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** 

I, Barry Lamperd, hereby 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 on Form 10-Q of Lamperd Less Lethal
      Inc. for the period ended June 30, 2008 (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 Lamperd Less Lethal Inc.                                                                

Dated: August 13, 2008

| | /s/ *Barry
      Lamperd*                                      
| | ---------------------------------------------------------------
| | Barry Lamperd                                                  
| | President and Director                                         
| | (Principal Executive Officer, Principal
      Financial Officer
| | and Principal Accounting Officer)                              
| | Lamperd Less Lethal Inc.                                       

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 Lamperd Less
Lethal Inc. and will be retained by Lamperd Less Lethal Inc. and furnished to
the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---
STATE of North Carolina v. Michael Stanley MAZUR and Anne-Marie Mazur

No. 332P18

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 14, 2019

Richard Croutharmel, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, for Mazur, Michael Stanley.

Matt Sawchak, Solicitor General, for State of North Carolina.

Ryan Y. Park, Deputy Solicitor General, for State of North Carolina.

Kathleen Joyce, for Mazur, Anne-Marie.

Glenn Gerding, Appellate Defender.

Aaron Thomas Johnson, Assistant Appellate Defender, for Mazur, Anne-Marie.

Michelle Liguori, Solicitor General Fellow.

Matt Burke, Solicitor General Fellow, for State of North Carolina.

N. Lorrin Freeman, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

*834***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the notice of appeal from the North Carolina Court of Appeals, filed by the Defendant (Anne Marie Mazur) on the 19th of October 2018 in this matter pursuant to G.S. 7A-30, and the motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question filed by the State of NC, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals: the motion to dismiss the appeal is

"Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 14th of August 2019."

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 4th of October 2018 by Defendant (Anne Marie Mazur) for Temporary Stay:

"Motion Dissolved by order of the Court in conference, this the 14th of August 2019."

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant (Anne Marie Mazur) on the 4th of October 2018 for Writ of Supersedeas of the judgment of the Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 14th of August 2019."

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 19th of October 2018 by Defendant (Anne Marie Mazur) in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 14th of August 2019."
EXHIBIT 32.01








CERTIFICATION OF PRESIDENT 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 Morgan Stanley Smith Barney Charter Campbell L.P. (the “Partnership”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Walter Davis, President of Ceres Managed Futures LLC, the general partner of the Partnership, 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:




(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 Partnership.































By:
/s/Walter DavisName:
Walter DavisTitle:
President ofCeres Managed Futures LLC,General Partner of the registrantDate:
May 13, 2011
exh10_17.htm


    EXHIBIT
10.17

     

    Compensation
Arrangements for Stoney M. Stubbs, Jr.

    January
1, 2009

    


    


    The
following is a summary of the compensation arrangement effective January 1,
2009, for Stoney M. Stubbs Jr. in his capacity as Chairman, President and Chief
Executive Officer of the Company. 

    


    Annual Base Salary. 
$408,770

    


    Annual and Long-Term Incentive
Compensation Plans. Participation in the Company’s Incentive Bonus Plan,
the 2005 Stock Incentive Plan and the 2005 Executive Bonus and Restricted Stock
Plan.

    


    Benefit Plans and Other
Arrangements. Mr. Stubbs is eligible to participate in the Company’s
broad-based programs including health, disability and life insurance programs,
the Frozen Food Express Industries, Inc. 401 (k) Savings Plan, and the FFE
Transportation Services, Inc. 401(k) Wrap Plan.  He was also eligible
to participate in the Key Employee Supplemental Medical Plan.

    


    Change in Control Agreements.
Mr. Stubbs and the Company entered into a Change in Control Agreement which
entitles executive officers severance benefits in the event of a “change in
control” of the Company during the term of his employment.

    


    Perquisites. Mr. Stubbs
is eligible to participate in certain programs offered by the Company, including
automobile mileage reimbursement for business purposes plus a $500 per month
automobile allowance and a Christmas bonus equal to one week’s annual base
salary.
Amendment No. 1 to Amended and Restated Employment Agreement



 EXHIBIT 10.35 
 AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE AMENDED AND RESTATED EMPLOYMENT 
 AGREEMENT 
 THIS AMENDMENT to the Amended and Restated Employment Agreement is made
effective this 18th day of December, 2009, by and between
Fiserv, Inc., a Wisconsin Corporation (the “Company”), and Stephen Olsen (the “Employee”). 
 WHEREAS, the
Employee and the Company entered into an Amended and Restated Employment Agreement effective as of December 22, 2008 (the “Agreement”); and 
 WHEREAS, the parties desire to amend the Agreement to comply with the requirements of Section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended. 
 NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the premises and mutual covenants contained herein, and for other good and valuable
consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, and subject to the terms and conditions hereinafter set forth, the parties hereto agree as follows: 
 1. Effective on the date hereof, Section 7(f)(ii)(A) of the Agreement is amended to read in its entirety as follows: 
 receive a lump sum in an amount equal to two times Employee’s then current annual base salary and, subject to the last paragraph of this Section 7, such payment shall be made within 30 days
after the date on which the Company receives the general release in favor of the Company; 
 2. In all other respects, the Agreement shall
remain in full force and effect. 
 3. This Amendment may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original and all of
which shall together constitute one and the same instrument. 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment on
the date and year first above written. 
  

			
	Fiserv, Inc.
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Jeffery W. Yabuki

		 	Name: Jeffery W. Yabuki
		 	Title: President and Chief Executive Officer
		 	
	
	 /s/ Stephen E. Olsen

	 Stephen E. Olsen
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 552

To implement equal protection under the 14th article of amendment to the 

Constitution for the right to life of each born and preborn human person. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 2, 2005

Mr. HUNTER (for himself, Mr. SHIMKUS, Mr. KINGSTON, Mr. BARTLETT of 

Maryland, Mr. TIAHRT, Mr. WICKER, Mr. SMITH of New Jersey, Mrs. 

MYRICK, Mr. TANCREDO, Mr. WHITFIELD, Mr. DOOLITTLE, Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey, Mr. AKIN, Mr. FRANKS of Arizona, Mr. RENZI, 

Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia, Mr. RYUN of Kansas, Mr. KING of Iowa, 

Mr. MCCOTTER, Mr. PEARCE, Mr. NEY, Mr. JOHNSON of Illinois, Mr. 

NEUGEBAUER, Mr. SOUDER, Mr. GINGREY, Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky, Mr. 

JONES of North Carolina, Mr. WAMP, Mr. WILSON of South Carolina, 

Mr. PITTS, Ms. FOXX, Mr. CHABOT, Mr. HOEKSTRA, Mr. HOSTETTLER, 

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin, Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California, and Mr. 

LAHOOD) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL

To implement equal protection under the 14th article of 

amendment to the Constitution for the right to life of 

each born and preborn human person.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Right to Life Act’’. 
2

•HR 552 IH 

1 SEC. 2. RIGHT TO LIFE. 

2 To implement equal protection for the right to life 

3 of each born and preborn human person, and pursuant 

4 to the duty and authority of the Congress, including Con5 gress’ power under article I, section 8, to make necessary 

6 and proper laws, and Congress’ power under section 5 of 

7 the 14th article of amendment to the Constitution of the 

8 United States, the Congress hereby declares that the right 

9 to life guaranteed by the Constitution is vested in each 

10 human being. 

11 SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS. 

12 For purposes of this Act: 

13 (1) HUMAN PERSON; HUMAN BEING.—The 

14 terms ‘‘human person’’ and ‘‘human being’’ include 

15 each and every member of the species homo sapiens 

16 at all stages of life, including, but not limited to, the 

17 moment of fertilization, cloning, or other moment at 

18 which an individual member of the human species 

19 comes into being. 

20 (2) STATE.—The term ‘‘State’’ used in the 

21 14th article of amendment to the Constitution of the 

22 United States and other applicable provisions of the 

23 Constitution includes the District of Columbia, the 

24 Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and each other terri25 tory or possession of the United States.

Æ
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

August 9, 2017

No. 04

- 17

- 00107

- CV

ZRS SAROSH MANAGEMENT, LLC dba A

- Z Food Mart

, Appellants

v.

EAST CENTRAL INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT and Roderick Sanchez, Development Director of the City of San Antonio , in His Official Capacity, Appellees

From the 224th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2014CI16430 Honorable David A. Canales, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

The clerk’s record was due on July 31, 2017

. T he district clerk has filed a notification of late record stating that the clerk’s record has not be en filed because appellant has failed to pay or make arrangements to pay the clerk’s fee for preparing the record and appellant is not entitled to appeal without paying the fee.

Accordingly , it is ORDERED that appellant provide written proof to this court within ten days of the dat e of this order that either (1) the clerk’s fee has been paid or arrangements have been made to pay the cle rk’s fee; or (2) appellant is entitled to appeal without paying the clerk’s fee. If appellant fail s to respond within the time provided, this appeal may be dismissed for want of prosecution. See T EX

. R. A PP . P. 37.3(b).

_________________________________ Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 9th day of August, 20 17

.

___________________________________ Luz Estrada Chief Deputy Clerk
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth ___________________________

No. 02-23-00222-CV

___________________________

Original Proceeding

342nd District Court of Tarrant County, Texas

Trial Court No. 342-342956-23

Before Kerr, Birdwell, and Wallach, JJ.

Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

IN RE JOSEPH STERLING, JR., INDIVIDUALLY, THE RANCH BOAT AND RV

STORAGE, LLC, AND THE RANCH COMMERCIAL TRUCK PARKING, LLC, 

Relators
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The court has considered relators’ petition for writ of mandamus and is of the 

opinion that relief should be denied. Accordingly, relators’ petition for writ of 

mandamus is denied.

Per Curiam

Delivered: July 12, 2023
## F I FTH 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________ Case No s
. 5 D 2 3

- 0 244 5D23

- 0438 LT Case No s
. 2 0 19

- CF

- 011911 2020

- CF

- 00755

_____________________________ A NTHONY J. C ANION , Appellant,

v. S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County

. Jeb T. Branham , Judge

. Robert Carl Davis , of Robert Carl Davis, P.A., Jacksonville , for Appellant

. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Benjamin L. Hoffman , Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee

.
November 21, 2023
P ER C URIAM

. A FFIRMED

.

S OUD , M AC I VER , and P RATT , JJ., concur
.2 _____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331
.

_____________________________
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5217 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5217

 To authorize the Secretary of Homeland Security to award competitive 
   grants to units of local government for innovative programs that 
 address expenses incurred in responding to the needs of undocumented 
                              immigrants.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 27, 2006

Mrs. McCarthy (for herself, Mr. Schwarz of Michigan, Mr. Bishop of New 
    York, Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas, Mrs. Maloney, and Ms. Bordallo) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committees on Energy and Commerce 
 and Financial Services, for a period to be subsequently determined by 
the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall 
           within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To authorize the Secretary of Homeland Security to award competitive 
   grants to units of local government for innovative programs that 
 address expenses incurred in responding to the needs of undocumented 
                              immigrants.

    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 ``Municipal Illegal Immigration Relief 
Act of 2006''.

SEC. 2. GRANTS FOR LOCAL PROGRAMS RELATING TO UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRANTS.

    (a) Grants Authorized.--The Secretary is authorized to award 
competitive grants to units of local government for innovative programs 
that address the increased expenses incurred in responding to the needs 
of undocumented immigrants.
    (b) Maximum Amount.--The Secretary may not award a grant under this 
section to a unit of local government in an amount which exceeds 
$5,000,000.
    (c) Use of Grant Funds.--Grants awarded under this section may be 
used for activities relating to the undocumented immigrant population 
residing in the locality, including--
            (1) law enforcement activities;
            (2) uncompensated health care;
            (3) public housing;
            (4) inmate transportation; and
            (5) reduction in jail overcrowding.
    (d) Application.--Each unit of local government desiring a grant 
under this section shall submit an application to the Secretary, at 
such time, in such manner, and accompanied by such information as the 
Secretary may reasonably require.
    (e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized to be 
appropriated $50,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2007 through 2011 
to carry out this section.
                                 <all>
```
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 13**  **- 2036** 

ELIJAH SMITH, III; KELLY SMITH; SANDRA SMITH; GARY SMITH , Plaintiffs

- Appellants ,
v. BETSY JOHNSON REGIONAL HOSPITAL, INC.; DUKE REGIONAL HOSPITAL; WAKEMED, Hospital , Defendants

- Appellees
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Raleigh
. James C. Fox , Senior District Judge. ( 5:13

- cv - 00493

- F )

Submitted : December 17, 2013 Decided: December 19, 2013

Before KING, GREGORY, and WYNN , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed as modified by un published per curiam opinion
. Elijah Smith, III, Kelly Smith, Sandra Smith, and Gary Smith, Appellants Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Plaintiffs appeal the district court’s order dismissing their action after a review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (2006). We have reviewed the record and agree that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ acti on . S ee Smith v. Betsy Johnson Reg’l Hosp. , Inc. , No. 5:13

-

cv - 00493

- F (E.D.N.C. Aug. 9, 2013). However, since the dismissal of an action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is not a decision on the merits, such dismissal should be without prejudice. S. Walk at Broadlands Homeowner’s Ass’n , Inc. v. OpenBand at Broadlands, LLC , 713 F.3d 175, 185 (4th Cir. 2013). We therefore modify the district court’s dismissal order to reflect that the dismissal is without prejudice, and we affirm the dismissal as m odified. 28 U.S.C. § 2106 (2006); MM ex rel. DM v. Sch. Dist. of Greenville Cnty. , 303 F.3d 523, 536 (4th Cir. 2002) (“[W]e a re entitled to affirm the court’ s judgment on alternate grounds, if such grounds are apparent from the record.”). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.

AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED
#### Cipico Construction, Inc., Appellant, v City of New York et al., Respondents.

[720 NYS2d 40]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Karla Moskowitz, J.), entered October 13, 1999, which, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, denied petitioner contractor’s application to vacate the decision of respondent New York City Contract Dispute Resolution Board (CDRB) denying petitioner’s claim for additional compensation for costs of protecting and accommodating Time Warner Cable’s overhead lines, unanimously aifirmed, without costs.

In light of GET 350, a pre-bid addendum to the contract, specifically providing that the contractor would perform all labor to protect and accommodate overhead cable TV lines, that payment for this work would be made to the contractor in a lump sum, and that the contract price would cover the cost of all labor, CDRB’s determination denying petitioner’s claim for additional compensation for the costs of protecting and accommodating Time Warner’s overhead cable lines was not palpably erroneous *(see, Helmsley-Spear, Inc. v New York Blood Ctr.,*257 AD2d 64). As such, it may not be judicially disturbed in view of the parties’ agreement that CDRB’s determinations respecting matters arising under their contract would be final unless palpably erroneous. Moreover, petitioner’s failure to discover and raise any ambiguities prior to submission of its bid, as required by the contract, renders petitioner bound by respondents’ interpretation of the contract *(see, Thalle Constr. Co. v City of New York,*256 AD2d 157). Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Tom, Ellerin, Rubin and Buckley, JJ.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5330 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5330

To provide coverage under the Railway Labor Act to employees of certain 
                air and surface transportation entities.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 9, 2006

 Mr. George Miller of California introduced the following bill; which 
   was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To provide coverage under the Railway Labor Act to employees of certain 
                air and surface transportation entities.

    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 ``Express Carrier Employee Protection 
Act''.

SEC. 2. AMENDMENT TO THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT.

    Section 201 of the Railway Labor Act (45 U.S.C. 181) is amended--
            (1) by striking ``All'' and inserting ``(a) In General.--
        All'';
            (2) by inserting ``and every express carrier'' after 
        ``common carrier by air''; and
            (3) by adding at the end the following:
    ``(b) Express Carriers.--The employees of an express carrier shall 
be covered by this Act only if they are licensed airmen, licensed 
aircraft maintenance technicians, or licensed aircraft dispatchers, and 
only if they perform duties for the express carrier pursuant to the 
privileges of the appropriate license. All other employees of an 
express carrier shall be covered by the provisions of the National 
Labor Relations Act.
    ``(c) Definition.--In this section, the term `express carrier' 
means any company (or companies affiliated through common control or 
ownership) that has an integrated network of air and surface 
transportation for the purpose of the express shipment of packages.''.
                                 <all>
```