alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**EXHIBIT
      32.**  **2**





**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 Quarterly Report of Homeland Security Capital Corporation
      (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2007, as filed
      with
      the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
      the undersigned, in the capacities and on the date indicated below, hereby
      certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
      906
      of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his 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 operation of the Company.




Date: August
              14, 2007
            By:
            /s/ 
Michael
              BriganteName:
                Michael BriganteTitle:
              Chief Financial Officer and Principal Accounting
              Officer




A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
      authentications, 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 Homeland Security Capital Corporation
      and
      will be retained by Homeland Security Capital Corporation and furnished to
      the
      United States Securities and Exchange Commission or its Staff upon
      request.





25
#### John BRACEY Plaintiff-Appellant v. LITTLE ROCK ARKANSAS, CITY OF Defendant Appellee

No. 17-1085

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: November 29, 2017

Filed: December 12, 2017

Ronald L. Davis, Jr., Jack R. Kearney, Little Rock, AR, for Plaintiff-Appellant

Alexander Julian Betton, City Attorney’s Office, Little Rock, AR, for Defendant-Appellee

Before GRUENDER, BOWMAN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

John Bracey sued the city of Little Rock, Arkansas, alleging that he was fired from his position as a police officer because of his race. The city said that Bracey was terminated because he violated a police department rule requiring officers to report any incidents of domestic violence in which they were the “alleged suspect,” as well as rules against conduct unbecoming of an officer, conduct that could result in justified criticism of the department, failure or refusal to obey a lawful order, and giving false testimony. As he did in the District Court,1 Bracey devotes most *479of his argument to disputing the city’s account of his conduct. But the question of Bracey’s guilt or innocence is not determinative of the issue on appeal, which is whether the city intended to discriminate. See Pulczinski v. Trinity Structural Towers, Inc., 691 F.3d 996, 1003 (8th Cir. 2012). Nor does it matter how Bracey’s behavior compared to another Little Rock police officer who also was fired after a domestic-violence incident. To disprove the city’s stated reason for firing him, Braeey would need to identify someone of a different race who was similarly situated to himself and *was not*fired. See Chappell v. Bilco Co., 675 F.3d 1110, 1118-19 (8th Cir. 2012). The only other potential comparator he identifies does not fit the bill because unlike Braeey, he was not the aggressor in the altercation in which he was involved nor had he violated multiple, department rules.

Braeey also cites generalized testimony about racial tension and unequal treatment in the Little Rock Police Department. He does not, however, identify any specific instances of similarly situated people being treated differently, and vague allegations of bias do not support an inference that the personnel decision was racially motivated. See Gibson v. Am. Greetings Corp., 670 F.3d 844, 854-55 (8th Cir.) (noting that “general allegations” of disparate treatment without identifying the employees are “insufficient to survive summary judgment”), cert. denied, 568 U.S. 885, 133 S.Ct. 313, 184 L.Ed.2d 154 (2012).

We affirm the judgment of the District Court. See Torgerson v. City of Rochester, 643 F.3d 1031, 1042 (8th Cir.) (en banc) (standard of review), cert. denied, 565 U.S. 978, 132 S.Ct. 513, 181 L.Ed.2d 349 (2011).

1

. The Honorable James M. Moody, Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern District *479of Arkansas, adopting the recommendation of the Honorable J. Thomas Ray, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.
COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

STATE OF LOUISIANA

RE: Docket Number 2023 -CA -0578

Rise St. James, Louisiana Bucket Brigade, Sierra Club, 

Center for Biological Diversity, Healthy Gulf, Earthworks & 

No Waste Louisiana

Versus - - 

19th Judicial District Court

Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality Case #: 694029

East Baton Rouge Parish

On Application for Rehearing filed on 02/ 0}/ 2024 by Intervenor- Beverly Alexander

Rehearing DENIED

Mitchell R. Theriot

Guy Holdridge

4q -#-P 4- Z//&// 

Allison H. Penzato

Elizabeth fvolfe

FEB 15 2024
COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

STATE OF LOUISIANA

RE: Docket Number 2023 -CA -0578

Rise St. James, Louisiana Bucket Brigade, Sierra Club, 

Center for Biological Diversity, Healthy Gulf, Earthworks & 

No Waste Louisiana

Versus - - 

19th Judicial District Court

Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality Case #: 694029

East Baton Rouge Parish

On Application for Rehearing filed on 02/ 02/ 2024 by Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality

Rehearing DENIED

Jeweluke" Welch Jr. 

Mitchell R. Theriot

Guy Holdridge

Allison H. Penzato

env

Elizabeth Wolfe

r1%- FEB 15 2024
COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

STATE OF LOUISIANA

RE: Docket Number 2023 -CA -0578

Rise St. James, Louisiana Bucket Brigade, Sierra Club, 

Center for Biological Diversity, Healthy Gulf, Earthworks & 

No Waste Louisiana

Versus - - 

19th Judicial District Court

Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality Case #: 694029

East Baton Rouge Parish

On Application for Rehearing filed on 02/ 02/ 2024 by RISE St. James, et al

Rehearing DFNiFn

Jewel E. " Duke" Welch Jr. 

Mitchell R. Theriot

Guy Holdridge

Allison H. Penzato

Elizabeth Wo fe

r, ,r FEB 15 2024
**Exhibit 3.20**

CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT 

To 

CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION 

Of 

**AIRPAX HOLDINGS, INC.**

 

AirpaxHoldings, Inc., a corporation organized and existing under the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware (the “Corporation”), does hereby certify that: 

The amendment to the Corporation’s Certificate of Incorporation set forth in the following resolution approved by the Corporation’s Board of Directors and stockholders was duly adopted in accordance with theprovisions of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware: 

RESOLVED: That the Certificate of Incorporation of the Corporation be amendedby striking Article First in its entirety and substituting therefor: 

FIRST: The name of the corporation is SensataTechnologies Maryland, Inc. 

 

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned, being the Secretary of the Corporation, for the purpose ofamending the Certificate of Incorporation of said Corporation, pursuant to Section 242 of the Delaware Corporation Law, does make and file this Certificate, hereby declaring and certifying that the facts herein stated are true, and accordinglyhas hereunto set his/her hand this 20th day of September, 2007.
II

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 835

To provide for the operation of laboratories to carry out certain publichealth functions for the region along the international border with Mexico, and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MAY 19 (legislative day, MAY 15), 1995

Mrs. HUTCHISON introduced the following bill; which was read twice and

referred to the Committee on Labor and Human Resources

A BILL

To provide for the operation of laboratories to carry out

certain public-health functions for the region along the

international border with Mexico, 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 ‘‘Southwest Public

5 Health Laboratory Act’’.

6 SEC. 2. PUBLIC-HEALTH LABORATORIES FOR SOUTHWEST7 ERN BORDER REGION.

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of Health and

9 Human Services, acting through the Director of the Cen-
2

•S 835 IS

1 ters for Disease Control and Prevention or through other

2 agencies, may make grants to States for the operation of

3 laboratories to protect the public health through the ana4 lyzing of human, wildlife, air, water, and soil samples.

5 (b) PURPOSE OF GRANTS.—The activities for which

6 amounts awarded under a grant made under subsection

7 (a) may be used include the establishment of the labora8 tories, increasing the capacity of existing facilities, and

9 collecting the samples described in subsection (a) to be

10 analyzed by the laboratories.

11 (c) ELIGIBILITY.—A State shall only be eligible to re12 ceive a grant under subsection (a) if the State—

13 (1) prepares and submits to the Secretary of

14 Health and Human Services an application, at such

15 time, in such manner, and containing such informa16 tion as the Secretary may require; and

17 (2) agrees that the laboratory involved under

18 the grant will be operated by the State, and will

19 serve the region along the international border be20 tween the United States and Mexico (in the States

21 of California, Arizona, New Mexico, or Texas).

22 (d) LOCATION OF LABORATORY.—In awarding a

23 grant under subsection (a), the Secretary of Health and

24 Human Services shall ensure that the laboratory to be

25 funded under the grant be established in an urban area
3

•S 835 IS

1 that is centrally located in the region involved, be located

2 within 25 miles of the border described in subsection

3 (c)(2), and receive the principal amount of the grant

4 award under this section.

Æ
#### NIKON CORPORATION, Petitioner-Appellee, v. GLOBALFOUNDRIES U.S., INC., Respondent-Appellant.

No. 17-17148

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted December 7, 2017 San Francisco, California

Filed December 12, 2017

Jack Williford Londen, Sorin Gabriel Zaharia, Morrison & Foerster LLP, San Francisco, CA, Marc A. Hearron, Joseph R. Palmore, Morrison & Foerster LLP, Washington, DC, for Petitioner-Appellee

James Murphy Dowd, Esquire, Derek Anthony Gosma, Counsel, WilmerHale LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Dana Burwell, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Boston, MA, Gregory Hayes Lantier, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr LLP, Washington, DC, for Respondent-Appellant

Before: GRABER and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and SIMON,* District Judge.

*

 The Honorable Michael H. Simon, United States District Judge for the District of Oregon, sitting by designation,

MEMORANDUM **

GlobalFoundries U.S., Inc., timely appeals the district court’s order, in response *351to a request by Nikon Corporation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782(a), requiring Glo-balFoundries to produce documents and other information. Reviewing the magistrate judge’s decision for abuse of discretion, Four Pillars Enters. Co. v. Avery Dennison Corp., 308 F.3d 1075, 1078 (9th Cir. 2002), we affirm.

The statutory requirements for discovery indisputably are met. The district court carefully considered the factors described by the Supreme Court in Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., 542 U.S. 241, 264, 124 S.Ct. 2466, 159 L.Ed.2d 355 (2004). On this record, we cannot conclude that the court abused its “broad discretion” in ordering discovery limited to documents physically located within the United States. Akebia Therapeutics, Inc. v. FibroGen, Inc., 793 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2015).

For example, even for the documents located both in the United States and abroad, the second Intel factor is met because Nikon’s experts stated, in unrebut-ted declarations, that the foreign tribunals would welcome the discoverable evidence. Similarly, we are unpersuaded that the discovery order imposes an undue burden on GlobalFoundries, the fourth Intel factor. We note that the magistrate judge ordered Nikon to pay GlobalFoundries’ reasonable out-of-pocket discovery expenses. Even if an alternative weighing of the factors were reasonable, the district court’s decision was not “(1) illogical, (2) implausible, or (3) without support in inferences that may be drawn from the facts in the record.” Mujica v. AirScan Inc., 771 F.3d 680, 589 (9th Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks omitted). Moreover, no bright-line rule exists in the statute, Supreme Court law, or our precedents—and we decline to create one—to the effect that discovery must be denied for the sole reason that the same items are found in another country.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Exhibit 32.2


                            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 Amendment No. 1 on Form 10-QSB/A to the Quarterly
Report on Form  10-QSB of FFD  Financial  Corporation  (the  "Company")  for the
quarter  ended  December  31,  2004 as filed with the  Securities  and  Exchange
Commission  on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I, Robert R.  Gerber,  the Vice
President,  Treasurer  and Chief  Financial  Officer  of the  Company,  certify,
pursuant  to 18  U.S.C.  ss.  1350,  as  adopted  pursuant  to  ss.  906  of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

      (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.




/s/Robert R. Gerber
-----------------------------------------------------
Robert R. Gerber
Vice President, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer
June 15, 2005
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20
- 7164

JUSTIN VALENTINO MASON , Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v. B. BOOKER, Warden , Respondent

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Richmond

. Robert E. Payne , Senior District Judge. ( 3:19

- cv - 00864

- REP

- RCY )

Submitted : December 22, 2020 Decided: December 29, 2020

Before NIEMEYER, FLOYD, and RICHARDSON , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

. Justin Valentino Mason, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Justin Valentino Mason seeks to appeal the district cou rt’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a subst antial 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 c ould find the district court’s assessment o f 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 petition 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))

. Limiting our review of the record to the issues raised in Mason ’s informal brief , we conclude that Mason has not made the requisite showing. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b); see also Jackson v. Lightsey , 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) ( “ The informal brief is an important document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our review is limi ted to issues preserved in that brief. ” )

. 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
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kelby Devonta BENJAMIN, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-7040

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: October 17, 2017

Decided: November 3, 2017

Kelby Devonta Benjamin, Appellant Pro Se. Joan Brodish Childs, Robert Michael. Hamilton, Angela Hewlett Miller, Assistant United States Attorneys, Sandra Jane Hairston, Acting United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

*280Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in'this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Kelby Devonta Benjamin appeals the district court’s orders denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(e) (2012) motion for reduction of sentence and denying his motions for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *United States v. Benjamin,*No. 1:00-cr-00200-CCE-1 (M.D.N.C. June 28 and Nov. 4, 2016). 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.

*AFFIRMED*
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 53 (Friday, March 18, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 15432]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-05749]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention


Disease, Disability, and Injury Prevention and Control Special 
Emphasis Panel; (SEP)--CE22-008, ``Using Data Linkage To Improve Our 
Understanding of Suicide/Self-Inflicted Injury and/or Drowning''; 
Amended Notice of Meeting

    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Disease, 
Disability, and Injury Prevention and Control Special Emphasis Panel 
(SEP)--CE22-008, ``Using Data Linkage to Improve Our Understanding of 
Suicide/Self-inflicted Injury and/or Drowning'', May 24-25, 2022, 8:30 
a.m., EDT-5:30 p.m., EDT, Videoconference, in the original FRN. The 
meeting was published in the Federal Register on January 14, 2022, 
Volume 87, Number 10, page/s/2440-2441.
    The meeting is being amended to change the meeting date and should 
read as follows:
    CE22-008, ``Using Data Linkage to Improve Our Understanding of 
Suicide/Self-inflicted Injury and/or Drowning'', May 24, 2022, 1:00 
p.m., EDT-5:00 p.m., EDT.
    The meeting is closed to the public.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mikel Walters, Ph.D., Scientific 
Review Officer, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, CDC, 
4770 Buford Highway NE, Mailstop F-63, Atlanta, Georgia 30341, 
Telephone (404) 639-0913, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#6f22380e031b0a1d1c2f0c0b0c41080019"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="48051f29243c2d3a3b082b2c2b662f273e">[email protected]</span></a>.
    The Director, Strategic Business Initiatives Unit, Office of the 
Chief Operating Officer, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 
has been delegated the authority to sign Federal Register notices 
pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee management 
activities, for both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and 
the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.

Kalwant Smagh,
Director, Strategic Business Initiatives Unit, Office of the Chief 
Operating Officer, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
[FR Doc. 2022-05749 Filed 3-17-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4163-18-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS

-- -- -- --

denied

NO. 15-0103

AUGUSTA BARGE COMPANY

v.

FIVE B'S, INC.

§

§

§

§

§

§

Galveston County,

1st District.

March 27, 2015

Petitioner's petition for review, filed herein in the above numbered and styled case,

having been duly considered, is ordered, and hereby is, denied.

May 15, 2015

Petitioner's motion for rehearing of petition for review, filed herein in the above

numbered and styled case, having been duly considered, is ordered, and hereby is, denied.



I, BLAKE A. HAWTHORNE, Clerk of the Supreme Court of Texas, do hereby certify

that the above and attached is a true and correct copy of the orders of the Supreme Court of

Texas in the case numbered and styled as above, as the same appear of record in the minutes of

said Court under the date shown.

It is further ordered that petitioner, AUGUSTA BARGE COMPANY, pay all costs

incurred on this petition.

WITNESS my hand and seal of the Supreme Court of Texas, at the City of Austin, this

the 15th day of May, 2015.

Blake A. Hawthorne, Clerk

By Monica Zamarripa, Deputy Clerk

FILE COPY
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                       1,619,339
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      700
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,932,539
<PP&E>                                          62,227
<DEPRECIATION>                                   8,891
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,044,613
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,265,275
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        19,615
<OTHER-SE>                                   5,989,390
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,044,613
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,203,809
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              (27,928)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,411,296
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (4,587,177)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (4,587,177)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.33)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.33)
        

</TABLE>