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





STATEMENT OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER


PURSUANT TO SECTION 1350 OF TITLE 18 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE





Pursuant to Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United States Code, the undersigned, Thomas Granville, Principal Executive Officer of Axion Power International, Inc. (the “Company”), hereby certifies that:





The Company’s Amendment No. 1 to Form 10-K Annual Report for the year ended December 31, 2010 (the “Report”) 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 Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





/s/ Thomas GranvilleThomas Granville, Principal Executive OfficerDated: April 29, 2011
Exhibit 32.2

In connection with the Annual Report of Bishop Capital Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending March 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Sherry
L. Moore, Chief Financial Officer, Principal Accounting Officer and Secretary of
the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted 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) and
          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.

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

/s/  Sherry L. Moore
-----------------------------------
     Sherry L. Moore
     Chief Financial Officer,
     Principal Accounting Officer and
     Secretary

     July 14, 2004
No. 09-11496.

#### Derrick William Caldwell, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 952, 131 S. Ct. 209,

178 L. Ed. 2d 249,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7707.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied.

Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.

Same case below, 585 F.3d 1347.
CAAP-12-0000279

#### State v. Nabarro

Reversed
No. 09-11512.

#### Hung Nam Tran, Petitioner v. Robert Kriz, et al.

562 U.S. 885, 131 S. Ct. 212,

178 L. Ed. 2d 128,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6603.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.

Same case below, 377 Fed. Appx. 542.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ME LEE,

 Plaintiff-counter-claimant -

Appellant,

 v.

KYUNG H. CHOI; et al.,

 Defendants,

SOO BIUN, an individual; et al.,

 Counter-defendants,

SAM LEE,

 Counter-defendant,

 and

MIKYUNG JAIME KIM, AKA Kathleen

Kim; et al.,

 Defendants - Appellees,

No. 09-55000

D.C. No. 2:07-cv-07026-FMCAJW

MEMORANDUM*

FILED

JUN 17 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument, and therefore deny Appellee LVN Corporation’s request. 

See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

2 09-55000

NETBANK FBS,

 Defendant-counter-claimant -

Appellee,

LNV Corporation, as Receiver of Netbank,

FBS,

 Successor-in-interestDefendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Florence-Marie Cooper, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted May 25, 2010** 

Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges. 

Me Lee appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying her motion to

reconsider the dismissal of her claims against the Federal Deposit Insurance

Corporation for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We have jurisdiction under 28

U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. Sch. Dist. No. 1J,

Multnomah County v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993). We

affirm.
3 09-55000

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Lee’s motion to

reconsider because she did not advance any viable ground for relief under the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or the Central District of California’s Local

Rules. See id. at 1262-63 (setting forth requirements for reconsideration under

Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) and 60); C.D. Cal. R. 7-18 (setting forth requirements for

reconsideration).

Lee’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive. 

We do not consider Lee’s supplemental brief received on November 2,

because Lee did not file a motion to file a supplemental brief. 

All pending motions are denied.

AFFIRMED.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Region 1

June 24, 20IS Doug McVay 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100 Boston,MA 02109-3912

Rhode Island Department ofEnvironmental Management Office ofAir Resources 235 Promenade Street Providence, RI 02908 Dear Mr. McVay: OnJune 23, 20I5,the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) received a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision from the Rhode Island Department ofEnvironmental Management. The SIP revision was submitted to meet the Clean Air Act§IIO(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) infrastructure requirements for the 2008 ozone standard. This SIP is also referred to as the "transport" SIP and/or the "good neighbor" SIP. The Clean Air Actrequires states to address emissions that significantly contribute to nonattainment or maintenance ofthe ozone standard in downwind states. EPA finds that Rhode Island's SIP revision is administratively and technically complete, i.e., it meets the completeness criteria outlined in 40 CFR Part 51 Appendix V. Richard Burkhart is the principal contact for this rulemaking. Ifyou or your staffhave any questions on this rulemaking, please contact him at 6I7-9I8-I664. Sincerely,

Ken Moraff, Director Office ofEcosystem Protection
cc: Barbara Morin, RI DEM
Opinion filed August 11 , 2011



## In The



# Eleventh Court of Appeals

__________



### No. 11

- 11

- 00153

- C V

__________

FRANCISCO MORALES, Appellant

V.

JOHN KENNMUR D/B/A KENN CONSTRUCTION, Appellee

On Appeal from the 118th District Court

Howard County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 47018

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Francisco Morales is the appellant in this appeal. H e has filed a n uno pposed motion to

dismiss the appeal pursuant to T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 4 2.1 (a)(1) . In t he motion, appellant state s that

“[t]he parties have now entered into a Settlement Agreement.” Therefore, in accordance with

appellant ’ s request, we dismiss the appeal.

The motion to dismiss is granted, and th e appeal is dismissed.

PER CURIAM

August 11 , 2011

Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

McCall, J., and Kalenak , J.
#### People v Conway

2d Dept: 140 AD3d 1185 (Suffolk)

denied 8/30/16 (Stein, J.)
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Peter Almestica, Appellant.

[66 NYS3d 880]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles Solomon, J.), rendered June 2, 2015, unanimously affirmed.

Application by defendant’s counsel to withdraw as counsel is granted (see *Anders v California,*386 US 738 [1967]; *People v Saunders,*52 AD2d 833 [1st Dept 1976]). We have reviewed this record and agree with defendant’s assigned counsel that there are no non-frivolous points which could be raised on this appeal.

Pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law § 460.20, defendant may apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals by making application to the Chief Judge of that Court and by submitting such application to the Clerk of that Court or to a Justice of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of this Department on reasonable notice to the respondent within 30 days after service of a copy of this order.

Denial of the application for permission to appeal by the judge or justice first applied to is final and no new application may thereafter be made to any other judge or justice.

Concur— Sweeny, J.P., Richter, Andrias, Webber, Oing, JJ.
##### 



Exhibit 21.1
 Lifecore Subsidiaries
As of September 11, 2007
 State / Country
    
    Percentage of VotingName
    
    of Incorporation
    
    Securities OwnedImplant Support Systems, Inc.
    
    Ohio
    
    100%Sustain, Inc.
    
    California
    
    100%Lifecore Biomedical SpA
    
    Italy
    
    100%Lifecore Biomedical GmbH
    
    Germany
    
    100%Lifecore Biomedical, AB
    
    Sweden
    
    100%Lifecore Biomedical, SAS
    
    France
    
    100%
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 106 (Wednesday, June 3, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 30201]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-14744]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
[I.D. 052698B]


Marine Mammals; File No. 455-1445

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Issuance of permit.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that Dr. Bruce Carlson, Director, 
Waikiki Aquarium, 2777 Kalakaua Avenue, Honolulu, HI 96815, has been 
issued a permit to take Hawaiian monk seals, Monachus schauinslandi, 
for purposes of scientific research and enhancement.

ADDRESSES: The permit and related documents are available for review 
upon written request or by appointment in the following office(s):
    Permits and Documentation Division, Office of Protected Resources, 
NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910 (301/
713-2289); Regional Administrator, Southwest Region, National Marine 
Fisheries Service, NOAA, 501 West Ocean Blvd., Suite 4200, Long Beach, 
CA 90802-4213; and
    Coordinator, Pacific Area Office, National Marine Fisheries 
Service, NOAA, 2570 Dole Street, Room 106, Honolulu, HI 96822-2396.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sara Shapiro or Ruth Johnson, 301/713-
2289.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On March 18, 1998, notice was published in 
the Federal Register (63 FR 13228) that a request for a scientific 
research permit to take Hawaiian monk seals, Monachus schauinslandi, 
had been submitted by the above-named organization. The requested 
permit has been issued under the authority of the Marine Mammal 
Protection Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.), the 
Regulations Governing the Taking and Importing of Marine Mammals (50 
CFR part 216), the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), and the regulations governing the taking, 
importing, and exporting of endangered fish and wildlife (50 CFR parts 
217-227).
    Issuance of this permit, as required by the ESA, was based on a 
finding that such permit (1) was applied for a good faith, (2) will not 
operate to the disadvantage of the endangered species which is the 
subject of this permit, and (3) is consistent with the purposes and 
policies set forth in section 2 of the ESA.

    Dated: May 28, 1998.
Ann Terbush,
Chief, Permits and Documentation Division, Office of Protected 
Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 98-14744 Filed 6-2-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-M
No. 09-11165.

#### Claudio Montero, Petitioner v. Walt Wells, Warden, et al.

562 U.S. 865, 131 S. Ct. 152,

178 L. Ed. 2d 90,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6508.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-1560

DANIEL P. WOODLIN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus THE HON COMPANY, Defendant - Appellee. THOMAS H. ROBERTS, Esq., Movant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge. (CA-02-186-3) Submitted: July 2, 2003 Decided: July 28, 2003 Before LUTTIG and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Daniel P. Woodlin, Appellant Pro Se. Lynn Forgrieve Jacob, Dana C.M. Peluso, WILLIAMS, MULLEN, CLARK & DOBBINS, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.2 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Daniel P. Woodlin has filed a second notice of appeal from the district court’s order granting summary judgment to his former employer in his action alleging employment discrimination. We previously affirmed the district court’s order in Woodlin’s first appeal of that order. See Woodlin v. Hon Co. , No. 03-1161, 2003 WL 21154294 (4th Cir. May 20, 2003) (unpublished). Our affirmance of the order is now the law of the case, see Christianson v. Colt Indus. Operating Corp. , 486 U.S. 800, 815-16 (1988); Sejman v. Warner-Lambert Co. , 845 F.2d 66, 68-69 (4th Cir. 1988), and thus we dismiss the instant appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
# DLA displays innovation at the Defense Manufacturing Conference

/ Published Dec. 23, 2021
AURORA, Colorado, 
Defense Logistics Agency leaders showcased the agency’s innovation efforts and contributed to  resilience discussions during the Defense Manufacturing Conference Dec. 13-16 in Aurora, Colorado. 

DMC 2021 brought together more than 1,000 attendees and 130 exhibitor organizations for the first time since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, with the theme “Building Back a Robust, Resilient U.S. Defense Industrial Base.” 

David Koch, director of DLA Research & Development  moderated the innovators panel and spoke on DLA’s research and development efforts, success stories and outlook.

“R&D performs risk reduction for DLA by continuously testing new ideas and technologies,”. Koch said.

George Duchak, director of DLA Information Operations and chief information officer, spoke on the innovators panel. The panel explored where the manufacturing technology industrial base can increase resiliency and reduce barriers to innovation, while improving rapid business processes amidst current global, near-peer competition. 

“Innovation is about people, process and things. Successful technical adoption is centered around getting our people to change their minds,” Duchak emphasized. Panelists agreed major disruptive change will drive an increasingly innovative defense industrial base.

Peter Battaglia, DLA Supply Chain Risk Management program manager, participated in the post-COVID panel, discussing the importance of building a resilient supply chain within the national manufacturing industrial base.

“DLA is utilizing whole-of-nation support to secure supply chains,” he remarked.

A highlight from the conference was Kelly Morris, DLA chief technical officer, receiving the Joint Defense Manufacturing Technical Panel award for serving over four years as the DLA principal representative. 

This year’s DMC brought together principals representing the Navy, Army, Air Force, DLA, Missile Defense Agency and Office of the Secretary of Defense to address the most effective ways to scale the digital and automated technologies used by DOD alongside manufacturing technology partners, academia, industry, and Whole of Government stakeholders.

“DMC is important for the DOD manufacturing technology community. By bringing together key participants from government, industry and academia, we shared innovative ideas, updated on new technologies, and presented research advances across the community to facilitate maintaining a strong defense industrial base,” Koch said.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2335 Referral Instructions Senate (RIS)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2335

To amend the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 
 to require that OMB and CBO estimates for paygo purposes to recognize 
  the increased revenues generated by economic growth resulting from 
             legislation implementing any trade agreement.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                July 28 (legislative day, July 20), 1994

   Mr. Brown introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
   referred jointly pursuant to the order of August 4, 1977, to the 
 Committees on the Budget and Governmental Affairs, with instructions 
that if one Committee reports, the other Committee have thirty days to 
                        report or be discharged

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 
 to require that OMB and CBO estimates for paygo purposes to recognize 
  the increased revenues generated by economic growth resulting from 
             legislation implementing any trade agreement.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, That section 252(d) of 
the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 is 
amended--
            (1) in the last sentence, by inserting ``Except as provided 
        by the next sentence,'' before ``OMB'' the first place it 
        appears; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following new sentence: ``OMB 
        and CBO estimates prepared under this subsection respecting 
        legislation implementing a trade agreement entered into between 
        the United States and one or more foreign countries shall take 
        into account increased revenues generated by the growth in the 
        gross domestic product resulting from that legislation to 
        offset any loss in tariff revenues due to that legislation 
        subject to the condition that the increased revenues generated 
        by the gross domestic product growth resulting from the 
        legislation implementing a trade agreement shall not be used as 
        offsets beyond the total of lost revenues due to that 
        legislation.''.
                                 <all>
```
DISMISS and Opinion Filed August 27, 2019 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-19-00715-CV 

ISABELLE EDWARDS, Appellant 

V. 

PANDA EXPRESS INC., Appellee 

On Appeal from the 95th District Court 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. DC-18-18346 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Justices Schenck, Osborne, and Reichek 

Opinion by Justice Reichek 

Isabelle Edwards appeals the trial court’s June 6, 2019 order granting defendant’s motion 

to compel responses to disclosure and discovery requests. After the clerk’s record was filed, we 

notified the parties we had concerns regarding our jurisdiction. We asked for jurisdictional letter 

briefs, and cautioned appellant that the failure to respond could result in our dismissing the case. 

To date, no responses have been filed. 

A necessary prerequisite to invoking the jurisdiction of the court of appeals is that, in the 

absence of a statute to the contrary, the appeal must be from a final, appealable judgment. See

TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 51.014; Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 

2001). Discovery orders are interlocutory in nature and therefore not appealable until after a final 

judgment is entered. See Pelt v. State Bd. of Ins., 802 S.W.2d 822, 827 (Tex. App.—Austin 1990, 
 –2– 

no writ) (“It has long been held that a discovery order is interlocutory in nature and therefore nonappealable, in the absence of express statutory authority, until after final judgment may be rendered 

on the merits of the primary dispute.”); Liu v. Stull, No. 05-16-00024-CV, 2016 WL 1213382, at 

*1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Mar. 29, 2016, no pet.) (mem. op.) (concluding court lacked jurisdiction 

over interlocutory appeal of discovery granting motion to compel discovery); see also In re Nat’l 

Lloyds Ins. Co., 449 S.W.3d 486, 488 (Tex. 2014) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam) (discovery order 

is reviewable for abuse of discretion for which mandamus is appropriate remedy). 

Edwards is challenging the trial court’s order on a discovery matter. However, she filed a 

notice of appeal, not a petition for writ of mandamus. Because the discovery order Edwards 

challenges is not an appealable interlocutory order, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. 

See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a). 

190715F.P05 

 

/Amanda L. Reichek/ 

AMANDA L. REICHEK 

JUSTICE 
 –3– 

S 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

ISABELLE EDWARDS, Appellant 

No. 05-19-00715-CV V. 

PANDA EXPRESS INC., Appellee 

 On Appeal from the 95th District Court, 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. DC-18-18346. 

Opinion delivered by Justice Reichek, 

Justices Schenck and Osborne participating. 

 In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED. 

 

Judgment entered August 27, 2019
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Anthony Gregory, Appellant.

[66 NYS3d 132]

*445Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward J. McLaughlin, J.), rendered January 8, 2015, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of conspiracy in the first degree, attempted murder in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and sentencing him to an aggregate term of 5 to 15 years, unanimously modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, to the extent of reducing the sentence on the conspiracy conviction to 3V3 to 10 years and reducing the sentence on the weapon possession conviction to 3V2 years, with 5 years’ postrelease supervision, and otherwise affirmed.

We find the sentence excessive to the extent indicated.

Concur—Renwick, J.R, Manzanet-Daniels, Gische, Kahn and Singh, JJ.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

MANUEL A. DONASTORG

, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

, Appellee

.

No. 4D 18

- 3725

[ December 19, 2019 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit,

Broward County ; Martin S. Fein , Judge; L.T. Case No. 16006342 CF10A

.

Carla P. Lowry of Lowry a t Law, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Richard Valuntas,

Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appelle e.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

D AMOORGIAN

, G ERBER and K LINGENSMITH

, JJ. , concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.