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

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. SS. 1350)

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. ss. 1350),
the undersigned, Corey M. Horowitz, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of
Network-1 Security Solutions, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), does
hereby certify to his knowledge, that:

The Quarterly Report of Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended September 30, 2007 of
the Company (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
or 15(d) of the Securities 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/ COREY M. HOROWITZ
------------------------------------
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHAIRMAN
NOVEMBER 14, 2007
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 117 (Thursday, June 18, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 33363]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-16191]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. RP97-342-005]


Kern River Gas Transmission Company; Notice of Compliance Filing

June 12, 1998.
    Take notice that on June 9, 1998, Kern River Gas Transmission 
Company (Kern River) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas 
Tariff, First Revised Volume No. 1, Substitute Original sheet No. 141, 
to become effective July 1, 1998.
    Kern River states that the purpose of this filing is to comply with 
the Commission's June 2, 1998 letter order in Docket No. RP97-342-004 
by modifying Kern River's pooling provision to clarify that 
reimbursement for fuel and lost and unaccounted-for gas will be 
determined according to Section 12 of the General Terms and Conditions 
of Kern River's tariff.
    Kern River states that it has served copies of the filing upon all 
intervenors in Docket No. RP97-342.
    Any person desiring to protest this filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., 
Washington, D.C. 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the 
Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests must be filed as 
provided in Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests 
will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate 
action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to 
the proceedings. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission 
and are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room.
Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 98-16191 Filed 6-17-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
# Norfolk distribution center adds NAVSEA Regional Maintenance Center material to its roster

/ Published April 26, 2016
NORFOLK, Virginia, 
Last week Defense Logistics Agency Distribution Norfolk, Va., received the first set of Naval Sea Systems Command Regional Maintenance Center materials, marking the commencement of a new collaboration. 

DLA Distribution, along with NAVSEA, the Regional Maintenance Center, and Naval Supply Systems Command, worked to support the RMC’s procurement, storage and distribution requirements.  The initiative is poised to increase critical ship maintenance material visibility and availability to the Mid-Atlantic Regional Maintenance Center in Norfolk Va., and the Regional Maintenance Center Southwest in San Diego, Calif. 

DLA Distribution Norfolk will manage the storage and distribution of NAVSEA-identified Future Use Materials and Long Lead Time Materials.   NAVSUP is managing the procurement, requisitioning, and disposition of the ship maintenance material.  This collaboration will lower the costs associated with ship maintenance, and is a welcome initiative.  

"This initiative will provide valuable asset visibility for ship repairs,” said Navy Lt. Emmanuel Nneji, the DLA Distribution Norfolk chief of staff.  “The Navy can effectively source from the Future Use Material when planning ship availabilities, saving costs." 

Navy Capt. Harry Thetford, the distribution center’s commander, added, "Navy ships are in high demand, and now, more than ever, it is critical that ships complete maintenance availabilities on time.  DLA is well partnered with the Navy to cost-effectively store critical maintenance material, provide asset visibility, and deliver when needed."
No. 10-5584.

#### Leroy D. Cropper, Petitioner v. Arizona.

562 U.S. 982, 131 S. Ct. 415,

178 L. Ed. 2d 324,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8306.

October 18, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Arizona denied.

*325Same case below, 223 Ariz. 522, 225 P.3d 579.
From: Graves, Linda 

Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2010 11:36 AM 

To: Graves, Linda 

Cc: Cymbalsky, John; Edwards, Brenda 

Subject: Notice of Public Meeting April 26, 2010 on the Energy Conservation Standards Preliminary 

Analysis and Test Procedure Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts

Dear Stakeholders:

The Department of Energy (DOE) is holding an informal public meeting to discuss and 

receive comments on the energy conservation standards preliminary analysis and notice of 

proposed rulemaking (NOPR) on test procedures for fluorescent lamp ballasts. The 

meeting will be held on Monday, April 26, 2010, beginning at 9:00 a.m. at the U.S. 

Department of Energy, Forrestal Building, Room 8E-089, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW, 

Washington, DC 20585-0121. 

The meeting will first cover the proposed test procedure. DOE will present the proposals 

in the test procedure NOPR and to respond to interested party questions. DOE will also 

seek input from interested parties on the planned methodologies, assumptions, data 

sources, and the NEMA Alternative Test Procedure Handout. 

The second part of the public meeting gives DOE an opportunity to discuss and receive 

comments on: (1) the product classes that DOE analyzed for purposes of amending energy 

conservation standards for certain fluorescent lamp ballasts; (2) the analytical framework, 

models, and tools that DOE is using to evaluate standards for these products; (3) the results of 

preliminary analysis performed by DOE for these products; and (4) the potential energy 

conservation standard levels derived from these analysis that DOE could consider for these 

products. DOE is publishing this notice of public meeting to announce the availability of the 

preliminary technical support document which details the preliminary analysis, discusses the 

comments on the framework document, and summarizes the preliminary results. In addition, it 

announces a public meeting to solicit feedback from interested parties on the analytical 

framework, models, and preliminary results. 

The notice of proposed rulemaking on test procedures and the notice of public meeting and 

availability of the preliminary technical support document on the analysis of energy conservation 

standards and further information about the meeting are available on the following DOE website 

links: 

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/residential/fluorescent_lamp_ballast

s.html 

 

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/residential/fluorescent_lamp_ballast

s_ecs_prelim_pub_mtg.html 

Please note that foreign nationals visiting DOE headquarters are subject to advance security 

screening procedures. 

If you are a foreign national and wish to attend this meeting, please inform DOE of this fact by 

contacting Brenda Edwards as soon as possible, at (202) 586-2945. 

 

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0016 COMMENT 21
Linda Graves

Lighting Standards Project Manager

Building Technologies Program

Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy

1000 Independence Ave., SW, EE-2J

Washington , DC 20585-0121

202-586-1851

 

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0016 COMMENT 21
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 123 (Friday, June 26, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 34928]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-17012]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE


Notice of Lodging of Consent Decree Pursuant to the Comprehensive 
Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act

    Notice is herby given that on June 5, 1998, a proposed Consent 
Decree in United States v. Erie Coatings & Chemicals, Inc. et al., 
Civil No. 95-75842, was lodged with the United States District court 
for the Eastern District of Michigan. This Consent Decree resolves 
claims against two parties, Chem-Met Services, Inc (``Chem-Met'') and 
Cousins Waste Control Corporation (``Cousins''), under the 
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 
1980, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq. (``CERCLA'') relating to the 
Erie Coatings & Chemicals, Inc. Superfund Site (``Site'') in Erie, 
Michigan.
    The Consent Decree requires Chem-Met to reimburse the Superfund in 
the amount of $25,000 and it requires Cousins to reimburse the 
Superfund in the amount of $40,000 for the United States' past costs 
incurred in conducting a removal action at the Site.
    The Department of Justice will receive for a period of thirty (30) 
days from the date of this publication comments relating to the Consent 
Decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General 
of the Environment and Natural Resources Division, Department of 
Justice, Washington, DC 20530, and should refer in United States v Erie 
Coatings & Chemicals, Inc. et al., D. J. Ref. 90-11-2-1070.
    The Consent Decree may be examined at the Office of the United 
States Attorney, Eastern District of Michigan, 817 Federal Building, 
231 West Lafayette, Detroit, Michigan 48226, and at the Consent Decree 
Library, 120 G Street, NW, 4th Floor, Washington, DC 20005, (202) 624-
0892. A copy of the proposed Consent Decree may be obtained in person 
or by mail from the Consent Decree Library, 1120 G Street, NW, 4th 
Floor, Washington, DC 20005. In requesting a copy, please enclose a 
check in the amount of $5.50 (25 cents per page reproduction cost) 
payable to the Consent Decree Library.
Joel Gross,
Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section, Environment and Natural 
Resources Division.
[FR Doc. 98-17012 Filed 6-25-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-15-M
No. 10-6903.

#### Anthony A. Garnett, Petitioner v. Winona County Social Services, et al.

562 U.S. 1113, 131 S. Ct. 827,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9697,

178 L. Ed. 2d 564,

December 13, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Minnesota denied.
No. 10-5012.

#### Joseph Bowden, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 898, 131 S. Ct. 227,

178 L. Ed. 2d 151,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6067.

October 4, 2010.

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

Same case below, 374 Fed. Appx. 880.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-4770

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

TYNISHA MARTIN KADIRI, a/k/a Martin Kadiri, a/k/a T D Martin, a/k/a 

Tynisha Martin, a/k/a Shug,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. 

James K. Bredar, Chief District Judge. (1:17-cr-00367-JKB-1)

Submitted: June 20, 2019 Decided: June 24, 2019

Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Gerald C. Ruter, LAW OFFICES OF GERALD C. RUTER, P.C., Baltimore, Maryland, 

for Appellant. Robert K. Hur, United States Attorney, Matthew J. Maddox, Assistant 

United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, 

Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Tynisha Martin Kadiri appeals the 48-month sentence imposed after a jury 

convicted her of two counts of aiding or assisting in the filing of false tax returns, in 

violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7206(2) (2012), and two counts of willfully failing to file tax 

returns, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7203 (2012). On appeal, Kadiri challenges the district 

court’s application of an abuse-of-trust enhancement, see U.S. Sentencing Guidelines 

Manual § 3B1.3 (2016), as well as the court’s reliance on the findings underlying the 

enhancement to justify an upward variance sentence. For the reasons that follow, we 

affirm.

Because Kadiri did not raise her sentencing claims before the district court, we 

review only for plain error. United States v. Harris, 890 F.3d 480, 490 (4th Cir. 2018). 

To prevail under this standard, Kadiri must show that “(1) an error was made; (2) the 

error is plain; (3) the error affects substantial rights; and (4) the error seriously affects the 

fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Id. at 491 (internal 

quotation marks omitted). 

Although Kadiri contests the district court’s decision to apply § 3B1.3, she 

concedes that the enhancement ultimately had no impact on her Sentencing Guidelines 

range. Because there is no dispute that the court arrived at the correct range, we conclude 

that any Guidelines error did not affect Kadiri’s substantial rights. See United States v. 

Cohen, 888 F.3d 667, 685 (4th Cir. 2018) (providing that third plain error prong requires 

“show[ing] that the error actually affected the outcome of the district court proceedings”

(internal quotation marks omitted)). In addition, we discern no error in the district court’s 
3

consideration of the gross abuse of trust occasioned by Kadiri’s fraudulent conduct in 

selecting the upward variance sentence the court imposed. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1) 

(2012) (directing sentencing court to consider “the nature and circumstances of the 

offense”).

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. 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
#### Langione, Catterson & LoFrumento, LLP, as Successors in Interest to Galasso, Langione and Botter, LLP, Respondent, v Courtney Schael, Appellant.

[47 NYS3d 913]

In an action to recover damages for breach of contract and on an account stated, the defendant appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (McCormack, J.), entered August 21, 2014, which granted that branch of the plaintiffs motion which was for summary judgment on the cause of action for an account stated, and (2) a judgment of the same court dated October 24, 2014, which, upon the order, is in favor of the plaintiff and against her in the total sum of $88,086.06.

Ordered that the appeal from the order is dismissed; and it is further,

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed; and it is further,

Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the plaintiff.

The appeal from the order must be dismissed because the right of direct appeal therefrom terminated with the entry of judgment in the action *(see Matter of Aho,*39 NY2d 241, 248 [1976]). The issues raised on the appeal from the order are brought up for review and have been considered on the appeal from the judgment *(see*CPLR 5501 [a] [1]).

The plaintiff established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the cause of action for an account stated for legal fees due and owing from the defendant up to April 4, 2006 *(see Law Offs. of Clifford G. Kleinbaum v Shurkin,*88 AD3d 659, 660 [2011]). In opposition, the defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact *(see Darby & Darby v VSI Intl.,*95 NY2d 308, 315 [2000]), or establish that the motion was premature pending discovery (see *Vikram Constr., Inc. v Everest Natl. Ins. Co.,*139 AD3d 720, 721 [2016]).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was for summary judgment on the cause of action for an account stated.

Dillon, J.R, Austin, Hinds-Radix and Maltese, JJ., concur.
#### Gaughen LLC v. Borough Council of Borough of Mechanicsburg

05/10/2016

81, 82 MAL (2016)

Denied

Pa.Cmwlth., 128 A.3d 355
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-04-00668-CR

Kenneth Gene Burns, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF MILAM COUNTY, 20TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. CR20,692, HONORABLE ED MAGRE, JUDGE PRESIDING

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

Appellant Kenneth Gene Burns pleaded guilty to sexually assaulting a child. See Tex.

Pen. Code Ann. § 22.011 (West Supp. 2004-05). The court adjudged him guilty and sentenced him

to ten years in prison.

Burns’s court-appointed attorney filed a brief concluding that the appeal is frivolous

and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),

by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable

grounds to be advanced. See also Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d

807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); Jackson v.

State, 485 S.W.2d 553 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972); Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App.

1969). Burns received a copy of counsel’s brief and was advised of his right to examine the

appellate record and to file a pro se brief. No pro se brief has been filed.
2

We have reviewed the record and counsel’s brief and agree that the appeal is frivolous

and without merit. We find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal. Counsel’s

motion to withdraw is granted.

The judgment of conviction is affirmed.

____________________________________________

Bea Ann Smith, Justice

Before Justices B. A. Smith, Puryear and Pemberton

Affirmed

Filed: March 10, 2005

Do Not Publish
<Page>
                                                                      EXHIBIT 21

                             DRS TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
                SUBSIDIARIES OF THE COMPANY AS OF MARCH 31, 2002

<Table>
<Caption>
                                                                   STATE OR COUNTRY
SUBSIDIARY                                                         OF INCORPORATION
----------                                                    ---------------------------
<S>                                                           <C>
DRS Electronic Systems, Inc.................................  Delaware
DRS Technical Services, Inc.................................  Delaware
DRS Systems Management Corporation..........................  Delaware
Laurel Technologies Partnership.............................  Delaware
DRS Surveillance Support Systems, Inc.......................  Delaware
DRS Precision Echo, Inc.....................................  Delaware
DRS Data Systems, Inc.......................................  Delaware
DRS Photronics, Inc.........................................  New York
DRS Optronics, Inc..........................................  Delaware
DRS Sensors & Targeting Systems, Inc........................  Delaware
DRS Technologies Canada, Inc................................  Delaware
DRS Technologies Canada Company.............................  Canada (Nova Scotia)
DRS Hadland Ltd.............................................  United Kingdom
DRS Hadland GmbH............................................  Federal Republic of Germany
DRS Hadland, Inc............................................  Delaware
DRS Air, Inc................................................  Delaware
DRS Systems, Inc............................................  Delaware
DRS International, Inc......................................  Delaware
NAI Technologies, Inc.......................................  New York
DRS Rugged Systems (Europe) Ltd.............................  United Kingdom
DRS Rugged Systems (Australia) Pty. Ltd.....................  Australia
DRS Data Systems (Europe) Ltd...............................  United Kingdom
DRS Rugged Systems (Europe) Products Ltd....................  United Kingdom
DRS Advanced Programs, Inc..................................  New York
DRS FPA, Inc................................................  Delaware
DRS Infrared Technologies, LP...............................  Delaware
DRS Sensor Systems, Inc.....................................  Delaware
DRS Technologies Canadian Capital Corporation...............  Canada (Nova Scotia)
DRS Technologies Capital Company, Inc.......................  Canada (Nova Scotia)
</Table>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jacob Kim, Appellant.

[49 NYS3d 923]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Buchter, J.), rendered October 31, 2013, convicting him of attempted promoting prostitution in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. Assigned counsel has submitted a brief in accordance with *Anders v California*(386 *872US 738 [1967]), in which she moves for leave to withdraw as counsel for the appellant.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We are satisfied with the sufficiency of the brief filed by the defendant’s assigned counsel pursuant to *Anders v California*(386 US 738 [1967]), and we have also reviewed the defendant’s pro se supplemental brief. Upon an independent review of the record, we conclude that there are no nonfrivolous issues which could be raised on the appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is, therefore, granted (see *id.; People v Hardy,*130 AD3d 753 [2015]; *Matter of Giovanni S. [Jasmin A.],*89 AD3d 252 [2011]).

Balkin, J.P., Austin, Sgroi and LaSalle, JJ., concur.
No. 10-6893.

#### Willie J. Asbury, Petitioner v. United States District Court for the District of South Carolina.

562 U.S. 1072, 131 S. Ct. 687,

178 L. Ed. 2d 497,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9289.

November 29, 2010.

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

Same case below, 382 Fed. Appx. 288.
No. 10-6113.

#### Luis Phillip Ponce, Petitioner v. T. Felker, Warden.

562 U.S. 1009, 131 S. Ct. 521,

178 L. Ed. 2d 382,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8605.

November 1, 2010.

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

Same case below, 606 F.3d 596.
Exhibit 10.25
 DEX ONE CORPORATION  Equity Incentive Plan
 Stock Appreciation Right Agreement  [Template for Executive Officers who are Senior Vice Presidents and Above]
 Company Holder [___] Grant Date Plan SAR Stock Agreement
 SAR Subject to Acceptance of Agreement
 Time and Manner of Exercise of SAR
 Maximum Term of SAR Expiration
Date
 Vesting and Exercise of SAR
 Termination of Employment Other than by the Company for Cause




---



##### 



Termination for Cause
 Death Following Termination Section 2.2(a)
 Cause Cause Employment Agreement provided Cause
 Good Reason Good Reason provided Good Reason Good Reason
 2




---



##### 



Retirement Retirement
 Method of Exercise
 Issuance of Shares Section 4 Section 4
 Transfer Restrictions and Investment Representation
 Nontransferability of SAR
 Investment Representation Securities Act
 3




---



##### 



Additional Terms and Conditions of SAR
 Withholding Taxes Required Tax Payments
 Tax Date
 Adjustment
 Change in Control Section 5.8
 Compliance with Applicable Law
 4




---



##### 



SAR Confers No Rights as Shareholder
 SAR Confers No Rights to Continued Employment
 Interpretation
 Successors and Assigns
 Notices provided however
 Governing Law
 Entire Agreement
 5




---



##### 



Partial Invalidity
 Amendment and Waiver
 Counterparts
 DEX ONE CORPORATIONBy: 
 [Name of Holder]
 6