alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32

                        CERTIFICATIONS UNDER SECTION 906


      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 deltathree, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the
"Company"), does hereby certify, to such officer's knowledge, that:


      The Annual Report for the year ended December 31, 2004 (the "Form 10-K")
of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in the Form
10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company.




      Dated: March 30, 2005              /s/ Shimmy Zimels
                                         ---------------------------------------
                                         Shimmy Zimels, Chief Executive Officer
                                         (Principal Executive Officer)






      Dated: March 30, 2005              /s/ Paul C. White
                                         ---------------------------------------
                                         Paul C. White, Chief Financial Officer
                                         (Principal Financial Officer)

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 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 People of the State of New York, ex rel. Robert Schnabel, Appellant, *v.*John J. McCloskey, Jr., Sheriff of the City of New York, Respondent, and Rosario G. Schnabel, Intervening Respondent.

Argued May 20, 1943;

decided October 21, 1943.

*675
      *Herbert C. Smyth*and *George Natanson*for appellant.

*Emanuel Beoher*and *Benjamin A. Javits*for Rosario Gr. Schnabel, intervener, respondent.

Order affirmed; no opinion.

Concur: Lehman, Ch. J., Loughran, Rippey, Lewis, Conway, Desmond and Thacher, JJ.
#### UNITED STATES of America Plaintiff-Appellee v. VINH XUAN NGO Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-3890

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Filed: June 6, 2017

*453John Kokkinen, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, District of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, for Plaintiff-Appel-lee

Vinh Xuan Ngo, Pro Se

Before LOKEN, MURPHY, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Pursuant to a written plea agreement that included an appeal waiver, Vinh Xuan Ngo pleaded guilty to charges of aiding and abetting bank fraud and aggravated identity theft. The district court1 sentenced him below the calculated Guidelines range to 114 months in prison, and Ngo appeals. His counsel has moved to withdraw, and in a brief submitted under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), counsel argues that the sentence is unreasonable, and asks that this court consider whether the appeal waiver should be enforced in this case.

Having carefully considered the record, we conclude that the appeal waiver is enforceable and should be enforced. See United States v. Scott, 627 F.3d 702, 704 (8th Cir. 2010) (de novo review). At the plea hearing, the district court carefully and thoroughly questioned Ngo to ensure that he was entering into the plea agreement and the appeal waiver knowingly and voluntarily, see Nguyen v. United States, 114 F.3d 699, 703 (8th Cir. 1997); this appeal falls within the scope of the broadly worded appeal waiver; and no miscarriage of justice would result from enforcing the waiver, see United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 890-92 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc). Further, we have reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 76, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), and find no non-frivolous issues for appeal outside the scope of the waiver.

Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we dismiss this appeal.

1

. The Honorable Patrick J. Schiltz, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Miguel Angel MARTINEZ-CERDA, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-11309 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed September 19, 2017

Brian W. McKay, Esq., Assistant U.S. Attorney, James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Kevin Joel Page, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, Michael Arthur Lehmann, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth, TX, for Defendant-Appellant

Before JOLLY, OWEN, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Miguel Angel Martinez-Cerda appeals the 41-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry. He contends that the district court erred by imposing a 16-level enhancement under the crime of violence provision of U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(a)(1)(A)(ii) (2015) based on his prior Texas felony conviction of aggravated assault. We review this determination de novo. *See United States v. Izaguirre-Flores,*405 F.3d 270, 272 (5th Cir. 2005).

Martinez-Cerda argues that Texas aggravated assault is broader than generic aggravated assault and, furthermore, does not require the use or threatened use of force for purposes of § 2L1.2(a)(1)(A)(ii). He acknowledges this court’s holding in *United States v. Guillen-Alvarez,*489 F.3d 197, 198 (5th Cir. 2007), but argues that *Guillen-Alvarez*and *United States v. Mungia-Portillo,*484 F.3d 813 (5th Cir. 2007), were wrongly decided and have been called into question by the reasoning of other circuit courts. However, one panel of this court may not overrule the decision of another panel absent an intervening change in the law, for instance through a superseding decision of the Supreme Court *399or this court sitting en banc. *See United States v. Setser,*607 F.3d 128, 131 (5th Cir. 2010). Moreover, this court has recently reaffirmed the holding in *Guillen-Alvarez. United States v. Shepherd,*848 F.3d 425, 427-28 (5th Cir. 2017). It is unnecessary to consider whether Martinez-Cerda’s prior conviction involved the use of force.

The district court’s judgment is 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.
exv4w1






Exhibit 4.1







	aINCORPORATEDUNDERTHELAWSOFTHESTATEOFDELAWAREcMMnSTcSEEREVERSEFORCERTAINDEFINITIONSCUSIP290139104THI
SCERTIFIESTHATISTHERECORDHODEROFFULLYPAIDANDNON-ASSESSABLESHARESOFCOMMONSTOCK,$0.0001PARVALUE,OFEqua
        ,nc.
transferableonlyonthebooksoftheCorporationinpersonorbydulyauthorizedattorney,uponsurrenderofthisCert
ificateproperlyendorsed.
ThisCertificateisnotvalidunlesscountersignedbytheTransferAgentandRegisteredbytheRegistrar.
INWITNESSwhereof,thefacsimilesignaturesoftheCorporation’sdulyauthorizedofficers. Dated:
SECRETARYPRESIDENTCOUNTERSIGNEDANDREGISTERED: aMERcanSTcTRanSER&TRuSTcManY,c(Brooklyn,NY)
TRANSFERAGENTANDREGISTRARBYAUTHORIZEDSIGNATUREEqua,nc.
SPECIMENaINCORPORATEDUNDERTHELAWSOFTHESTATEOFDELAWAREcMMnSTcSEEREVERSEFORCERTAINDEFINITIONSCUSIP2901
39104THISCERTIFIESTHATISTHEECORDHOLDEROFFULLYPAIDANDNON-ASSESSABLESHARESOFCOMMONSTOCK,$0.0001PARVALU
E,OFEqua,nc.
transferableonlyonthebooksoftheCorporationinpersonorbydulyauthorizedattorney,uponsurrenderofthisCert
ificateproperlyendorsed.
ThisCertificateisnotvalidunlesscountersignedbytheTransferAgentandRegisteredbytheRegistrar.
INWITNESSwhereof,thefacsimilesignaturesoftheCorporation’sdulyauthorizedofficers. Dated:
SECRETARYPRESIDENTCOUNTERSIGNEDANDREGISTERED: aMERcanSTcTRanSER&TRuSTcManY,c(Brooklyn,NY)
TRANSFERAGENTANDREGISTRARBYAUTHORIZEDSIGNATUREEqua,nc. SPECIMEN





 









 








	Stockholders may obtain, upon request and without charge, a statement of the rights, preferences,
privileges and restrictions granted to or imposed upon each class or series of shares authorized to
be issued and upon the holders thereof from the principal office of the Corporation. The following
abbreviations, when used in the inscription on the face of this certificate, shall be construed as
though they were written out in full according to applicable laws or regulations: TEN COM — as
tenants in common UNIF GIFT MIN ACT—..Custodian.. (Cust) (Minor) TEN ENT — as tenants by the
entireties JT TEN — as joint tenants with right under Uniform Gifts to Minors of survivorship and
not as Act (State) tenants in common Additional abbreviations may also be used though not in the
above list. For value received, hereby sell, assign and transfer unto PLEASE INSERT SOCIAL SECURITY
OR OTHER IDENTIFYING NUMBER OF ASSIGNEE SPECIMEN PLEASE PRINT OR TYPEWRITE NAME AND ADDRESS
INCLUDING ZIP CODE OF ASSIGNEE Shares of the common stock represented by the within Certificate,
and do hereby irrevocably constitute and appoint Attorney to transfer the said stock on the books
of the within named Corporation with full power of substitution in the premises. Dated THE
SIGNATURE TO THIS ASSIGNMENT MUST CORRESPOND NOTICE: WITH THE NAME AS WRITTEN UPON THE FACE OF THE
CERTIFICATE, IN EVERY PARTICULAR, WITHOUT ALTERATION OR ENLARGEMENT, OR ANY CHANGE WHATEVER.
SIGNATURE(S) GUARANTEED: THE SIGNATURE(S) MUST BE GUARANTEED BY AN ELIGIBLE GUARANTOR INSTITUTION
(BANKS, STOCKBROKERS, SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATIONS AND CREDIT UNIONS WITH MEMBERSHIP IN AN
APPROVED SIGNATURE GUARANTEE MEDALLION PROGRAM), PURSUANT TO S.E.C. RULE 17Ad-15.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

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

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Depomed, Inc.(the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2009 asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),I, Carl A. Pelzel, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that:

 

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

 

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

 
|   | Date: May 5,  2009                |
|--------|----------------------------------------|
|   |                                   |
|   |                                   |
|   | /s/ Carl A.  Pelzel                    |
|   | Carl A. Pelzel                         |
|   | President and Chief  Executive Officer |

 

----
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6955 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 6955

To amend title 5, United States Code, to provide that the positions of 
 the Chief and Assistant Chief of the Uniformed Division of the United 
States Secret Service are within the Senior Executive Service, and for 
                            other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 11, 2024

Mr. Rutherford (for himself and Mr. Thompson of Mississippi) introduced 
 the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight 
                           and Accountability

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title 5, United States Code, to provide that the positions of 
 the Chief and Assistant Chief of the Uniformed Division of the United 
States Secret Service are within the Senior Executive Service, and for 
                            other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Investing in Uniformed Division 
Leadership Act''.

SEC. 2. CHIEF AND ASSISTANT CHIEF POSITIONS OF UNIFORMED DIVISION OF 
              THE UNITED STATES SECRET SERVICE WITHIN SENIOR EXECUTIVE 
              SERVICE.

    (a) In General.--Section 10203 of title 5, United States Code, is 
amended--
            (1) in subsection (a), in the table relating to the 
        schedule of rates of basic pay, by striking the items relating 
        to Assistant Chief and Chief;
            (2) in subsection (b)(1)(A), by striking ``(except the 
        Deputy Chiefs, Assistant Chief and Chief)'' and inserting 
        ``(except the Deputy Chiefs)''; and
            (3) by inserting after subsection (b) the following:
    ``(c) Chief and Assistant Chief Positions Within SES.--The 
positions of Chief and Assistant Chief in the United States Secret 
Service Uniformed Division shall be career reserved positions (as that 
term is defined in section 3132(a)) within the Senior Executive 
Service.''.
    (b) Conversion.--Any individual occupying the position of Chief or 
Assistant Chief in the Uniformed Division of the United States Secret 
Service on date of enactment of this section shall be converted to the 
Senior Executive Service as soon as practicable after such date.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 32.1

                            SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION



<PAGE>



                                  Exhibit 32.1



                  CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                       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  accompanying  Annual  Report on Form 10-K of Tombstone
Technologies,  Inc. for the year ended  December  31,  2009,  I, John N. Harris,
President,  Chief Executive Officer, Director and Principal Executive Officer of
Tombstone Technologies, Inc., hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted  pursuant to Section  906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,  to my
knowledge, that:

     a)   such Annual  Report on Form 10-K of Tombstone  Technologies,  Inc. for
          the year ended December 31, 2009, fully complies with the requirements
          of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

     b)   the  information  contained  in such  Annual  Report  on Form  10-K of
          Tombstone  Technologies,  Inc.  for the year ended  December 31, 2009,
          fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
          results of operations of Tombstone Technologies, Inc.


Date:  March 26, 2010


                                                  /s/ John N. Harris
                                                  ------------------------------
                                                  John N. Harris, President and
                                                  Chief Executive Officer
                                                  (Principal Executive Officer)




This  certification  accompanies  the  Report  pursuant  to  Section  906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 and shall not,  except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,  be deemed  filed by the  Company  for  purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
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 Institute on Aging Special Emphasis Panel; Exercise and Alzheimer's Disease.                    

*Date:*                         March 22, 2022.                    

*Time:*                         11:30 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Institute on Aging, Gateway Building, 7201 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Dario Dieguez, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Scientific Review Branch, National Institutes of Health, National Institute on Aging, Bethesda, MD 20814, (301) 827-3101,                         *dario.dieguez@nih.gov*.                    

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.866, Aging Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

      ( print page 10804)    
Dated: February 18, 2022.

David W. Freeman,

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2022-04005 Filed 2-24-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
#### THOMPKINS vs. HERRON, et al.

Appeal from Guadalupe county.

*Pracii&e-Evidence.*— Where a cause has been submitted to a judge without a jury, the court’s finding upon the facts is as conclusive as the verdict of a "jury. Upon a state of conflicting evidence, it appears that the trial j udge gave credence to the witnesses for the defense, and discredited those of the plaintiff. In this state- of tha case the judgment is upheld, there being a sufficiency of evidence to support it!

Affirmed!

Willie. Chief Justice.
SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

LAMONT HOWARD, JR., Appellant,
vs. I. BACA, WARDEN, N.N.C.C., Respondent. No. 67342 

# FILED
MAR 1 7 2016

TRACE K. UNDEMAN CLERK OF

. SUPREME COURT BY DEPUTY CLERK 

### ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE This is an appeal from a district court order denying a postconviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Second Judicial District Court, Washoe County; Connie J. Steinheimer, Judge.

Appellant Lamont Howard, Jr., argues that the district court erred in denying his petition without holding an evidentiary hearing on his claim that his trial counsel was ineffective for opening the door to evidence of a prior bad act in which Howard harassed a pregnant woman who was walking with her child. To prove ineffective assistance of counsel, a petitioner must demonstrate that counsel's performance was deficient in that it fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, and resulting prejudice such that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's errors, the outcome of the proceedings would have been different. 

### Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-88 (1984); 

### Warden v. Lyons, 100 Nev. 430, 432-33, 683 P.2d 504, 505 (1984) (adopting the test in 

### Strickland). We conclude that the district court did not err in denying this claim without an evidentiary hearing. On direct appeal, this court concluded that, even if the prior bad act evidence was erroneously

(0) 1947A aeo go

- 0 

### 899 0admitted at trial, the admission was harmless in light of the other

evidence. 

### Howard v. State, Docket No. 59039 (Order of Affirmance, February 6, 2013). Thus, the district court properly found that Howard could not demonstrate a reasonable probability of a different outcome at trial but for trial counsel's opening the door to this evidence. Because Howard's claim of ineffective assistance failed on the prejudice prong, he was not entitled to an evidentiary hearing. 

### See Hargrove v. State, 100 Nev. 498, 502-03, 686 P.2d 222, 225 (1984) (holding that a petitioner is entitled to an evidentiary hearing only when his claims are supported by specific factual allegations that are not belied by the record and, if true, would entitle him to relief). Accordingly, we conclude that Howard fails to demonstrate that the district court erred in denying the petition without an evidentiary hearing, and we

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.

Hardesty

J.

cc: Hon. Connie J. Steinheimer, District Judge Story Law Group Attorney General/Carson City Washoe County District Attorney Washoe District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA 2
(0) 1947A cep
# EUR-Lex - 32001D0414 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 32001D0414

**2001/414/EC: Commission Decision of 18 May 2001 on the inventory of wine production potential presented by Germany pursuant to Council Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 (notified under document number C(2001) 1432) **

*
Official Journal L 149 , 02/06/2001 P. 0037 - 0037 *

Commission Decision

of 18 May 2001

on the inventory of wine production potential presented by Germany pursuant to Council Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999

(notified under document number C(2001) 1432)

(Only the German text is authentic)

(2001/414/EC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the common organisation of the market in wine(1), as amended by Regulation (EC) No 2826/2000(2), and in particular Article 23(4) thereof,

Whereas:

(1) Article 16 of Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 provides for the presentation of an inventory of wine production potential. Access to the regularisation of unlawfully planted areas, the increase in planting rights and support for restructuring and conversion is subject to prior presentation of this inventory.

(2) Article 19 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1227/2000 of 31 May 2000 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 on the common organisation of the market in wine, as regards production potential(3), sets out details of the information to be included in the inventory.

(3) By letters of 22 September 2000 and 12 December 2000 Germany sent the Commission the information referred to in Article 16 of Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999. Examination of this information shows that Germany has compiled the inventory.

(4) This Decision does not entail recognition by the Commission of the accuracy of the information contained in the inventory or of the compatibility of the legislation referred to in the inventory with Community law. It is without prejudice to any future Commission decision on these points.

(5) The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Wine,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The Commission notes that Germany has compiled the inventory referred to in Article 16 of Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999.

Article 2

This Decision is addressed to the Federal Republic of Germany.

Done at Brussels, 18 May 2001.

For the Commission

Franz Fischler

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 179, 14.7.1999, p. 1.

(2) OJ L 328, 23.12.2000, p. 2.

(3) OJ L 143, 16.6.2000, p. 1.