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





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Quarterly Report of CHDT Corporation on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2010, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Stewart Wallach, Chief Executive Officer of the Company of the Company, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, hereby certify 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.








/s/ Stewart Wallach


Stewart Wallach


CEO, Director


(Principal Executive Officer)








November 12th, 2010








A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Larry RICE Plaintiff-Appellant v. INTERFOOD, INC.; Jason Medcalf; Dirk Neerhoff; Nick Sharp; F.C.G.M. (Frank) van Stipdonk Defendants-Appellees

No. 17-1886

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: January 17, 2018

Filed: January 22, 2018

*416Larry Rice, Pro Se

Jeffery Thomas McPherson, Jeffrey L. Schultz, Jonathan Ryan Shulan, Armstrong *&*Teasdale, Saint Louis, MO, for Defendants-Appellees

Before GRUENDER, BOWMAN, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

In this appeal in a diversity case, Larry Rice challenges the district court’s1 dismissal of his complaint and adverse grant of summary judgment as to Appellees’ counterclaim. Rice also challenges the district court’s order denying him leave to file an amended complaint. Upon carefully reviewing the record and the parties’ arguments on appeal, we find no basis for reversal. See Schaaf v. Residential Funding Corp., 517 F.3d 544, 549 (8th Cir. 2008) (dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) is reviewed de novo); see also Residential Funding Co. v. Terrace Mortg. Co., 725 F.3d 910, 915 (8th Cir. 2013) (grant of summary judgment is reviewed de novo). We also conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Rice leave to amend his complaint. See Kmak v. Am. Century Cos., 873 F.3d 1030, 1034 (8th Cir. 2017) (standard of review). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

1

. The Honorable Henry E. Autrey, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.
##### 



Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF
2002


In connection with the Quarterly Report of Loral
Space & Communications Ltd. (the Company) on
Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2003 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Report), I, Bernard L. Schwartz, 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, 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 results of operations of the Company.



| |                        
| | -----------------------
| | /s/ BERNARD L. SCHWARTZ
| |                        
| | Bernard L. Schwartz    
| | Chief Executive Officer

November 14, 2003
|    |                                                                              |
|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 1. | I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Evolent Health, Inc.; and |

|    |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            |
|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 2. | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report. |

|        |
|--------|
|        |  |  |  |
| Dated: | April 1, 2016 | /s/  Frank Williams |   |
|   |   | Name:  Frank Williams |   |
|   |   | Title:  Chief Executive Officer |   |
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 95-10685

Summary Calendar

__________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

MARTIN EDUARDO GONZALEZ,

 Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:90-CR-005-K

- - - - - - - - - -

December 26, 1996

Before REAVLEY, JONES and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

We remanded the instant case to the district court for a

determination whether Martin Eduardo Gonzalez's delay in filing

his notice of appeal was due to excusable neglect. In finding no

excusable neglect, the district court pointed out that Gonzalez

gave no reason for his delay in giving notice of appeal. This

court therefore lacks jurisdiction to consider the appeal.

APPEAL DISMISSED.
#### Michael KNUDSEN, Appellant, v. Phillip GRINDSTAFF and The Travelers Indemnity Company, Respondents.

No. ED 104665

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION TWO.

FILED: October 17, 2017

Application for Transfer to Supreme Court Denied December 19, 2017

*758FOR APPELLANT: Cynthia M. Hen-nessey, 425 North New Balias Road, Suite 280, St. Louis, MO 63141, Alexandra D. LaBarge, 5257 Oleatha Avenue, St. Louis, MO 63139.

For Respondent Phillip Grindstaff: Thomas J. Magee, Kathleen Schlef Hamilton, Bradley Michael Zaffiri, 211 North Broadway, Ste. 2700, St. Louis, Missouri 63102.

For Respondent The Travelers Indemnity Company: Seth G. Gausnell, James D, Ribaudo, .100 South Fourth Street, Suite 400, St. Louis, Missouri 63102-1821.

Before Lisa P. Page, P.J., Roy L. Richter, J., and Philip M. Hess, J.

ORDER

PER CURIAM-

Following a car accident, Michael Knudsen (“Appellant”) filed a petition alleging the negligence of Philip Grindstaff (“Employee”) and the vicarious liability, negligent entrustment, and negligent retention of Travelers Indemnity Company (“Employer”). Appellant alleged Employee was negligent in colliding into the rear of Appellant’s vehicle and that Employer was vicariously liable and negligent in entrusting Employee with the company vehicle and retaining Employee. The trial court entered summary judgment in favor of Employer and the jury returned a verdict in favor of Employee. Appellant appeals from the trial court’s order granting summary judgment and the jury’s verdict. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

.The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).
<PAGE>

                                                                EXHIBIT 11.1
                                           
                             INVISION TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
                          STATEMENT REGARDING CALCULATION OF
                             NET INCOME (LOSS) PER SHARE 
                        (IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER SHARE DATA)



                                                              THREE MONTHS
                                                             ENDED MARCH 31,
                                                             1996       1997
                                                         ----------  -----------
 Net income (loss)                                        $(1,215)      $642
                                                         ----------  -----------
                                                         ----------  -----------
 Shares used in per share calculations:
    Common Stock                                              148      9,179
    Common Stock issuable upon exercise of 
     options and warrants                                     825      1,093
    Convertible Preferred Stock                             6,108         --
                                                         ----------  -----------
Shares used in per share calculations                       7,081     10,272
                                                         ----------  -----------
                                                         ----------  -----------
Net income (loss) per share                                $(0.17)     $0.06
                                                         ----------  -----------
                                                         ----------  -----------
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

[LOGO OF LYONDELL APPEARS HERE]

                                                                    NEWS RELEASE

For information, contact:
Media - Anne M. Knisely (713) 309-2643
Investors - Doug Pike (713) 309-7141                       FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE


                  Lyondell Announces $337 Million Note Offering

      HOUSTON, Nov. 26, 2002 - Lyondell Chemical Company (NYSE: LYO) today
announced that it is selling $337 million of 9-1/2% senior secured notes due in
2008. The notes are priced at 97.75% to yield approximately 10%. The terms of
the notes will be the same as the terms of Lyondell's currently outstanding
9-1/2% notes due 2008, except for the amount of the first interest payment due
December 15, 2002. The net proceeds will be used to prepay a portion of the
approximately $418 million of outstanding term loans under Lyondell's credit
facility. The offering is expected to close December 4, 2002.

      The senior secured notes will be offered only to qualified institutional
buyers and other eligible purchasers in a Rule 144A private placement offering.
The notes will not be registered under the Securities Act of 1933 and may not be
offered or sold in the United States absent registration or an applicable
exemption from registration.

                                       ###

The statements in this release relating to matters that are not historical facts
are forward-looking statements that are subject to risks and uncertainties.
Actual results could differ materially, based on factors including, but not
limited to: the cyclical nature of the chemical and refining industries; global
economic conditions; industry production capacity and operating rates; the
supply/demand balance for Lyondell's and its joint ventures' products;
competitive products and pricing pressures; availability, cost and volatility of
raw materials and utilities; access to capital markets; governmental regulatory
actions and political unrest; technological developments and other risk factors.
For more detailed information about the factors that could cause actual results
to differ materially, please refer to Lyondell's Annual Report on Form 10-K for
the year ended December 31, 2001, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission in March 2002, and Lyondell's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the
quarter ended September 30, 2002, which was filed in November 2002.

Lyondell Chemical Company
www.lyondell.com
<PAGE>
Exhibit 31.1

       CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 15d-14(a) (17 CFR 240.15d-14(a)) AND
                  SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, John F. Kennedy, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-QSB of ChrisKen Partners Cash Income
Fund L.P., a Delaware limited partnership;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements
made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not
misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(c) and 15d-15 (e)), for the registrant and have:

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that
material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this report is being prepared; and

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report are conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures as of the end of the period covered by
this report based on such evaluation, and;

c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal
quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially
affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.

5. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors
(or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information, and;

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over
financial reporting.

Date: November 11, 2005


/s/ John F. Kennedy
---------------------------------------
John F. Kennedy
President
ChrisKen Income Properties, Inc.,
   Managing General Partner
ChrisKen Partners Cash Income Fund L.P.


                                       16
III

105TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 265

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MAY 7, 1998

Received

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Authorizing the use of the East Front of the Capitol Grounds

for performances sponsored by the John F. Kennedy

Center for the Performing Arts.

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring),
2

HCON 265 RDS

1 SECTION 1. AUTHORIZING USE OF EAST FRONT FOR PER2 FORMANCES SPONSORED BY KENNEDY CEN3 TER.

4 In carrying out its duties under section 4 of the John

5 F. Kennedy Center Act (20 U.S.C. 76j), the John F. Ken6 nedy Center for the Performing Arts in cooperation with

7 the National Park Service (in this resolution jointly re8 ferred to as the ‘‘sponsor’’) may sponsor public perform9 ances on the East Front of the Capitol Grounds at such

10 dates and times as the Speaker of the House of Represent11 atives and Committee on Rules and Administration of the

12 Senate may approve jointly.

13 SEC. 2. TERMS AND CONDITIONS.

14 (a) IN GENERAL.—Any performance authorized

15 under section 1 shall be free of admission charge to the

16 public and arranged not to interfere with the needs of

17 Congress, under conditions to be prescribed by the Archi18 tect of the Capitol and the Capitol Police Board.

19 (b) ASSUMPTION OF LIABILITIES.—The sponsor shall

20 assume full responsibility for all liabilities incident to all

21 activities associated with the performance.

22 SEC. 3. PREPARATIONS.

23 (a) STRUCTURES AND EQUIPMENT.—In consultation

24 with the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the

25 Committee on Rules and Administration of the Senate, the

26 Architect of the Capitol shall provide upon the Capitol
3

HCON 265 RDS

1 Grounds such stage, sound amplification devices, and

2 other related structures and equipment as may be required

3 for a performance authorized under section 1.

4 (b) ADDITIONAL ARRANGEMENTS.—The Architect of

5 the Capitol and the Capitol Police Board may make such

6 additional arrangements as may be required to carry out

7 the performance.

8 SEC. 4. APPLICABILITY OF PROHIBITIONS.

9 Nothing in this resolution may be construed to waive

10 the applicability of the prohibitions established by section

11 4 of the Act of July 31, 1946 (40 U.S.C. 193d; 60 Stat.

12 718), concerning sales, displays, and solicitations on the

13 Capitol Grounds.

14 SEC. 5. EXPIRATION OF AUTHORITY.

15 A performance may not be conducted under this reso16 lution after September 30, 1998.

Passed the House of Representatives May 7, 1998.

Attest: ROBIN H. CARLE,

Clerk.
IA

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 19

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal

the twenty-second article of amendment, thereby removing the limitation

on the number of terms an individual may serve as President.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 7, 1997

Mr. SERRANO introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to

the Committee on the Judiciary

JOINT RESOLUTION

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United

States to repeal the twenty-second article of amendment,

thereby removing the limitation on the number of terms

an individual may serve as President.

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled

3 (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the fol4 lowing article is proposed as an amendment to the Con5 stitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all

6 intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when

7 ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several
2

•HJ 19 IH

1 States within seven years after the date of its submission

2 for ratification:

3 ‘‘ARTICLE —

4 ‘‘The twenty-second article of amendment to the Con5 stitution of the United States is hereby repealed.’’.

Æ
#### COM. v. SIDERIO, T.

1124 EDA 2015

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

09/11/2017

CP-51-CR-0014283-2013

(Philadelphia)

Vacated/Remanded
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8253 

To amend the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to require 30 percent 

of revenues from offshore wind energy to be deposited in the National 

Oceans and Coastal Security Fund, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 15, 2020 

Mr. BEYER (for himself and Mr. ROONEY of Florida) introduced the following 

bill; which was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To amend the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to require 

30 percent of revenues from offshore wind energy to 

be deposited in the National Oceans and Coastal Security 

Fund, 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 ‘‘Strengthening Coastal 

5 Communities Act of 2020’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 8253 IH

1 SEC. 2. OFFSHORE WIND REVENUES. 

2 Section 8(p)(2) of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands 

3 Act (43 U.S.C. 1337(p)(2)) is amended by adding at the 

4 end the following: 

5 ‘‘(C) With respect to any lease under this 

6 subsection for the production of wind energy, 

7 30 percent of the revenue from such lease shall 

8 be deposited in the National Oceans and Coast9 al Security Fund established by section 904 of 

10 the National Oceans and Coastal Security Act 

11 (16 U.S.C. 7503).’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. David MARTINEZ-VEGA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-40493 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed January 3, 2018

Carmen Castillo Mitchell, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

David Martinez-Vega, Pro Se

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent David Martinez-Vega has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders*v. *California,*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). Martinez-Vega has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, the motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the appeal is 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.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Colitha BUSH, a.k.a. Diane Lane, a.k.a. Diane Rice, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-13081 Non-Argument Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

(February 12, 2018)

Jonathan Colan, Emily M. Smachetti, U.S. Attorney Service — Southern District of Florida, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Miami, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Colitha Patrice Bush, Pro Se

Before WILSON, JORDAN and NEWSOM, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Stefanie Moon, appointed counsel for Colitha Bush in this direct criminal appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the appellant and filed a brief pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and Bush’s convictions and sentences are AFFIRMED.
No. 11-10155.

#### Sanchez *v.*California.

Ct. App. Cal., 4th App. Dist., Div. 2. Certiorari denied.