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





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the quarterly filing of Artfest International, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), the undersigned, Eddie Vakser, the Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.ss.1350), 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.


Dated: May 20, 2010
By:
/s/ Eddie VakserEddie VakserChairman and Chief Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer
Amendment to the DSP Group, Inc. Bylaws



 Exhibit 10.2 
 CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT OF BYLAWS 
 OF 

DSP GROUP, INC., 

a Delaware corporation 
 Date: April 3, 2012 
  

 
 The
undersigned, Dror Levy, certifies that: 
 1. He is the Secretary of DSP Group, Inc., a Delaware corporation. 

2. Effective April 3, 2012, Article III Section 3.2 of the Bylaws of the Corporation was amended as follows: 

“The authorized number of directors shall be not less than five (5) or more than nine (9). The exact number of directors shall
be nine (9) until changed, within the limits specified above, by a bylaw amending this Section 3.2, duly adopted by the board of directors. The indefinite number of directors may be changed, or a definite number may be fixed without
provision for an indefinite number, by a duly adopted amendment to the Certificate of Incorporation or by an amendment to this bylaw by resolution of a majority of the board of directors. Except as provided in Section 3.4 of this Article III,
in an uncontested election whereby the number of director nominees is equal to or less than the number of open positions for directorship of the class of directors up for re-election, any nominee for director who receives a greater number of votes
“withheld” from his or her election than votes “for” such election (a “Majority Withheld Vote”) shall promptly tender his or her resignation to the corporation’s board of directors following certification of the
stockholder vote by the inspector of elections. “Abstentions” will not count as a vote cast with respect to a director. The Nominating and Governance Committee of the board will make a recommendation to the board on whether to accept or
reject the resignation of the director who received a Majority Withheld Vote, or whether other action should be taken. The board will act on the Nominating and Governance Committee’s recommendation and publicly disclose its decision and the
reasons for it within ninety (90) days from the date of the certification of the stockholder vote. The director who tenders his or her resignation will not participate in the board decision with respect to his or her offer to tender
resignation. Any vacancies in the board resulting from the failed election of a director under this Section 3.2 of this Article III may be filled by a majority of the directors then in office, although less than a quorum, as provided in
Section 3.4 of this Article III. Elected directors shall hold office until the annual meeting of stockholders in the year that their terms expire and until their successors shall be duly elected and qualified or until their earlier death,
resignation or removal. Directors need not be stockholders. 
 No reduction of the authorized number of directors shall have the
effect of removing any director before that director’s term of office expires. If for any cause, the 







 
directors shall not have been elected at an annual meeting, they may be elected as soon thereafter as convenient at a special meeting of the stockholders called for that purpose in the manner
provided in these bylaws.” 
 Executed on this 3rd day of April 2012. 

 

	
	 /s/ Dror Levy

	Dror Levy, Secretary
No. 09-9696.

#### Alif Bass, Petitioner v. United States.

559 U.S. 1083, 130 S. Ct. 2131,

176 L. Ed. 2d 751,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 3124.

April 19, 2010.

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

Same case below, 350 Fed. Appx. 664.
**MEMORANDUM**

DATE: 9/17/2014 TO: C lean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants; Docket I d: OAR

– 2013 - 0602 FROM: Michael Gordon , EPA Region 3 SUBJECT: 8/ 21 /14 Meeting with Secretary of the Maryland Department of the Environment Regarding Proposed C lean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants **SUMMARY** A meeting was held between the EPA Region 3 Regional Administrator and the Secretary of the Mary land Department of the Environment on August 21 , 2014 to discuss the proposed Clean P ower Plan for Existing Power Plants . The C lean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants was proposed on June 2, 2014. **ATTENDEES** Shawn Garvin, Regional Administrator Robert Summers, MDE Secretary
**Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record**

**Plant ID 00963**  **Removed from Public**  **(Non-CBI) Docket**  **1 Copyright** 

**Flag 2**  **File Name Description**  00963\00963_ Completeness Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist 00963\00963_ HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted x 00963\00963_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook x 00963\00963_Part A.xls Plant submitted survey file x 00963\00963_Part B.xls Plant submitted survey file x 00963\00963_Part C.xls Plant submitted survey file x 00963\00963_Part D.xls Plant submitted survey file x 00963\00963_Part E.xls Plant submitted survey file x 00963\00963_Part H.xls Plant submitted survey file x 00963\SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION\00963_ WWT_schematic.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

00963\SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION\00963_Site_Map_East.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey 00963\SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION\00963_Site_Map_Middle.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 00963\SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION\00963_Water_balance_diagram.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 00963\SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION\00963_WWT_block_dia_with_codes.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

00963\SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION\Site_Map_West.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey 00963\Certification Statement_00963.pdf Plant certification statement

1Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database

. 2Copyright documents are available from the docket.
EXHIBIT
        32.2
  Written
        Statement of Principal Executive Officer Furnished Pursuant to
 18
        U.S.C.
        Section 1350,
 as
        Adopted by
 Section
        906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
 
 
 In
        connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of HouseRaising, Inc.
        (the
        "Company") for the quarter ended September 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities
        and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Robert V.
        McLemore, President and Founder, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
        as
        adopted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of
        my
        knowledge, 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)
        information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
        the financial condition as of September 30, 2005 and results of operations
        for
        the quarter ended September 30, 2005 of the Company and its
        subsidiaries.
   /s/
        Robert V. McLemore
 Robert
        V.
        McLemore
 President
        and Founder (Principal Executive Officer)
 
 November
        15, 2005
 
 This
        certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
        Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by
        the
        Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of
        Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
#### Howard Hood and Randolph Hood, *Plaintiffs in Error,*v. State of Florida, *Defendant in Error.*

Division B.

Opinion Filed April 21, 1928.

*Purl G. Adams,*Attorney for Plaintiff in Error;

*Fred H. Davis,*Attorney General, and *Boy Campbell,*Assistant, Attorneys for Defendant in Error.

Buford, J.

In this case the State was allowed to introduce evidence over the objection of defendants tending to prove a crime other than that charged in the indictment and for which the defendants were then on trial.

The entire evidence, when taken together, scarcely meets the requirements of evidence sufficient to convict and it is our opinion that the irrelevant testimony above referred to was prejudicial to the defendants.

The ease should be reversed on authority of the opinion in the case of Boyette v. the State, filed in this Court March 28, 1928, and it is so ordered. See also Nickels v. State, 106 Sou. Rep. 479.

Reversed.

Whitfield, P. J., and Terrell, J., concur.

Ellis, C. J., and Strum and Brown, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

CHARLES EDWARD DAEDA, )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D18-3183

)

RAYMOND ANTHONY DAEDA, )

)

Appellee. )

)

Opinion filed November 1, 2019. 

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Lee 

County; Elisabeth Adams, Judge.

Charles Edward Daeda, pro se. 

Raymond Anthony Daeda, pro se. 

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. 

KHOUZAM, C.J., and VILLANTI and SLEET, JJ., Concur.
Print	
    - 
    -    					Published: 11 March 2024				 

Date: March 11, 2024

 

This report reflects the collective insights of the Intelligence Community, which is committed every day to providing the nuanced, independent, and unvarnished intelligence that policymakers, warfighters, and domestic law enforcement personnel need to protect American lives and America's interests anywhere in the world.

 

Download the report.
No. 09-8800.

#### Verry Saputra, Petitioner v. Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General.

559 U.S. 1016, 130 S. Ct. 1905,

176 L. Ed. 2d 381,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 2548.

March 22, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
Exhibit 32   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 Amended Quarterly Report of Zaldiva, Inc. (the Registrant) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending June 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Quarterly Report), we, Nicole Leigh, President, and Robert B. Lees, CFO of the Registrant, 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 Quarterly 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 Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Registrant.  Date:December 28, 2009By:/s/Nicole LeighNicole Leigh, President and Director  Date:December 28, 2009By:/s/Robert B. LeesRobert B. Lees, CFO and Director
IIB 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5245 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 7, 2006 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 1 Marble Street in Fair Haven, Vermont, 

as the ‘‘Matthew Lyon Post Office Building’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
2 

HR 5245 RFS 

1 SECTION 1. MATTHEW LYON POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

2 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

3 Postal Service located at 1 Marble Street in Fair Haven, 

4 Vermont, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Matthew 

5 Lyon Post Office Building’’. 

6 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg7 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

8 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

9 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Matthew Lyon Post 

10 Office Building’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives June 6, 2006. 

Attest: KAREN L. HAAS, 

Clerk. 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
**
**Exhibit 31.1**

**CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT UNDER SECTION 302 OF**

**THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

I, IlanGanot, certify that: 

1. I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Solid BiosciencesInc.; and 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary tomake the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report. 

 
Date: March 13, 2020  By: 
/s/ Ilan Ganot
   Ilan Ganot   
President and Chief Executive Officer

(Principal Executive Officer)
**
No. 09-1066.

#### T. Y. and K. Y., on Behalf of T. Y., Petitioners v. New York City Department of Education, Region 4.

560 U.S. 904, 130 S. Ct. 3277,

176 L. Ed. 2d 1183,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 3994.

May 17, 2010.

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

Same case below, 584 F.3d 412.
~ Ministry of Transport 

~ TE MANAT O WAKA 

IRBUSA-A 

22 January 2015 

Director 

Office of International Aviation 

Department of Transportation 

400 Seventh Street SW 

Room 6402 

Washington D.C. 20590 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

Dear Director 

This letter is to advise that, in addition to the charter rights exchanged 

between our two countries pursuant to the Multilateral Agreement on the 

Liberalization of International Air Transportation, New Zealand will continue to 

grant approval for United States air carriers to operate seventh freedom 

passenger charter flights on the understanding that the United States would 

grant similar rights to air carriers of New Zealand. 

This confirmation is consistent ·with our letter to your office of 24 October 

2013, provided in similar circumstances. 

Yours sincerely 

Glen-Marie Burns 

Manager Aviation and Security 

""1 www.transport.govt.nz 

HEAD OFFICE: PO Box 3175, Wellington 6140, New Zealand. TEL: 04 439 9000, FAX: 04 439 9001 

AUCKLAND OFFICE: The New Zealand Government- Auckland Policy Office, PO Box 106 238, Auckland City 1143, New Zealand. TEL: •64 9 985 4827, FAX: •64 9 985 4849 

CHRISTCHURCH OFFICE: PO Box 3014, Christchurch 8140, New Zealand. TEL: •64 3 366 9304, FAX: •64 3 366 9317
Ronald M. NELSON, Plaintiff, v. Susan Molly NELSON, Defendant.

No. COA18-937

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: May 21, 2019

AFFIRMED.
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 September 30, 2008, 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: November 7, 2008
            
            /s/
      Kerry P. GrayKerry
      P. GrayPresident
      and Chief Executive Officer(Principal
      Executive Officer)
June 26, 2012

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

SUSAN LUCILLE WRIGHT, Appellant

NO. 14-10-01193-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

________________________________

This cause was heard on the transcript of the record of the court below. Having 

considered the record, this Court holds that there was no error in the judgment. The Court 

orders the judgment AFFIRMED.

We further order appellant pay all costs expended in the appeal.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
ex10-19.htm








EXHIBIT 10.19


 



RPC EXHIBIT




SUMMARY OF COMPENSATION ARRANGEMENTS WITH NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTORS


 


The following summarizes the current compensation and benefits received by the Company’s non-employee directors effective January 1, 2011.  This document is intended to be a summary of existing oral, at will arrangements, and in no way is intended to provide any additional rights to any non-employee director.


 


Retainer


 


Non-employee director compensation may be revised from time to time by the Board of Directors.  Non-employee directors each receive an annual retainer fee of $26,000.  The Chairman of the Audit Committee receives an annual retainer of $20,000, the Chairman of the Compensation Committee receives an annual retainer of $10,000 and the Chairman of each of the Corporate Governance/Nominating Committee and Diversity Committee receives an annual retainer of $6,000.  A director that chairs more than one committee receives a retainer with respect to each Committee he chairs.  All of the retainers are paid on a quarterly basis.


 


Meeting Fees


 


Per meeting fees for non-employee directors are as follows:


 



	
  

	
–

	
For meetings of the Board of Directions, $2,000.







 



	
  

	
–

	
For meetings of the Board of Directors, Compensation Committee, Corporate Governance/Nominating Committee and Diversity Committee, $1,500.







 



	
  

	
–

	
For meetings of the Audit Committee, $2,500.  In addition, the Chairman gets an additional $2,000 for preparing to conduct each quarterly Board and Board Committee meeting.







 



Equity Compensation




 


Under the terms of the Company’s Stock Incentive Plan, directors are eligible to receive stock options, stock awards, and other types of equity-based compensation awards.  However, the Company does not make any such awards to non-employee directors under its current compensation practices.


 


All non-employee directors are entitled to reimbursement of expenses for all services as a director, including committee participation or special assignments.
```

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 221 (Thursday, November 15, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 68113]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-27532]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMISSION OF FINE ARTS

Notice of Meeting

    The next meeting of the U.S. Commission of Fine Arts is scheduled 
for 15 November 2012, at 9:00 a.m. in the Commission offices at the 
National Building Museum, Suite 312, Judiciary Square, 401 F Street 
NW., Washington DC, 20001-2728. Items of discussion may include 
buildings, parks, and memorials.
    Draft agendas and additional information regarding the Commission 
are available on our Web site: www.cfa.gov. Inquiries regarding the 
agenda and requests to submit written or oral statements should be 
addressed to Thomas Luebke, Secretary, U.S. Commission of Fine Arts, at 
the above address; by emailing CFAStaff@cfa.gov; or by calling 202-504-
2200. Individuals requiring sign language interpretation for the 
hearing impaired should contact the Secretary at least 10 days before 
the meeting date.

    Dated: October 31, 2012, in Washington DC.
Thomas Luebke, AIA,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-27532 Filed 11-14-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6331-01-M
```
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

LUDMILA BOIKO,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

SANTA CRUZ COUNTY,

Defendant

- Appellee. No. 18

- 16777

D.C. No. 5:18

- cv

- 03324

- LHK

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

Lucy H. Koh, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted March 3, 2020 * *

Before: MURGUIA, CHRISTEN, and BADE, Circuit Judges.

Ludmila Boiko appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing h er

action alleging federal claims arising from the mistreatment of her adult daughter

.

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of

discretion a dismissal for failure to prosecute

. Ash v. Cvetkov

, 739 F.2d 493

, 495

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

MAR 6 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 18

- 16777

(9 th Cir. 19 84 ). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Boiko ’s action

because Boiko failed to file an amended complaint even after receiving an

extension of time

. See Pagtalunan v. Galaza , 291 F.3d 639, 642

- 43 (9 th Cir.

2002) (discussing the five factors to consider in determining whether to dismiss

under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b)); see also Dreith v. Nu Image, Inc. , 648 F.3d 779, 788

(9 th Cir. 2011) (this court reviews the record independently if the di strict court

does not make explicit findings regarding each of the factors).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued

in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright , 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9 th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT 32.1

Certification of Principal Executive Officer

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350

(Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)





I, Patrick Freeman, Chief Executive Officer of Cordia Corporation (the "Registrant") do 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 the best of my knowledge, based upon a review of the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the period December 31, 2004 of the Registrant, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"):



(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)

or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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





By: /s/ Patrick Freeman



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



Patrick Freeman



Chief Executive Officer



March 29, 2005



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