alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit32.1**

 

**CertificationPursuant to**

**18 U.S.C.Section 1350,**

**As AdoptedPursuant to**

**Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

** **

I, Joaquin F.Blaya, Chief Executive Officer of Radio Unica Corp. (the “Company”), pursuantto Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, do hereby certify as follows:

 

1.                     The quarterlyreport on Form 10-Q of the Company for the nine months ended September 30, 2003fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

2.                     Theinformation contained in such Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Ihave executed this Certification this 14th day of November, 2003.

 

 
|   | /s/ Joaquin F. Blaya                 |
|--------|--------------------------------------|
|   | Joaquin F. Blaya                     |
|   | Chairman and Chief Executive Officer |

 

 

**A signed original of this written statement required bySection 906 has been provided to Radio Unica Communications Corp. and will beretained by Radio Unica Communications Corp. and furnished to the Securitiesand Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.**

** **

----
EXHIBIT
      32.1





Certification
      of Chief Executive Officer 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 West Bancorporation, Inc. on Form 10-Q
      for the quarter ended March 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
      Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Thomas E. Stanberry, Chairman,
      President and Chief Executive Officer of West Bancorporation, Inc., 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 conditions and results of operations of West
      Bancorporation, Inc.





May
      8,
      2008




/s/
                Thomas E. StanberryThomas
                E. StanberryChairman,
                President and Chief Executive
                Officer
EXHIBIT
      32.1





CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
      connection with the annual report of Patriot Scientific Corporation (the
“Company”) on Form 10-KSB/A for the period ended May 31, 2005, as filed
      with the Securities and Exchange Commission and to which this Certification
      is
      an exhibit (the “Report”), the undersigned officer of Patriot Scientific
      Corporation does hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
      pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my
      knowledge:





(1) The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





(2) The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Date:
      October 16, 2006


/s/
                David H. Pohl
              David
                H. Pohl
              *Chief
                Executive Officer*
# C_2016012EN.01000701.xml

| 15.1.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 12/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.1.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 12/7

---

Corrigendum to summary of European Commission Decisions on authorisations for the placing on the market for the use and/or for use of substances listed in Annex XIV to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) (Published pursuant to Article 64(9) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006)

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 10 of 13 January 2016
  )

Official Journal of the European Union C 10 of 13 January 2016

(2016/C 12/06)

On page 3, first column of table:

for:

for:

‘[add reference of decision]’,

read:

read:

‘C(2015) 9812’;

on page 3, second column of table:

for:

for:

‘[add date of decision]’,

read:

read:

‘8.1.2016’.

---
No. 11-5659.

#### Annamarie Riethmiller, Petitioner v. Danuta Fabisiak, et al.

565 U.S. 1102, 132 S. Ct. 870,

181 L. Ed. 2d 568,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 8956.

December 12, 2011.

Petition for rehearing denied.

Former decision, 565 U.S. 948, 132 S. Ct. 407, 181 L. Ed. 2d 267, 2011 U.S. LEXIS 7405.
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

No. 21

- 11275 Summary Calendar

**United States of America,**
Plaintiff

— Appellee **,**

versus **John Christopher Ware,**
Defendant

— Appellant

**.**

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:15

- CR

- 494

- 2

Before **Jolly, Oldham,**  and **Wilson,** Circuit Judges

**. Per Curiam**  **:** * John Christopher Ware, federal prisoner # 97441

- 379 , appeals the denial of his motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) , which was based on his contention that his age and medical conditions, including obesity, Type 2 diabetes, rena l tubulointerstitial

* Pursuant to **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  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 cuit**  **R ule**  47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED August 5, 2022 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 21-11275 Document: 00516421711 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/05/2022No. 21

- 11275

2 disease, uncontrolled hypertension, and cerebrovascular disease , combined with the COVID

- 19 pandemic, constitute d extraordinary and compelling reasons warranting early release. We review the denial of a motion for compassionate release for an abuse of discretion. See United States v. Chambliss , 948 F.3d 691, 693 (5th Cir. 2020). Contrary to Ware’s contention, there is no indication that the district court felt constrained by U. S.S.G. § 1B1.13, p.s. , and its commentary. Rather, the district court permissibly considered § 1B1.13 in its independent assessment of whether prison conditions and Ware’s age and particular medical conditions were sufficiently compelling and extraordinar y to entitle him to relief. See United States v. Thompson , 984 F.3d 431, 43 3

- 3 5 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , 141 S. Ct. 2688 (2021) ; see also United States v. Rodriguez , 27 F.4th 1097, 1099

- 1101 & n.2 (5th Cir. 2022)

. A ddition ally, when Ware filed his motio n, 74 percent of his sentence remained to be served. Accordingly , Ware has failed to show that the district court abuse d its discretion in denying his motion for compassionate release. See Rodriguez , 27 F.4th at 1100

- 01; Thompson , 984 F.3d at 433

- 35 ; Chambliss , 948 F.3d at 693. T he judgment of the district court is **AFFIRMED**

. Case: 21-11275 Document: 00516421711 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/05/2022
No. 09-8268.

#### Roy Neal Shelling, Jr., Petitioner v. Rick Thaler, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division.

559 U.S. 979, 130 S. Ct. 1703,

176 L. Ed. 2d 192,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 2163.

March 1, 2010.

Petition for writ of cer-tiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    10.(xvii)(B)

                                           April 30, 1997



Mr. Kevin Freeman
105 Harbor Drive, #128
Stamford, Connecticut 06902

Dear Kevin:

Reference is made to your Compensation Agreement (the "Agreement") dated as of
March 17, 1997, with Montgomery Ward & Co., Incorporated (the "Company").

In order to induce you to accept the offer of employment contained in the
Agreement, General Electric Capital Corporation ("GE Capital"), as a principal
shareholder in the Company, hereby agrees with you that if, for any reason other
than termination of your employment, either voluntarily by you or for "cause" by
the Company, the Company shall fail to pay to you the base salary for the first
three years of such Agreement and the guaranteed bonuses for each of the first
two years of such Agreement, then GE Capital shall pay such amounts to you as
provided in and subject to the conditions of the Agreement.  This obligation on
the part of GE Capital shall be triggered by your written notice to GE Capital
that the Company has ceased to make such payments as required by such Agreement.

                                Very truly yours,

                                General Electric Capital Corporation



                                By: /s/ Edward D. Stewart
                                   ------------------------------
                                    Edward D. Stewart
                                    Executive Vice President
No. 09-8789.

#### Jorge L. Urbina-Acevedo, Jesus Caraballo-Ortiz, and Luis Andino-Delbrey, Petitioners v. United States.

559 U.S. 986, 130 S. Ct. 1724,

176 L. Ed. 2d 203,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 1906.

March 1, 2010.

Petition for writ of cer-tiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit denied.

Same case below, 584 F.3d 351.
No. 11-7426.

#### John Petty, Petitioner v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, et al.

565 U.S. 1131, 132 S. Ct. 1050,

181 L. Ed. 2d 771,

2012 U.S. LEXIS 181.

January 9, 2012.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
* 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. 96-40716

Conference Calendar

 

JEFFREY D. NOIEL,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

HARRY W. MCKEE,

Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 6:96-CV-299

- - - - - - - - - -

April 17, 1997

Before REAVLEY, DAVIS, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jeffrey D. Noiel, Texas prisoner # 495518, appeals the

dismissal of his civil rights complaint as frivolous. He has

filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on

appeal. The motion for leave to appeal IFP is GRANTED.

Noiel is not required to pay an initial partial filing fee;

however, he shall make monthly payments of twenty percent of the

preceding month’s income credited to his account. See 28 U.S.C.
No. 96-40716

- 2 -

§ 1915(a). The agency having custody of Noiel is directed to

forward payments from his prisoner account to the clerk of the

district court each time the amount in his account exceeds $10

until the filing fee is paid. See id.

Noiel filed his complaint against Magistrate Judge Harry W.

McKee. Judicial officers such as Magistrate Judge McKee are

entitled to absolute immunity from damage claims under 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 arising out of acts performed in the exercise of their

judicial functions. Graves v. Hampton, 1 F.3d 315, 317 (5th Cir.

1993).

Noiel’s appeal is without arguable merit and thus frivolous. 

See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d. 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). 

Because the appeal is frivolous, it is DISMISSED. See 5th Cir.

R. 42.2. Noiel now “has, on 3 or more prior occasions, while

incarcerated or detained in any facility, brought an action or

appeal in a court of the United States that was dismissed on the

grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a

claim upon which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 

Accordingly, Noiel is barred from proceeding IFP in a civil

action unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical

injury. Id.

APPEAL DISMISSED. SANCTION IMPOSED.
No. 09-678.

#### Patricia Simon, et al., Petitioners v. United States.

559 U.S. 1068, 130 S. Ct. 2092,

176 L. Ed. 2d 722,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 3449.

April 19, 2010.

Petition for writ of cer-tiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONDENSED BALANCE SHEET AS OF OCTOBER 2, 1999 (UNAUDITED) AND THE CONDENSED
STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE THREE AND NINE MONTHS ENDED OCTOBER 2, 1999
(UNAUDITED) AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS CONTAINED IN FORM 10-K FOR THE YEAR ENDED JANUARY 2, 1999.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-02-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-02-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           2,939
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   42,202
<ALLOWANCES>                                     7,659
<INVENTORY>                                     32,138
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                82,029
<PP&E>                                          36,399
<DEPRECIATION>                                  18,135
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 133,353
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           58,679
<BONDS>                                         75,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     31,089
<COMMON>                                             6
<OTHER-SE>                                    (33,220)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   133,353
<SALES>                                        125,593
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               125,593
<CGS>                                           74,900
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   50,561
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  (44)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               7,679
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (7,503)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        37
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (7,540)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (9,768)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (16.07)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
**Exhibit 23.1****Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**The Board of Directors Solectron Corporation:We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements (Nos. 333-69443,333-46304, 333-46300, 333-40176, 333-34494, 333-92269, 333-75865, 333-85949, 333-89035, 333-75813,333-24293, 333-02523, 333-17643, 333-56220, 333-56464, 333-60684, 333-64454, 333-69182, 333-73238,333-74946, 333-84066, 333-96823, 033-58580, 333-46686, 033-57575, 033-75270, 033-33461, 033-58210,333-83297, 333-02945, 333-15983, 333-49206, 333-84070, 333-102534, 333-102535, 333-107127,333-114447, and 333-125377) on Forms S-3, S-4, and S-8 of Solectron Corporation of our reportsdated November 9, 2005, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of Solectron Corporationand subsidiaries as of August 31, 2005 and 2004, and the related consolidated statements ofoperations, stockholders’ equity, comprehensive income (loss), and cash flows for each of the yearsin the three-year period ended August 31, 2005 and the related financial statement schedule,management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as ofAugust 31, 2005, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of August31, 2005, which reports appear in the 2005 Annual Report on Form 10-K of Solectron Corporation.
/s/ KPMG LLPMountain View, California
No. 09-9270.

#### Kyle Kimoto, Petitioner v. United States.

559 U.S. 1043, 130 S. Ct. 2079,

176 L. Ed. 2d 426,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 2816.

March 29, 2010.

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

Same case below, 588 F.3d 464.
No. 09-713.

#### Joseph Alan Woodring, Petitioner v. Michigan.

559 U.S. 971, 130 S. Ct. 1690,

176 L. Ed. 2d 181,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 2148.

March 1, 2010.

Petition for writ of cer-tiorari to the Circuit Court of Michigan, Muskegon County, denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-30-1999
<CASH>                                         264,342
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,500
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                          20,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 373,632
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          288,665
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        15,158
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   373,632
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               155,020
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (155,020)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.01)


</TABLE>
QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document









































 
 

  EXHIBIT 10.11    
    


 CROCS, INC.  


 Board of Directors Compensation Plan  


        On June 29, 2010, the Board of Directors of Crocs, Inc. (the "Company") approved a new compensation arrangement for
non-employee directors effective as of June 29, 2010. The new compensation arrangement provides the following for non-employee directors: 


        (a)   Annual
compensation for each non-employee director of, at the election of such non-employee director, (i) $100,000 in cash payable in four
successive quarterly payments, (ii) $100,000 of restricted stock of the Company based on the fair market value of the Company's common stock on the date of grant, which restricted stock will
vest in four successive quarterly installments from the date of grant, or (iii) a combination thereof; 


        (b)   Additional
annual compensation for the chairperson of the Audit Committee of, at such chairperson's election, (i) $50,000 in cash, (ii) $50,000 of
restricted stock of the Company based on the fair market value of the common stock on the date of grant, which restricted stock will vest in four successive quarterly installments from the date of
grant, or (iii) a combination thereof; 


        (c)   Additional
annual compensation for the chairpersons of each of the Governance and Nominating Committee and the Compensation Committee of, at such chairperson's election,
(i) $5,000 in cash, (ii) $5,000 of restricted stock of the Company based on the fair market value of the common stock on the date of grant, which restricted stock will vest in four equal
quarterly installments from the date of grant, or (iii) a combination thereof; 


        (d)   Annual
grant to each non-employee director of $100,000 of common stock of the Company based on the fair market value of the common stock on the date of
grant; 


        (e)   Annual
grant to the Chairman of the Board of options to purchase 10,000 shares of common stock of the Company at an exercise price equal to the fair market value of the
common stock on the date of grant, which options will vest in four equal annual installments on the date of the annual meeting of stockholders each year; and 



        (f)    Any
additional cash compensation payable to any of the non-employee directors, at the discretion of the Board of Directors. 











QuickLinks



EXHIBIT 10.11
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Transportation

###### Federal Aviation Administration 

# AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration, DOT. 

# ACTION:

Notice.

Notice is hereby given that on or about January 18, 2009, the Flight Standards District Office at Honolulu, Hawaii will be divided into two separate FAA offices. Services to operators operating under Title 14, U.S.C. Part 121 of Hawaii provided by this office will now be provided services by the Honolulu Certificate Management Office (HNLCMO) located in Honolulu, Hawaii. This information will be reflected in the FAA Organizational Statement the next time it is reissued. 

Issued in Los Angeles, CA, on February 2, 2009. 

John M Allen, 

Director, Flight Standards Service.

[FR Doc. E9-4362 Filed 3-3-09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
No. 11-6714.

#### Robert Anthony Escareno, aka Robert A. Escareno, Petitioner v. Mike Evans, Warden.

565 U.S. 1068, 132 S. Ct. 779,

181 L. Ed. 2d 499,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 8589,

November 28, 2011.

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