coal, plaintiffs’ boats were unable to get up to the places of delivery in October. October 27th plaintiffs wrote, asking as a great favor “.for further time to get the coal away.” This was refused unless they paid the increased price for the next month. October 29th or 30th plaintiffs went to Rondout and demanded the coal, which demand defendants refused. Plaintiffs’ boats were not then at the places of delivery. Plaintiffs claim damages for breach of contract and demurrage for the detention of their boats, which occurred substantially in November. Defendants offered evidence to show that it was the usage for vessels to take their turn in order of arrival, “ first come first served,” which the referee rejected. *Held,*that the contract necessarily implied that plaintiffs should have their boats at the usual places where coal was shipped or delivered by defendants, and that the failure to do so was a good defence unless defendants in some manner prevented plaintiffs from performing on their part; that such interference was not shown by the fact that other boats were there in the ordinary course of business to receive coal, which prevented plaintiffs’ boats from going directly to the place of delivery. The bur*653den of showing a right to or preference of access to the place of delivery rested upon plaintiffs. But if the contract was broken by defendants’ refusal to deliver, plaintiffs could only recover the difference between the price agreed upon and the actual value of the coal. They could not recover demurrage.

*S. P. Nash*for the appellants.

*D. 8. Morrell*for the respondents.

Peckham, J.,

reads for reversal and new trial. All concur. Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, costs to abide event.
#### Spencer S. Peak, Respondent, *v.*Francis Lemon et al., Appellants.

(Argued April 19, 1872;

decided April 23, 1872.)

*Amasa J. Parher*for the appellants.

*A. Storrs*for the respondent.

Agree to affirm. No opinion.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.
#### Bernard Ryan, Resp’t, v. The Syracuse, Binghamton & N. Y. R. R. Co., App’lt.

*Edmund O’Connor,*for resp’t; *Louis Marshall,*for app’lt.

Judgment affirmed, with, costs. All concur.

Affirming 25 N. Y. State Rep., 1038.
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 32.1

CERTIFICATIONS 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 Banyan Corporation (the "Company")
  on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities
  and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael Gelmon,
  Chief Executive Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 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 result of operations
      of the Company, as of, and for the periods presented in the Report.

/s/ Michael Gelmon 
  Michael Gelmon 
  Chief Executive Officer 
  April 14, 2005

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Banyan Corporation and will be retained by Banyan Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A17D0089. HENRY BARNES v. EILEEN WALKER.

Henry Barnes applied to this Court for discretionary review of the trial court’s

order holding him in contempt of certain portions of the parties’ divorce decree

concerning the equitable division of marital property. The Georgia Supreme Court

has jurisdiction over all divorce and alimony cases, including those cases ancillary

to divorce proceedings. See Ga. Const. 1983, Art. VI, Sec. VI, Par. III (6); Morris v.

Surges, 284 Ga. 748, 750 (2) (670 SE2d 84) (2008). “[A]n appeal from the judgment

in a contempt action seeking to enforce any portion of [a] divorce decree other than

child custody is ancillary to divorce and alimony and falls within [the Supreme]

Court’s jurisdiction over ‘divorce and alimony cases.’ [Cits.]” Rogers v. McGahee,

278 Ga. 287, 288 (1) (602 SE2d 582) (2004); see also Morris, 284 Ga. at 750 (2). 

Because this application appears to fall within the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction, it is

hereby TRANSFERRED to the Supreme Court for disposition.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

10/13/2016

October 13, 2016
Exhibit 32








CERTIFICATION


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)






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), each of the undersigned officers of Trist
Holdings, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), does hereby certify with
respect to the Annual Report of the Company on Form 10-KSB for the year ended
December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
“10-KSB Report”) that:





(1)
            the
      10-KSB 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 10-KSB Report fairly presents, in all
      material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
      the Company.














Date:  March
31,
2008                                                                   /s/ ERIC
STOPPENHAGEN


Eric Stoppenhagen


Interim President and Corporate
Secretary
#### METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Werner H. KRAMARSKY, as Commissioner of the New York State Division of Human Rights, the New York State Division of Human Rights, and the New York State Human Rights Appeal Board, Defendants-Appellants.

No. 19, Docket 80-7185.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Argued Sept. 25, 1980.

Decided May 11, 1981.

Ann Thacher Anderson, Gen. Counsel, State Div. of Human Rights, New York City, for defendants-appellants.

*1310Jeffrey A. Mishkin, New York City (Jeffrey D. Fields, Proskauer, Rose, Goetz & Mendelsohn, New York City, on the brief), for plaintiff-appellee.

Before MOORE and KEARSE, Circuit Judges, and TENNEY, District Judge.*

*

 Honorable Charles H. Tenney, Senior Judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.

KEARSE, Circuit Judge:

This is one of three unconsolidated cases argued together on appeal. Also argued were *Delta Air Lines, Inc. v. Kramarsky,*650 F.2d 1287 (2nd Cir.) *(“Delta”),*and *Burroughs Corporation v. Kramarsky,*650 F.2d 1308 (2nd Cir.). The plaintiff here is an employer which maintains employee benefit plans that are subject to federal regulation under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001*et seq.*(1976). Plaintiff is also subject to New York’s Human Rights Law, N.Y. Exec. Law § 296 (McKinney 1972 & Supp. 1980-81) (“HRL”). HRL requires that disability benefit plans such as plaintiff’s provide benefits for disabilities related to pregnancy on the same basis as for other disabilities. Plaintiff’s plans exclude disabilities related to pregnancy.

Plaintiff commenced the present action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against enforcement of the HRL on the sole ground that § 514(a) of ERISA provides that ERI-SA preempts state laws such as the HRL. Relying on *Pervel Industries, Inc. v. Connecticut Comm'n on Human Rights & Opportunities,*468 F.Supp. 490 (D.Conn.1978), *aff’d mem.,*603 F.2d 214 (2d Cir. 1979), *cert. denied,*444 U.S. 1031, 100 S.Ct. 701, 62 L.Ed.2d 667 (1980), in which this Court affirmed by summary order a ruling that ERISA § 514(a) preempted a Connecticut statute similar to the HRL, the district court granted a preliminary injunction against enforcement of the HRL.

For the reasons stated in our opinion in *Delta,*plaintiff’s claim is untenable in light of the Supreme Court’s action in *Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co. v. Minnesota,*444 U.S. 1041, 100 S.Ct. 725, 62 L.Ed.2d 726 (1980). We therefore reverse, and remand to the district court for dismissal of the complaint.
#### Harold HARTER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. E.K. MCDANIEL, Warden; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-17101

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 24, 2017 *

Filed June 6, 2017

Harold Harter, Pro Se

Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and SILVERMAN and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Harold Harter appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging equal protection and due process claims in connection with parole consideration. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion a dismissal for failure to prosecute. *Edwards v. Marin Park, Inc.,*356 F.3d 1058, 1063 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Harter’s action for failure to prosecute because Harter was given leave to amend his complaint and he failed to do so. *See Edwards,*356 F.3d at 1065 (“The failure of the plaintiff eventually to respond to the court’s ultimatum— either by amending the complaint or by indicating to the court that it will not do so—is properly met with the sanction of a Rule 41(b) dismissal.”); *Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier,*191 F.3d 983, 989 (9th Cir. 1999) (listing factors to be considered in dismissing a case as a sanction for failure to prosecute).

Because Harter’s action was dismissed as a sanction for failure to prosecute, the dismissal of his due process claim is not reviewable. *See Al-Torki v. Kaempen,*78 F.3d 1381, 1386 (9th Cir. 1996) (“[I]nterlocutory orders, generally appealable after final judgment, are not appealable after a dismissal for failure to prosecute[.]”).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
# Jurnalul Oficial C 19A/2014

| | ISSN 1977-1029
  doi:10.3000/19771029.CA2014.019.rom |
| --- | --- |
| Jurnalul Oficial
  al Uniunii Europene | C 19A |
| | |
| Ediţia în limba română | Comunicări şi informări | Anul 5722 ianuarie 2014 |

ISSN 1977-1029

doi:10.3000/19771029.CA2014.019.rom

Jurnalul Oficial

al Uniunii Europene

C 19A

Ediţia în limba română

Comunicări şi informări

Anul 5722 ianuarie 2014

---

| Informarea nr. | Cuprins | Pagina |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | V   Anunțuri |
| | PROCEDURI ADMINISTRATIVE |
| | Agenția Europeană pentru Medicamente |
| 2014/C 019A/01 | Aviz de anulare | 1 |

Informarea nr.

Cuprins

Pagina

V   Anunțuri

PROCEDURI ADMINISTRATIVE

Agenția Europeană pentru Medicamente

2014/C 019A/01

Aviz de anulare

1

LISTA JURNALELOR OFICIALE, SERIA C A, CONCURSURI

În continuare se găsește lista Jurnalelor Oficiale din seria C A care au fost publicate în anul în curs.

Dacă nu există mențiuni speciale, Jurnalele Oficiale s-au publicat în toate versiunile lingvistice.

| 5 | |
| --- | --- |
| 6 | |
| 11 | |
| 19 | |

5

6

11

19

| RO | |
| --- | --- |

RO

---

V Anunțuri

PROCEDURI ADMINISTRATIVE

Agenția Europeană pentru Medicamente

| 22.1.2014 | RO | Jurnalul Oficial al Uniunii Europene | CA 19/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.1.2014

RO

Jurnalul Oficial al Uniunii Europene

CA 19/1

---

Aviz de anulare

(2014/C 19 A/01)

Agenția Europeană pentru Medicamente a decis să anuleze următoarele proceduri de selecție:

| — | EMA/CA/S/039: Agent contractual (contract pe termen scurt), Asistență științifică pentru Organul european de supraveghere a consumului de substanțe antimicrobiene în medicina veterinară (ESVAC) (FG IV) (1); |
| --- | --- |

—

EMA/CA/S/039: Agent contractual (contract pe termen scurt), Asistență științifică pentru Organul european de supraveghere a consumului de substanțe antimicrobiene în medicina veterinară (ESVAC) (FG IV) (1);

| — | EMA/CA/S/040: Agent contractual (contract pe termen scurt), Secretariatul științific pentru avizele Comisiei Europene privind rezistența la antimicrobiene, Departamentul Medicamente pentru uz veterinar (FG IV) (2). |
| --- | --- |

—

EMA/CA/S/040: Agent contractual (contract pe termen scurt), Secretariatul științific pentru avizele Comisiei Europene privind rezistența la antimicrobiene, Departamentul Medicamente pentru uz veterinar (FG IV) (2).

---

(1)  JO C 320A, 6.11.2013, p. 2.

(2)  A se vedea nota de subsol 1.

---
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Fidel MENDEZ-HERNANDEZ, also known as Fidel Mendez Hernandez, Defendant-Appellant United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Fidel Mendez-Hernandez, also known as Miguel Mendez Hernandez, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-51127 Cons. w/ No. 16-51129 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed May 2, 2017

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

Fidel Mendez-Hernandez, Pro Se

Before JONES, WIENER, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Fidel Mendez-Hernandez has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v.*Calif*233
      *ornia,*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). Mendez-Hernandez has filed a response. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Mendez-Hernandez’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel; we therefore decline to consider the claims without prejudice to collateral review. *See United States v. Isgar,*739 F.3d 829, 841 (5th Cir. 2014).

We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Mendez-Hernandez’s response. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeals present no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, the motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEALS ARE DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

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.
##### 



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 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 and2)
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and result of operations of the Company.
 Date:  March 28, 2008
    By:
    /s/ Richard M. OsborneRichard M. OsborneChairman of the Board and Chief Executive OfficerDate:  March 28, 2008
    By:
    /s/ C. Jean MihitschC. Jean MihitschChief Financial Officer 63
DISTRICT HEALTH DEPARTMENT 

AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DIVISION 

June 5,2008 

Mr. Sean Hogan 

Technical Support Office (AIR-7) 

U.S. EPA - Region IX 

75 Hawthorne Street 

San Francisco, CA 941 05 

Dear Mr. Hogan: 

In accordance with 40 CFR Part 58, this letter certifies that all Washoe County, Nevada, calendar year 

2007, arr~bient air quality monitoring and quality assurance data have been completely submitted to the 

AQS and are both accurate to the best of my knowledge taking into consideration the quality 

assurance findings. The attached SLAMS summary reports generated by AQS therefore depict 

accurate ambient air quality monitoring and quality assurance summary statistics for 2007. 

Sincerely, 

Duane Sikorski 

Air Quality Planning and Monitoring Supervisor 

401 RYLAND STREET, Ste. 331 P.O. BOX 11 130, RENO, NEVADA 89520 - 0027 

(775) 784-7200 FAX (775) 784-7225 

www.waslioecounty.us/health 

WASHOE COUNTY IS AN EQUAL OPPCRTUNITY EMPLOYER HIRING EMPLOYMENT ELElGlBLE APPLICANTS
#### Renee Brown, Appellant, *v.*J. P. Logan Realty Company, Inc., Respondent.

Submitted May 17, 1943;

decided May 27, 1943.

*859
      *John G. Coleman*for motion.

No one opposed.

Motion granted and appeal dismissed, with costs and ten dollars costs of motion, unless the appeal is perfected and appellant pays ten dollars costs within ten days, in which event the motion is denied.