alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 32**

**NETTIME SOLUTIONS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES**

**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 Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of NETtime Solutions, Inc. (the “Company”) for the year ended June 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, Bahan Sadegh, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Thomas J. Klitzke, Vice President - Finance and Administration and Principal Accounting Officer of the Company, each hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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 result of operations of the Company.
| By:    |                                                                                | /s/ Bahan  Sadegh |   |   |
|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------|--------|--------|
|   |  Bahan Sadegh                                                                  |              |
|   |  President and Chief Executive Officer                                         |              |
|   |  October 15, 2007                                                              |              |
|   |                                                                                |              |
| By:    |  /s/ Thomas  J. Klitzke                                                        |              |   |
|   |  Thomas J. Klitzke                                                             |              |
|   |  Vice President - Finance and Administration  and Principal Accounting Officer |              |
|   |  October 15, 2007                                                              |              |
|        |                                                                                     |                   |        |        |  |

 

----
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4912 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4912

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
    To amend section 242 of the National Housing Act to extend the 
   exemption for critical access hospitals under the FHA program for 
                   mortgage insurance for hospitals.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Rural Health Care Capital Access Act 
of 2006''.

SEC. 2. EXTENSION.

    Paragraph (1) of section 242(i) of the National Housing Act (12 
U.S.C. 1715z-7(i)(1)) is amended by striking ``July 31, 2006'' and 
inserting ``July 31, 2011''.

            Passed the House of Representatives May 9, 2006.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
109th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 4912

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

    To amend section 242 of the National Housing Act to extend the 
   exemption for critical access hospitals under the FHA program for 
                   mortgage insurance for hospitals.
```
No. 09M82.

#### Gerard D. Grandoit, Petitioner v. Susan Murray, et al.

559 U.S. 1035, 130 S. Ct. 2083,

176 L. Ed. 2d 413,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 2885.

March 29, 2010.

Motion to direct the Clerk to file a petition for writ of certiorari out of time denied.
**Exhibit 32**

 

**TEMPCO, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES**

 

**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 Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of Tempco, Inc. (the “Company”) for the year ended June 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, Stanley L. Schloz, President, Chief Executive and Financial Officer of the Company hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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 result of operations of the Company.

 
| By:    | /s/ Stanley L. Schloz                            |   |
|--------|--------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Stanley L. Schloz                                |   |
|   | President, Chief Executive and Financial Officer |   |
|   | September 29, 2008                          |   |
Exhibit 32.2

                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  Form  10-QSB  of  China  Autoparts,  Inc.  (the
"Company")  for the quarter ended March 31, 2004,  as filed with the  Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Chen Weisheng, CFO
of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  1350,  as adopted  pursuant to
Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,  that the Report fully complies
with the  requirements  of  Section  13(a) or  Section  15(d) of the  Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,  and the  information  contained in the Report
fairly presents,  in all material respects,  the financial condition and results
of operations of the Company.

/s/    Chen Weisheng
--------------------------
Chen Weisheng
CFO
Date: May 20, 2004
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




Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and in connection with this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Cortelco Systems Puerto Rico, Inc.
(Registrant) for the three months ended October 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), the undersigned Juan Carlos Ramos, Chief Executive Officer, and Francisco Sanchez, Chief Financial Officer of Registrant, hereby
certify, that:


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

|2. |  | The information contained in this report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Registrant.
|-- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|Date: December
15, 2006 |  |  |  | /s/ Juan Carlos Ramos                     |  |  |  | 
|----------------------- |  |  |  | ----------------------------------------- |  |  |  | 
|                        |  |  |  | Juan
Carlos Ramos Chief Executive Officer |  |  |  | 
|                        |  |  |  |                                           |  |  |  | 
|                        |  |  |  | /s/ Francisco Sanchez                     |  |  |  | 
|                        |  |  |  | Francisco Sanchez Chief Financial Officer |  |  |  | 

---
No. 08-1229.

#### Florida, Petitioner v. Thomas William Rigterink.

559 U.S. 965, 130 S. Ct. 1235,

176 L. Ed. 2d 175,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 1904.

March 1, 2010.

On petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Florida. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Petition for writ of certiorari granted. Judgment vacated, and case remanded to the Supreme Court of Florida for further consideration in light of *Florida*v. *Powell,*559 U.S. 50, 130 S. Ct. 1195, 175 L. Ed. 2d 1009 (2010).

Same case below, 2 So. 3d 221.

Justice Stevens,

dissenting.

In my view, the judgment below rested upon an adequate and independent state ground, and the Court therefore lacks jurisdiction over this case. See *Florida*v. *Powell, ante,*at 65-71, 130 S. Ct. 1195, 175 L. Ed. 2d 1009 (Stevens, J., dissenting). Indeed, the independence of the state-law ground in this case is even clearer than in *Powell*because the Florida Supreme Court expressly acknowledged its obligation “ ‘to give independent legal import to every phrase and clause contained’ ” in the State Constitution, 2 So. 3d 221, 241 (2009) (quoting *Traylor*v. *State,*596 So. 2d 957, 962 (Fla. 1992)), and stated that “the federal Constitution sets the floor, not the ceiling, and this Court retains the ability to interpret the right against self-incrimination afforded by the Florida Constitution more broadly than that afforded by its federal counterpart,” 2 So. 3d, at 241. Because the independence of the state-law ground is “clear from the face of the opinion,” *Michigan*v. *Long,*463 U.S. 1032, 1041, 103 S. Ct. 3469, 77 L. Ed. 2d 1201 (1983), we do not have power to vacate the judgment of the Florida Supreme Court.

I therefore respectfully dissent.
6

V ' -TT. 7-3^-62

-Fffi-ITW

JZ7 A//EV£je f///£r/ s? 2A&CL s£l

/Lfew&e.

D/s<*Jj/hrs*c/ si/0 cS^as/^asc^ 0*s rJu*/&'- £7, &0/c2

a?*sc/ A*y C2.C./7 ,vs) /<s A/a/' 77 7&9-a/ rt//

^A//^~/e/^'?//<3>A/ ~r //&ia& A^u&s/<±r-c/ u/As&&

J-//9i/^r S^&i/ a*/ &&e)//p/ 63<2C/9-<Sag*a A/&s&tf\

£&?/ s&H&UJ£X\. .^.

i>i//t^/ a<> s4tt= •*S7&7&t<; o/^ stf/f7£r/A'osK/

/1*^i//£//iK? TZisa?/ Jte3j&/ '&&/£#*/ <?a/ 7)aV/?~

^ATSt/// //&#*/*/$ j .-.. 777/?/ IsiSaZS ,ftTA// /d> A^^r

/JJW/ a/^/^ur/kuf/ /SfefiSMk aVw 7Jwy. ^~-

t&c/ /4af cSikyi**. ^/^ ^y //ay i*/x>// ^/r

M?t?A^A%5 SZtApUS M&/-- iawa*£ /s~^g/ /a/.

h<#j?/ &£> ^. dsae/Z. $£/V/<z4&r/ fit,*//**?

Aw^ /2^g6aS& /Ju /#& dh<y/^ &/^rte/'/tf/AS'?-/..

/&S6E*/ A^t^e si*y C?£a? AfA*. f7Z 7J9-&3 )

*ftW'- .sk^A^&^k/g..y_.~-. <•*</*/*• A<y^y^ a£&^s

£azXs/£tc/ ZZ- A^&C*/ •*4Sa4a?^S J&ZfXs' •aOM/a/s^/..

£&4?A?/ AS ?22*Jtty&') *---y ",• t

'&$&<L *J, S^ri&A
SHARON KELLER

PRESIDING JUDGE

LAWRENCE E. MEYERS

CHERYL JOHNSON

MIKE KEASLER

BARBARA P. HERVEY

ELSA ALCALA

BERT RICHARDSON

KEVIN P. YEARY

DAVID NEWELL

JUDGES

Court of Criminal Appeals

P.O. BOX 12308, CAPITOL STATION

AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711

CEDRIC DEMICHAEL BUTLER

Dallas County Jail - TDC # 14038893

500 Commerce St.

Dallas, TX 75202

Re: Butler, Cedric Demichael

CCA No. WR-77,739-01

Trial Court Case No. W90-01404-T(A)

February 02, 2015

Your letter has been received. Please be advised:

ABEL ACOSTA

CLERK

(512)463-1551

SIAN SCHILHAB

GENERAL COUNSEL

(512)463-1597

IMPORTANT:

WRITING.

PLEASE INFORM THIS COURT OF ALL ADDRESS CHANGES IN

• To obtain Copies of items requested, contact the State Law Library, Inmate Copy Service, at

PO Box 12367, Austin Texas 78711-23267. Please be sure to include your full name and any

aliases, TDCJ number, date of conviction, county of conviction, appeal number and complete

mailing address.

• Your records will not be returned to you because once records are received in the Court they

become the permanent records ofthis Court

S Your application for writ of habeas corpus has been received Tuesday, May 29, 2012.

The status is: DISMISSED - SENTENCE DISCHARGED on June 27, 2012.

• Neither the Judges nor the staff of the Court can give legal advice. We recommend you

^-. . , i contact Inmate Legal Services at the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional

MS 15 W Division.

Sincerely,

Supreme Court Building, 201 West 14th Street, Room 106, Austin, Texas 78701

Website www.txcourts.gov/cca.aspx
No. 09-7628.

#### Jason Eric Sonntag, Petitioner v. United States District Court for the District of Nevada, et al.

559 U.S. 1088, 130 S. Ct. 2143,

176 L. Ed. 2d 760,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 3247.

April 19, 2010.

Petition for rehearing denied.

Former decision, 559 U.S. 907, 130 S. Ct. 1319, 175 L. Ed. 2d 1079, 2010 U.S. LEXIS 892.
APPENDIX “B6”

 User Manual: DJI Phantom 3
No. 09-8607.

#### Douglas R. Brown, Petitioner v. Florida.

559 U.S. 1013, 130 S. Ct. 1895,

176 L. Ed. 2d 376,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 2720.

March 22, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District, denied.

Same case below, 10 So. 3d 1197.
408 P.2d 237

#### The STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. Larry E. BYRD, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 36.

Court of Appeals of Arizona.

Dec. 1, 1965.

*305Darrell F. Smith, Atty. Gen., by Gary Nelson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

William H. (Rod) Wood, Phoenix, for appellant.

DONALD DAUGHTON, Judge of the Superior Court.

Appellant was charged, tried and found guilty by a jury, of two counts of the crime of unlawfully killing livestock of another, a felony, in violation of A.R.S. Section 24-246. The judgment of guilty on each count was pronounced by the trial court on April 23, 1963. The imposition of sentence was suspended and the appellant was placed on probation for a period of five years on terms of probation as set down by the trial court. No notice of appeal was filed by the appellant within sixty days of the date of the rendition of judgment of guilty. On January 12, 1965, the trial court ordered revocation of probation and sentenced appellant to be confined in the Arizona State Prison for not less than four years nor more than five years, the sentence to date from January 12, 1965. On March 11, 1965, a notice of appeal was filed on behalf of the appellant.

It is the position of the appellant that, at the time of his arrest, he was denied his constitutional right to the assistance of counsel as defined in the case of Escobedo v. State of Illinois, 378 U.S. 478, 84 S.Ct. 1758, 12 L.Ed.2d 977 (1964). The first question we must decide, however, is whether appellant perfected a timely appeal. The Supreme Court of the State of Arizona in the case of State of Arizona v. Heron, 92 Ariz. 114, 374 P.2d 871 (1962), stated in applicable part at page 871 of the Pacific Reports:

> “We hold, therefore, that the judgment of guilty provided for in Rules 321, 322 and 324, Rules of Criminal Procedure, 17 A.R.S. is a final judgment from which an appeal may be taken even though the sentence or the imposition of sentence may have been suspended. The defendant must, of course, file a timely notice of appeal and abide by the other procedures set out for the prosecution of appeals. He may not take the benefit of his probation and hold off on his appeal until, for instance, his probation is revoked.”

We hold that the appellant did not perfect a timely appeal and, therefore, this Court is without jurisdiction in this proceeding, to determine the constitutional question presented by the appeal.

Judgment affirmed.

CAMERON, Acting C. J., and DONO-FRIO, J., concur.

NOTE: Chief Judge HENRY S. STEVENS having requested that he be relieved from consideration of this matter, Judge DONALD DAUGHTON was called to sit in his stead and participate in the determination of this decision.
No. 11-6598.

#### Carlos I. Medina, Petitioner v. Dale Artus, Superintendent, Clinton Correctional Facility.

565 U.S. 1067, 132 S. Ct. 775,

181 L. Ed. 2d 497,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 8562.

November 28, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.
EXHIBIT 32.1














Certification of Chief Executive Officer of ULURU Inc.


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 ULURU Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and to which this Certification is an exhibit (the “Report”), the undersigned officer of ULURU Inc. does hereby certify, pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code (18 U.S.C. 1350), 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.





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 or other document authenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.








Date: May 16, 2011

/s/ Kerry P. GrayKerry P. GrayPresident and Chief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)
No. 09-8135.

#### Curtis Fuller, Petitioner v. Dave J. Burnett, et al.

559 U.S. 1089, 130 S. Ct. 2145,

176 L. Ed. 2d 762,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 3135.

April 19, 2010.

Petition for rehearing denied.

Former decision, 559 U.S. 975, 130 S. Ct. 1692, 176 L. Ed. 2d 187, 2010 U.S. LEXIS 2093.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5086 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5086

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 2633 11th Street in Rock Island, Illinois, as the ``Lane Evans Post 
                           Office Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 4, 2006

    Mr. LaHood (for himself, Mr. Hastert, Mr. Rush, Mr. Jackson of 
Illinois, Mr. Lipinski, Mr. Gutierrez, Mr. Emanuel, Mr. Hyde, Mr. Davis 
   of Illinois, Ms. Bean, Ms. Schakowsky, Mr. Kirk, Mr. Weller, Mr. 
Costello, Mrs. Biggert, Mr. Johnson of Illinois, Mr. Manzullo, and Mr. 
   Shimkus) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 2633 11th Street in Rock Island, Illinois, as the ``Lane Evans Post 
                           Office Building''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. LANE EVANS POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 2633 11th Street in Rock Island, Illinois, shall be known 
and designated as the ``Lane Evans Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Lane Evans 
Post Office Building''.
                                 <all>
```
No. 09-9809.

#### Adan Gonzales, Petitioner v. United States.

559 U.S. 1100, 130 S. Ct. 2390,

176 L. Ed. 2d 781,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 3647.

April 26, 2010.

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

Same case below, 343 Fed. Appx. 597.
No. 09-9242.

#### Timothy Mark Parmer, Petitioner v. United States.

559 U.S. 1043, 130 S. Ct. 2077,

176 L. Ed. 2d 425,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 2890.

March 29, 2010.

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

Same case below, 352 Fed. Appx. 854.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED April 21, 2004 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-51148 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus ROBERTO NORIEGA-CISNEROS, also known as Roberto C. Noriega, also known as Roberto Cisneros Noriega, also known as Robert Noriega, also known as Roberto Noriega Cisneros, also known as Roberto N. Oriega, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. SA-02-CR-225-ALL

-------------------- Before JOLLY, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Roberto Noriega-Cisneros appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction of being found in the United States after deportation/removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Noriega-Cisneros contends that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) define separate offenses. He argues that the prior conviction that resulted in his increased sentence is an elementNo. 03-51148 -2- of a separate offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) that should have been alleged in his indictment. Noriega-Cisneros maintains that he pleaded guilty to an indictment which charged only simple reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). He argues that his sentence exceeds the two-year maximum term of imprisonment which may be imposed for that offense.
In Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), the Supreme Court held that the enhanced penalties in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are sentencing provisions, not elements of separate offenses. The Court further held that the sentencing provisions do not violate the Due Process Clause. Id. at 239-47. Noriega-Cisneros acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres , but asserts that the decision has been cast into doubt by Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000). He seeks to preserve his argument for further review. Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres
. See Apprendi , 530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit , 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000). This court must follow Almendarez-Torres “unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule it.” Dabeit , 231 F.3d at 984 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED. The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks that an appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED.
AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.