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 Patch International, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending February 29, 2008, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
Jason G. Dagenais, Chief Operating Officer and Interim Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer) 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:





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.








April
      15, 2008
            /s/
      Jason G. DagenaisJason
      G. Dagenais, Chief Operating Officer and Interim Chief Financial
      Officer
              (Principal
      Executive Officer and Principal Financial
  Officer)
No. 09-1342.

#### Jeri-Ann Sherry, Warden, Petitioner v. William Johnson.

562 U.S. 946, 131 S. Ct. 87,

178 L. Ed. 2d 242,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7762.

October 4, 2010.

Motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 586 F.3d 439.
##### 



EXHIBIT
10.4.6
 
    Cricket ANB 1 License ANB 1 ANB Credit Agreement
 ANB Credit
Documents
 Each of the parties hereto hereby agrees that each of the ANB Credit Documents is hereby terminated
in full without further obligations of the parties thereunder.




---



##### 



Sincerely,CRICKET COMMUNICATIONS, INC.By:
    
    /s/ Robert J. Irving, Jr.Name:
    
    Robert J. Irving, Jr.Title:
    
    Senior Vice PresidentACKNOWLEDGED AND AGREED TO:ALASKA NATIVE BROADBAND 1, LLCBy:
    
    Cricket Communications, Inc.Its sole memberBy:
    
    /s/ Robert J. Irving., Jr.Name:
    
    Robert J. Irving, Jr.Title:
    
    Senior Vice PresidentALASKA NATIVE BROADBAND 1 LICENSE, LLCBy:
    
    Alaska Native Broadband 1, LLCIts sole memberBy:
    
    Cricket Communications, Inc.Its sole memberBy:
    
    /s/ Robert J. Irving, Jr.Name:
    
    Robert J. Irving, Jr.Title:
    
    Senior Vice President
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 this Annual Report of
DYNASIL CORPORATION OF AMERICA (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ended September 30, 2014 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), we, Peter Sulick, President and Chief Executive
Officer of the Company and Thomas C. Leonard, Chief Financial Officer 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 our 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 results of operations of the Company.



|                  | /s/ Peter Sulick       
|----------------- | -----------------------
|                  | Peter Sulick           
|                  | President and          
|                  | Chief Executive Officer
|                  |                        
|                  | /s/ Thomas C. Leonard  
|                  | Thomas C. Leonard      
|                  | Chief Financial Officer
|December 23, 2014 |
#### Alice Vozzo, Respondent, v Fairfield Westlake Square, LLC, Appellant.

[59 NYS3d 125]—

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Rebolini, J.), dated August 18, 2016, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.

The plaintiff allegedly slipped and fell on black ice in the exterior dumpster area of the defendant’s residential complex. After the accident, the plaintiff commenced this personal injury action. The defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and submitted, inter alia, the deposition testimony of the plaintiff, who testified that precipitation fell prior to the accident and that she did not see the icy condition that caused her to fall either before or after the accident. The Supreme Court denied the defendant’s motion, finding that in opposition to the defendant’s demonstration of its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact. The defendant appeals.

“A property owner will be held liable for a slip-and-fall accident involving snow and ice on its property only when it created the dangerous condition which caused the accident or had actual or constructive notice of its existence” *(Cuillo v Fairfield Prop. Servs., L.P.,*112 AD3d 777, 778 [2013]; *see Khalil v Fernandez,*145 AD3d 765, 766 [2016]; *Castillo v Silvercrest,*134 AD3d 977 [2015]; *Haberman v Meyer,*120 AD3d 1301 [2014]). Here, the defendant established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that the black ice that allegedly caused the plaintiff to fall developed as a result of precipitation that fell on the day of the accident, and that the defendant did not create or have actual or constructive notice of the existence of the black ice *(see Sherman v New York State Thruway Auth.,*27 NY3d 1019, 1021 [2016]; *Gordon v American Museum of Natural History,*67 NY2d 836, 837 [1986]; *Yannotti v Four Bros. Homes at Heartland Condominium I,*24 AD3d 659, 660 [2005]). Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the Supreme Court properly considered her deposition transcript in determining the motion *(see*CPLR 2001; *Ciraldo v County of Westchester,*147 AD3d 813, 814 [2017]; *Gallway v Muintir, LLC,*142 AD3d 948, 949 [2016]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable is*816sue of fact as to whether the black ice was the product of a prior storm *(see Talamas v Metropolitan Transp. Auth.,*120 AD3d 1333, 1335 [2014]; *cf. Burniston v Ranric Enters. Corp.,*134 AD3d 973, 974 [2015]).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Mastro, J.P., Hall, Austin and Barros, JJ., concur.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Ivan Torres, Appellant.

[768 NYS2d 823]—

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (William Wetzel, J.), rendered December 3, 2001, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the second degree and grand larceny in the fourth degree (three counts), and sentencing him, as a persistent violent felony offender, to an aggregate term of 20 years to life, and order, same court and Justice, entered on or about March 28, 2003, which denied defendant’s motion to vacate the judgment, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence. There is no basis for disturbing the jury’s determinations concerning credibility *(see People v Gaimari,*176 NY 84, 94 [1903]). The credible evidence established that defendant acted in concert with another person in forcibly taking the victim’s property.

The court properly admitted defendant’s statement made to the arresting officer. The record establishes that defendant moved to suppress this statement and chose to proceed to a *Huntley*hearing after failing to persuade the court that a preclusion ruling by another justice, made on the basis of the People’s failure to comply with the notification requirements of CPL 710.30, was the law of the case. The court’s denial of defendant’s suppression motion after a *Huntley*hearing rendered any alleged deficiency in the CPL 710.30 notice irrelevant *(see People v Kirkland,*89 NY2d 903, 904 [1996]).

At the *Huntley*hearing, the arresting officer testified that defendant made his statement spontaneously, before being arrested. A fair reading of the record fails to support defendant’s assertions that at a prior proceeding the officer admitted that defendant’s statement was the product of custodial interrogation, or that the prosecutor conceded this point. Accordingly, we reject defendant’s claim that counsel was ineffective for failing to raise these matters at the *Huntley*hearing *(see People v Hobot,*84 NY2d 1021, 1024 [1995]; *see also Strickland v Washington,*466 US 668 [1984]), or that the court’s ruling denying suppression was obtained by fraud.

*368Defendant’s CPL 440.10 motion based on a violation of his right to counsel was properly denied. The issue raised in the motion concerning defense counsel’s status is unavailing *(People v Kieser,*79 NY2d 936, 937 [1992]).

Since defendant’s only objections to the prosecutor’s summation were “all of a general nature” *(People v Harris,*98 NY2d 452, 491 n 18 [2002]), his present challenges to the summation are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would reject them *(see People v Overlee,*236 AD2d 133 [1997], *lv denied*91 NY2d 976 [1998]; *People v D’Alessandro,*184 AD2d 114, 118-119 [1992], *lv denied*81 NY2d 884 [1993]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Ellerin, Lerner and Marlow, JJ.
No. 10-6786.

#### Michael Nash, Petitioner v. William Lee, Superintendent, Green Haven Correctional Facility.

562 U.S. 1071, 131 S. Ct. 664,

178 L. Ed. 2d 495,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9155.

November 29, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.
No. 07-14-00430-CR

In re Hector Madrid, Relator Original Proceeding

January 6, 2015 §

§

§

§

§ Opinion Per Curiam

J U D G M E N T

Pursuant to the opinion of this Court dated January 6, 2015, it is ordered,

adjudged and decreed that relator’s petition for writ of habeas corpus is hereby

dismissed.

o O o
No. 09-11284.

#### In re Jackie Lyn Coulombe, Petitioner.

562 U.S. 826, 131 S. Ct. 172,

178 L. Ed. 2d 260,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7812.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of mandamus denied.
Form of Amended and Restated Employment Agreement - Miles Dickinson (Dec 2004)




  
 Exhibit 10.7 

  
 AMENDMENT TO AMENDED AND RESTATED EMPLOYMENT
AGREEMENT 
  
 THIS AMENDMENT TO AMENDED AND RESTATED
EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (the “Amendment”) is entered into as of December 6, 2004, by and between Miles Dickinson (the “Executive”), Delco Electric, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”) and Integrated
Electrical Services, Inc., a Delaware corporation ( “IES”). The Executive, the Company and IES are the “Parties”. 
  
 R E C I T A L S: 
  
 A. The Executive, the Company and IES entered into that certain Amended and Restated Employment Agreement dated as of the
13th day of May, 2004, relating to the employment of Executive by the Company (the “Agreement”).

  
 B. Substantially all of the assets of the Company are being
sold of even date herewith to DFI Group, Inc. (“DFI”), and Executive, with the permission of IES and Company, is serving as a lender and consultant to DFI. 
  
 C. The Parties have agreed to amend the Agreement to amend the Non-Competition provision of the Agreement. 
  
 AGREEMENT 
  
 NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements contained herein, the parties hereto do
hereby agree as follows: 
  
 1. Capitalized Terms.
Capitalized terms used herein but not defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed to them in the Agreement. 
  
 2. Amendment. The parties hereby agree to amend Paragraph 3(a) of the Agreement by adding the following language at the end of the paragraph:

  
 “Furthermore, the participation by the Executive as a
lender and consultant to DFI during the term of this Agreement shall not violate the foregoing covenant, so long as such activities do not interfere with the full time (approximately 40 hours per week) performance of Executive’s duties for
IES.” 
  
 Paragraph 9 of the Agreement shall be amended by
adding the following language at the end of both paragraphs: 
  
 “provided, however, that the terms of paragraph 3 of this Restated Agreement shall not prohibit or restrict Executive’s full time employment following such termination by IES and the performance by Executive of any and all duties
typical of a full time employee of a company such as DFI.” 
  

 1 









 3. Effect of this Amendment. The Agreement, as amended by this Amendment, shall continue in full
force and effect in accordance with its terms. 
  
 4.
Counterparts. This Amendment may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument. 
  
 [The remainder of this page is intentionally blank.] 
  

 2 









 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed or caused their duly authorized representatives to
execute this Amendment as of the date first above written. 
  

	
	 EXECUTIVE:

	
	 
	Miles Dickinson


  

			
	 COMPANY:

	
	 DELCO ELECTRIC, INC.

		
	 By:
	 	 
	 Name:
	 	 
	 Title:
	 	 
	
	 IES:

	
	 INTEGRATED ELECTRICAL SERVICES, INC.

		
	 By:
	 	 
	 Name:
	 	 
	 Title:
	 	 


  

 3
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 GiveMePower  Corporation  (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2006 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, William
V.  Walton,  Chief  Executive  Officer of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18
U.S.C. section 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 and 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.

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

Date May 15, 2006                    By: /s/ WILLIAM V. WALTON
                                         ----------------------
                                         William V. Walton
                                         Chief Executive Officer
# DLA Energy Worldwide Energy Conference begins next week

/ Published April 16, 2024
FORT BELVOIR, Va., 
More than 90 industry exhibitors and 1,900 people are registered to attend the Defense Logistics Agency Energy Worldwide Energy Conference at the Gaylord National Hotel and Convention Center at National Harbor, Maryland, April 22-24.

This year's theme is Warfighter Readiness Through Stronger Partnerships.

“The conference promises to reach new heights as we engage with military, government and industry partners to discuss a multitude of energy issues,” said DLA Energy Commander Navy Capt. Brian Anderson. “As we develop strategies to address challenges, we realize we simply cannot do it alone. Enhanced engagement, open and continuous communication, and collaboration with both our industry and customer partners will continue to be the cornerstone to our success.”

DLA Director Army Lt. Gen. Mark Simerly has emphasized that DLA’s close ties with industry are vital. During the Association of the U.S. Army’s Global Force Symposium and Exhibition in Huntsville, Alabama, March 26, Simerly outlined DLA's four-pronged framework for transforming DLA’s support: people, precision, posture and partnerships.

"We have to be able to partner with the services and the [combatant commands] to have a very precise view of requirements and then translate those with precision to industry. We can't afford to have vague, ambiguous requirements if we want to have specific performance on their part that's tied to a specific time, a specific place and in a specific way," he said.

This year, there will be more than 70 informative briefings and workshops. Topics include petroleum supply and distribution, aerospace energy, installation energy, climate change, sustainable fuels, and carbon pollution-free electricity. A Small Business Networking session will provide the opportunity for business owners to talk one-on-one with DLA Energy professionals.

Visit the WWEC webpage to learn more about the conference, view the schedule and see the various tracks offered.
No. 10-7215.

#### Larry Arnold Young, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1076, 131 S. Ct. 678,

178 L. Ed. 2d 504,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9122.

November 29, 2010.

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

Same case below, 397 Fed. Appx. 860.
Exhibit 23 

 

**Consent of Independent Auditors**

 

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form S-3 (File Nos. 2-78465, 2-81026, 2-82260, 2-85387,2-86457, 2-92391, 2-94757, 33-365, 33-2387, 33-5544, 33-17169, 33-24058, 33-30610, 33-62551, 333-35476 and 333-55598), on Form S-4 (File No. 333-44933) and on Form S-8 (File Nos. 2-87779, 33-10465, 33-17243, 33-42427, 33-50768, 33-57491, 33-57495,33-16461, and 333-01639, and 333-75797) of Acterna Corporation of our report dated June 24, 2003 relating to the financial statements, which appears in this Annual Report of Form 10-K. We also consent to the incorporation by reference of our reportdated June 24, 2003 relating to the financial statement schedule, which appears in this Form 10-K. 

 

/s/    PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP 

McLean, Virginia 

June 24, 2003
JOHN A BOEHNER 

SPEAKER 

O HIO 

H-232 U.S C•••rN B •• oo·.G 

W•sw ··~•c· .. o.c 20515 

12021225-0600 

Congressional Inquiries ~ FAA 

Congressional Liaison Office 

PccleraJ Aviation Adn1inistrution 

ROO Independence Avenue, S. W. 

Room J 022 

Washington, DC 2059 1-0004 

Dear Congressional Liaison: 

1\fnuH.c of iR.epnHttttattues 

July 25,2012 

WA.SHINGTCN OFF1C£: 

1011 LOuG\"'C!RlH .. 1)1J$E a .. ,.er: Bv•LD"IG 

W•s~ •.t:'"'' OC 20515·3508 

(2021 225·6205 

12 Sou-l• Ptu._~ S1Pr:t,, 2,m FLC)CA 

TRo', OH 46373 

(937) 339-152·1 

0 1S1Rit;.l Toll FRU NuWf.fl~ 

1 800·582·1 oo I 

The enclosed correspondence, regarding FAA-2012-0514. was sent to me by Mr. John 

Brown. 

I would greatly appreciate your providing my Troy office with any ~lpproptiate 

information so that I can reply to my constituent. 

If l can provide additional infonnation. please do not hesitate to call me. 

Sinccrdy. 

a.. 

John A. Boclmcr 

JAB/tel 

FAA-'120730-009 
DeBrosse, Frank 

From: 

Sent: 

John Brown Obrown@independentaircraft.com] 

Monday, July 23, 2012 2:46 PM 

To: DeBrosse, Frank 

Subject: RE: FAA-2012-0514 

RE: FAA-2012-0514 

Congressman John Boehner, 

We are requesting a Congressional Inquire due to potential safety issues if this exemption is granted; thus, putting the 

flying and non-flying public at risk. This exemption also has potential FTC implications; all of which would cost aerospace 

manufacturing and aerospace servicing jobs. 

Thank you, 

John C. Rrown 

CEO and Founder 

318-487-0879 

J B rown0Undependen tai rcra ft. com 

www .lndependentAircraft.com 

--The information contained and within this message, and any attachments included, is intended only for use by the 

individllal(s} or entity to which it is addressed. The information included is confidential, legally privileged material, and 

exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, you are prohibited from copying, 

distributing, or using the information. lf you receive this e-mail in error, please contact the sender immediately by return 

e-mai l and delete the original message from your system. 

From: DeBrosse, Frank [mailto:Frank.DeBrosse@mail.house.gov] 

Sent: Monday, July 23, 2012 1:36PM 

To: jbrown@independentaircraft.com 

Subject: test 

Frank DeBrosse 

Field Representative 

Congressman John Boehner 

Office: 937-339-1524 

Fax: 937-339-1878 

FAA-120730-009 

1
No. 09-10975.

#### Vincent Buckner, Petitioner v. Illinois.

562 U.S. 857, 131 S. Ct. 126,

178 L. Ed. 2d 77,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 5856.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, denied.

Same case below, 392 Ill. App. 3d 1129, 368 Ill. Dec. 483, 984 N.E.2d 208.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jerome David, Appellant.

[49 NYS3d 629]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (DiMango, J.), rendered January 3, 2013, convicting him of assault in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that his plea of guilty was involuntary on the ground that the Supreme Court failed to conduct an adequate inquiry into a potential justification defense and because the record as a whole cast significant doubt upon his guilt as a result of such a possible defense. Having failed to object to the inquiry conducted by the court, the defendant did not preserve for appellate review his challenge to the adequacy of the remedial action taken by the court *(see People v Lopez,*71 NY2d 662, 668 [1988]; *People v Gomez,*137 AD3d 1161, 1162 [2016]). In any event, the defendant’s contention is without merit. Inquiries were made by both the plea and sentencing courts, which revealed that the defendant knowingly and voluntarily entered a plea of guilty with a full understanding of the consequences, and which, considering the record as whole, sufficiently eliminated the possibility of a justification defense in this case *(People v Lopez,*71 NY2d at 668; *People v Gomez,*137 AD3d at 1162).

Leventhal, J.R, Sgroi, Hinds-Radix and LaSalle, JJ., concur.
DISMISS and Opinion Filed July 8, 2024 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-24-00367-CV 

PHOEBE YOUNG, Appellant 

V. 

ABIDA SULTANA, Appellee 

On Appeal from the 493rd District Court 

Collin County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. 493-04294-2023 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Justices Reichek, Goldstein, and Garcia 

Opinion by Justice Garcia 

Appellant’s brief in this case is overdue. By postcard dated May 29, 2024, 

we informed appellant her brief was overdue and directed appellant to file a brief 

within ten days. We cautioned appellant that failure to do so would result in the 

dismissal of this appeal without further notice. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a)(1). To 

date, appellant has not filed a brief nor otherwise corresponded with the Court 

regarding the status of this appeal. 

 
 –2– 

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8 (a)(1); 42.3(b), 

(c). 

240367F.P05 

 

/Dennise Garcia/ 

DENNISE GARCIA 

JUSTICE 
 –3– 

S 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

PHOEBE YOUNG, Appellant 

No. 05-24-00367-CV V. 

ABIDA SULTANA, Appellee 

 On Appeal from the 493rd District 

Court, Collin County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. 493-04294-

2023. 

Opinion delivered by Justice Garcia. 

Justices Reichek and Goldstein 

participating. 

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

DISMISSED. 

Judgment entered July 8, 2024