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

Exhibit 32.1

                           NATIONAL AUTO CREDIT, 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 National Auto Credit, Inc., a
Delaware corporation (the "Registrant"), in connection with the Registrant's
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended July 31, 2004, 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
Date:  September 10, 2004

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 National Auto Credit, Inc. and
will be retained by National Auto Credit, Inc. and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
```
EXHIBIT 99.3

LIBERATE TECHNOLOGIES        CORPORATE GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE CHARTER

I.    ORGANIZATION

The Corporate Governance Committee will consist of at least two independent directors elected by the Board. A chairperson shall be designated by the Committee,
who shall be the lead independent director. "Independent director" under this Charter will have the same definition that appears in the Nasdaq Marketplace Rules or its successor publication.

II.    RESPONSIBILITIES

The Committee Chairman shall be the Board's Lead Independent Director and shall have the authority to add items to the agenda for any Board meeting and the
authority under Liberate's Bylaws to call Special Meetings of the Board.

The
Committee's responsibilities shall be to:

A.    Identify
potential candidates for membership on the Board.

B.    Gather
information on such candidates and conduct interviews and meetings with such candidates or their references.

C.    Make
recommendations to the Board regarding candidates for membership on the Board.

D.    Make
recommendations to the Board regarding overall Board composition and makeup, with a goal of having a majority of independent directors on the Board.

E.    Perform
such other functions as may be necessary or convenient in order to discharge the foregoing.

F.    Make
recommendations and assist the Board in succession planning for executive officers.

G.    Oversee
compliance with Liberate's Legal Compliance Guidelines and the performance of the Compliance Committee (created by the Board and consisting of Liberate
management) in maintaining and updating the Legal Compliance Guidelines and monitoring compliance with them.

H.    Conduct
annual evaluations of Board performance.

I.    Make
this Charter public in filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

J.    Undertake
such other matters as shall be requested from time to time by the Board.

III.  MEETINGS

The Committee shall hold meetings as and when the Committee deems it appropriate to do so and may take action by unanimous written consent.

IV.  MINUTES

Minutes shall be kept of each meeting of the Committee and will be provided to each member of the Board upon request. Any action of the Committee shall be subject
to revision, modification, or rescission by the Board.

---

QuickLinks
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-6714

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

RONNIE DOUGLAS BURR, JR.,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at 

Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles, District Judge. (1:15-cr-00362-CCE-1; 1:17-cv-01032-

CCE-LPA)

Submitted: November 15, 2022 Decided: November 18, 2022

Before NIEMEYER and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ronnie Douglas Burr, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 21-6714 Doc: 10 Filed: 11/18/2022 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Ronnie Douglas Burr, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the 

recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Burr’s 28 U.S.C. § 2255

motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of 

appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B). A certificate of appealability will not issue 

absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(2). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this 

standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists could find the district court’s assessment 

of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. Davis, 137 S. Ct. 759, 773-74 

(2017). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must 

demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable and that the motion

states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 

134, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Burr has not made 

the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the 

appeal. 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

USCA4 Appeal: 21-6714 Doc: 10 Filed: 11/18/2022 Pg: 2 of 2
#### Walter Mitchell STEWART, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WATTS, Crossroads Transport Officer, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 16-35492

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted October 23, 2017 *

Filed October 26, 2017

Walter Mitchell Stewart, Jr., Pro Se

Chad Eldon Adams, Attorney, Browning, Kaleczyc, Berry & Hoven, P.C., Helena, MT, for Defendant-Appellee

Before: McKEOWN, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Federal prisoner Walter Mitchell Stewart, Jr. appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment for failure to exhaust administrative remedies in his action alleging violation of his constitutional rights. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. *Williams v. Paramo,*775 F.3d 1182, 1191 (9th Cir. 2015). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Stewart failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether he properly exhausted his administrative remedies, or whether there was “something in his particular case that made the existing and generally available administrative remedies effectively unavailable to him.” *Albino v. Baca,*747 F.3d 1162, 1172 (9th Cir. 2014) (en banc); *see also Woodford v. Ngo,*548 U.S. 81, 90, 126 S.Ct 2378, 165 L.Ed.2d 368 (2006) (requiring proper exhaustion, which means “using all steps that the agency holds out, and doing so properly (so that the agency addresses the issues on the merits)” (emphasis, citation, and internal quotation marks omitted)).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Stewart’s motion to file a second amended complaint because amendment would have been futile. *See Chappel v. Lab. Corp. of Am.,*232 F.3d 719, 725-26 (9th Cir. 2000) (setting forth standard of review and explaining that “[a] district court acts within its discretion to deny leave to amend when amendment would be futile”).

In light of our disposition, we do not consider the merits of Stewart’s claims.

To the extent that Stewart seeks additional relief (Docket Entry No. 11), Stewart’s request is denied.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
EX-10.1



 Exhibit 10.1 

Plan Amendment 
 FOURTH AMENDMENT TO 
 CITRIX SYSTEMS, INC. 

AMENDED AND RESTATED 
 2005 EQUITY INCENTIVE PLAN 
 WHEREAS, Citrix Systems, Inc. (the “Company”)
desires to amend the Citrix Systems, Inc. Amended and Restated 2005 Equity Incentive Plan (as amended and in effect, the “Plan”) to (i) increase the aggregate number of shares authorized for issuance under the Plan by 5,500,000 shares
of common stock, par value $.001 per share, of the Company (the “Common Stock”), and (ii) increase the aggregate number of shares of Common Stock issuable pursuant to restricted stock, restricted stock units, performance units or
stock grants by 3,000,000 shares of Common Stock (the “Plan Amendment”); and 
 WHEREAS, on February 16, 2012, subject to
stockholder approval, the Board of Directors of the Company approved the Plan Amendment. 
 NOW THEREFORE, in accordance with Section 15 of
the Plan, the Plan is hereby amended as follows: 
  

	 	1.	Section 4 of the Plan is hereby amended by deleting the first paragraph thereof in its entirety and substituting the following in lieu thereof:


 “At no time shall the number of shares of Stock issued pursuant to or subject to outstanding Awards
granted under the Plan (including pursuant to Incentive Options), nor the number of shares of Stock issued pursuant to Incentive Options, exceed 48,600,000 shares of Stock; subject, however, to the provisions of Section 8 of the Plan. In
addition to the foregoing, at no time shall the number of shares of Stock issued pursuant to Restricted Stock, Restricted Stock Units, Performance Units or Stock Grants exceed 9,000,000 shares of Stock; subject, however, to the provisions of
Section 8 of the Plan.” 
  

	 	2.	The Plan Amendment shall be effective upon approval of the stockholders of the Company at the 2012 Annual Meeting of Stockholders. If the Plan Amendment is not so
approved at such meeting, then the amendment to the Plan set forth herein shall be void ab initio. 

  

	 	3.	Except herein above provided, the Plan is hereby ratified, confirmed and approved in all respects.
IIB 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6602 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 20, 2024 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and 

Urban Affairs 

AN ACT 

To amend the Export Control Reform Act of 2018 relating 

to the review of the interagency dispute resolution process. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

HR 6602 RFS

1 SECTION 1. REVIEW OF INTERAGENCY DISPUTE RESOLU2 TION PROCESS. 

3 Section 1763(c) of the Export Control Reform Act 

4 of 2018 (50 U.S.C. 4822(c)) is amended— 

5 (1) by striking ‘‘In any case’’ and inserting the 

6 following: 

7 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—In any case’’; 

8 (2) by inserting ‘‘countries subject to a com9 prehensive United States arms embargo,’’ after 

10 ‘‘matters relating to’’; 

11 (3) by striking ‘‘may be decided’’ and inserting 

12 ‘‘shall be decided’’; 

13 (4) by adding at the end the following: ‘‘The 

14 chair of the Committee is authorized to decide any 

15 case or matter described in the preceding sentence 

16 in which the Committee is unable to decide the case 

17 or matter by majority vote.’’; and 

18 (5) by further adding at the end the following: 

19 ‘‘(2) DEFINITION.—In paragraph (1), the term 

20 ‘country subject to a comprehensive United States 

21 arms embargo’ means— 

22 ‘‘(A) any country listed on table 1 to para23 graph (d)(1) of section 126.1 of title 22, Code 

24 of Federal Regulations (as such section is in ef25 fect on the day before the date of the enact26 ment of this paragraph); and 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
3 

HR 6602 RFS

1 ‘‘(B) the Russian Federation.’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives March 19, 

2024. 

Attest: KEVIN F. MCCUMBER, 

Clerk. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 6811 

To amend the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 

to provide for high-priority research and extension grants for natural 

climate solutions, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 14, 2023 

Mr. GARBARINO (for himself and Ms. HOULAHAN) introduced the following 

bill; which was referred to the Committee on Agriculture 

A BILL 

To amend the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade 

Act of 1990 to provide for high-priority research and 

extension grants for natural climate solutions, 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 ‘‘Natural Climate Solu5 tions Research and Extension Act of 2023’’. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 6811 IH

1 SEC. 2. HIGH-PRIORITY RESEARCH AND EXTENSION 

2 GRANTS FOR NATURAL CLIMATE SOLUTIONS. 

3 Section 1672(d) of the Food, Agriculture, Conserva4 tion, and Trade Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 5925(d)) is amend5 ed by adding at the end the following: 

6 ‘‘(21) NATURAL CLIMATE SOLUTIONS.—Re7 search and extension grants may be made under this 

8 section for the purpose of advancing land manage9 ment practices that store carbon or reduce green10 house gas emissions in agricultural lands and soils, 

11 grasslands, wetlands, and forests, including practices 

12 that— 

13 ‘‘(A) are based on traditional ecological 

14 knowledge; 

15 ‘‘(B) promote biodiversity and climate 

16 change resilience; and 

17 ‘‘(C) reduce runoff.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
---

Exhibit 13.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 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 for the Fiscal Year Ended October 31, 2016
(the Report), I, Joseph Fuda, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, based on my knowledge, 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.

|Date: | March 10, 2017 | /s/ Joseph Fuda              
|----- | -------------- | -----------------------------
|      |                | Joseph Fuda                  
|      |                | Chief Executive Officer      
|      |                | (Principal executive officer)

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE>           5
<LEGEND>
                    The Schedule contains summary financial
                    information extracted from the financial
                    statements for Prudential Securities Strategic
                    Trust and is qualified in its entirety by
                    reference to such financial statements
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>
<CIK>               0001005006
<NAME>              Prudential Securities Strategic Trust
<MULTIPLIER>        1

<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               Dec-31-1999

<PERIOD-START>                  Jan-1-1999

<PERIOD-END>                    Sep-30-1999

<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-Mos

<CASH>                          30,937,971

<SECURITIES>                    5,630,069

<RECEIVABLES>                   10,658

<ALLOWANCES>                    0

<INVENTORY>                     0

<CURRENT-ASSETS>                36,578,698

<PP&E>                          0

<DEPRECIATION>                  0

<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  36,578,698

<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           1,077,552

<BONDS>                         0

<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>           0

<PREFERRED>                     0

<COMMON>                        0

<OTHER-SE>                      35,501,146

<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    36,578,698

<SALES>                         0

<TOTAL-REVENUES>                2,330,717

<CGS>                           0

<TOTAL-COSTS>                   0

<OTHER-EXPENSES>                3,348,389

<LOSS-PROVISION>                0

<INTEREST-EXPENSE>              0

<INCOME-PRETAX>                 0

<INCOME-TAX>                    0

<INCOME-CONTINUING>             0

<DISCONTINUED>                  0

<EXTRAORDINARY>                 0

<CHANGES>                       0

<NET-INCOME>                    (1,017,672)

<EPS-BASIC>                   (3.02)

<EPS-DILUTED>                   0

</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America Plaintiff-Appellee v. Rodney D. BROWN, also known as Rod Defendant-Appellant

No. 17-1200

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: August 30, 2017

Filed: September 1, 2017

Kristin Huntington Bryant, Michael S. Gordon, Edward O. Walker, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Eastern District of Arkansas, Little Rock, AR, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Patrick J. Benca, Benca & Benca, Little Rock, AR, Gregory Elliott Bryant, Little Rock, AR, for Defendant-Appellant

Rodney D. Brown, Pro Se

Before LOKEN, GRUENDER, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Federal inmate Rodney Brown appeals *768the district court’s1 dismissal of his pro se motion for a sentence reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Upon careful de novo review, see United States v. Long, 757 F.3d 762, 763 (8th Cir. 2014) (standard of review), we conclude that dismissal was proper because Brown was sentenced based on a binding plea agreement that included a base offense level and drug quantity, but did not include a criminal history level or Guidelines range, and thus was not expressly based on a Guidelines range that was subsequently lowered by the Sentencing Commission, see Freeman v. United States, 564 U.S. 522, 131 S.Ct. 2685, 2695-700, 180 L.Ed.2d 519 (2011) (So-tomayor, J., concurring); Long, 757 F.3d at 764.

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

1

. The Honorable Brian S. Miller, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas.
#### Thomas Jay CORNIEA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Nancy A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner Social Security, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 15-16407

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 16, 2017 * San Francisco, California

Filed May 18, 2017

Eric G. Slepian, Esquire, Slepian Law Office, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellant

Ryan Ta Lu, Esquire, Assistant Regional Counsel, Social Security Administration, Office of the General Counsel, Seattle, WA, for Defendant-Appellee

Before: W. FLETCHER and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges, and HUCK,** District Judge.

*

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

**

 The Honorable Paul C. Huclt, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Florida, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM ***

Thomas J. Corniea appeals the district court’s order affirming the Social Security Administration’s determination that he is not disabled. *See*42 U.S.C. § 405(g). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and review the district court’s decision de novo. *Molina v. Astrue,*674 F.3d 1104, 1110 (9th Cir. 2012). We adopt and affirm for the well-stated reasons in the district court order of May 15, 2015.

AFFIRMED.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
P R E

­ F L I G H T C H E C K L I S T *

E Q U I P M E N T C H E C K

A l l h u l l s c r e w s a r e s e c u r e l y f a s t e n e d t o t h e b o d y o f t h e U A S

.

A l l p r o p e l l e r s a r e s e c u r e l y f a s t e n e d t o t h e m o t o r s

.

C a m e r a

, g i m b a l

, a n d a c c o m p a n y i n g w i r e s a r e s e c u r e l y f a s t e n e d t o t h e h u l l

.

T h e r e a r e n o l o o s e p a r t s

, w i r e s

, s c r e w s

, o r e x t r e m i t i e s t h a t c a n f a l l f r o m t h e U A S

.

B E F O R E T A K E O F F

T h e o p e r a t o r p e r

f o r m e d a v i s u a l r e v i e w o f t h e a r e a o f o p e r a t i o n

.

T h e o p e r a t o r i s a w a r e o f a e r i a l o b s t r u c t i o n s ( p o l e s

, s t r u c t u r e s

, u t i l i t y w i r e s

, t r e e s )

T h e r e o p e r a t o r i s n o t w i t h i n 3 m i l e s o f a n a i r p o r t

.

T h e o p e r a t o r c l e a r l y m a r k e d a t a k e o f f / l a n d i n g z o n e

.

T h e o p e r a t o r h a s c l e a r l y a n n o u n c e d t h a t a U A S i s p r e p a r i n g f o r f l i g h t

.

T h e o p e r a t o r h a s e n s u r e d t h a t n o p e r s o n a l o r a n i m a l s a r e n e a r t h e t a k e o f f / l a n d i n g z o n e

.

W e a t h e r p e r m i t s t h e s a f e o p e r a t i o n o f t h e U A S

.

I f w o r k i n g i n p a i r s

, t h e s e c o n d o p e r a t o r i s i n p o s i t i o n t o m a i n t a i n v i s u a l c o n t a c t o f t h e U A S

.

P O W E R I N G S Y S T E M

T h e b a t t e r y b e i n g p l a c e d i n t o t h e U A S h a s a f u l l c a p a c i t y c h a r g e

.

T h e b a t t e r i e s i n t h e R C c o n t r o l l e r h a v e a s u f f i c i e n t c h a r g e

.

T h e r e i s a s p a r e U A S b a t t e r y w i t h a f u l l c h a r g e

.

T h e b a t t e r y i s s e c u r e l y f a s t e n e d w i t h i n t h e U A S h u l l

.

T h e U A S p o w e r s u p c o m p l e t e l y i n d i c a t i n g n o r m a l o p e r a t i o n a l i t y ( a u d i b l e a n d l i g h t s v e r i f i c a t i o n )

C O N N E C T I V I T Y

T h e r e i s a s t e a d y c o n n e c t i o n b e t w e e n t h e R C c o n t r o l l e r a n d t h e U A S

.

T h e U A S i s r e s p o n d i n g a c c u r a t e l y a n d e f f i c i e n t l y t o R C c o m m a n d s

.

U A S i s i n d i c a t i n g f u l l s a t e l l i t e / G P S c o n n e c t i v i t y

.

U A S h a s s e t t h e “ H o m e ” l o c a t i o n

.

F o l l o w i n g t a k e

­ o f

f

, t h e U A S s u c c e s s f u l l y c o m p l e t e s a 1 0

­ s e c o n d u n a s s i s t e d h o v e r

.

U A S O p e r a t o r ’ s S i g n a t u r e

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ D a t e

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

* A l l U A S O p e r a t o r s M U S T p e r f o r m t h i s p r e

­ f l i g h t c h e c k l i s t p r i o r t o e v e r y f l i g h t

.
#### Robert Leonhardt, Sr., et al., Respondents, *v.*State of New York, Appellant.

(Claim No. 25202.)

Submitted October 4, 1943;

decided October 21, 1943.

*Jacob 1. Horoivits*for motion.

*Nathaniel L. Goldstein, Attorney-General (Burns F. Barford*of counsel), opposed.

Motion granted and appeal dismissed, with costs, and ten dollars costs of motion.