alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 32.01



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of UHF Incorporated on Form 10-QSB for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Ronald C.
Schmeiser, President and Chief Executive Officer of UHF Incorporated, 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 results of operations of the registrant.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                      |  |     |  |                        
|--------------------- |  | --- |  | -----------------------
|Date: October 7, 2005 |  | By: |  | /s/ Ronald C. Schmeiser
|                      |  |     |  | Ronald C. Schmeiser    
|                      |  |     |  | President and Chief    
|                      |  |     |  | Executive Officer
Olin GRIMSLEY v. ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

CR-15-1078

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

October 14, 2016

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Dismissed and Opinion Filed June 11, 2021

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-95-01209-CV

CONNIE A. FLETCHER AND FRANK J. BREWER, Appellants

V.

DEBORAH C. BRETT, NOT INDIVIDUALLY BUT AS THE GUARDIAN 

OF JAMES E. BREWER, Appellee

On Appeal from the Probate Court No. 2

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 95-622-P2(A)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Osborne, Pedersen, III, and Nowell

Opinion by Justice Pedersen, III

We reinstate this appeal. In 1996, we abated this case due to Connie A. 

Fletcher’s bankruptcy. See TEX.R. APP. P. 8.2. The Court conducted an independent 

review of the federal Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) system 

which shows the bankruptcy case associated with this appeal was terminated on May 

28, 2004, effectively dissolving the automatic stay.

We notified the parties by letter, requesting they inform the Court of the status 

of the bankruptcy and of this appeal. We cautioned that the failure to respond would 
–2–

result in the appeal being dismissed for want of prosecution. See id. 42.3(b),(c). To 

date, neither party has responded.

Because we gave the parties an opportunity to show why we should not 

dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution and no one responded, we dismiss this 

appeal. See id. 42.3(b),(c); Brewer v. Admiral Ins. Co., 2002 WL 31312990, at *1 

(Tex. App.—Dallas Oct. 16, 2002, no writ) (per curiam) (not designated for 

publication).

951209f.p05

/Bill Pedersen, III//

BILL PEDERSEN, III

JUSTICE
–3–

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

CONNIE A. FLETCHER AND 

FRANK J. BREWER, Appellants

No. 05-95-01209-CV V.

DEBORAH C. BRETT, NOT 

INDIVIDUALLY BUT AS THE 

GUARDIAN OF JAMES E. 

BREWER, Appellee

On Appeal from the Probate Court 

No. 2, Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 95-622-P2(A).

Opinion delivered by Justice 

Pedersen, III. Justices Osborne and 

Nowell participating.

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

DISMISSED.

Judgment entered this 11th day of June, 2021.
Joseph Anthony HERNANDEZ, Appellant, v. Rebecca L. HEIKKA, Appellee.

No. 4D16-2218

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[November 16, 2017]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
EX-10.22



 





Exhibit 10.22




SUMMARY OF THE COMPANY’S NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTOR COMPENSATION




     The Company pays each of its non-employee directors $15,000 annually. In addition, the
Chairman of the Audit Committee receives an annual fee of $5,000 and the Chairmen of the
Compensation Committee and of the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee each receive an
annual fee of $3,000.



     The Company also pays each of its non-employee directors for each meeting attended by the
director. From November 2006 through December 2006, the Company paid each of its non-employee
directors either $600 or 106 shares of the Company’s common stock for each meeting of the board
attended in person and $300 or 53 shares of the Company’s common stock for each board meeting
attended by telephone. From January 2007 through the year ended September 30, 2007, the Company
paid each of its non-employee directors $1,500 for each meeting of the board attended in person,
$750 for each meeting of the board attended by telephone, $1,000 for each committee meeting
attended in person, and $500 for each committee meeting attended by telephone.



     In accordance with the Company’s 2005 Non-Employee Directors’ Stock Option Plan, upon
appointment, non-employee directors receive a one time grant of an option to purchase 25,000 share
of common stock, which immediately vest. Annually, non-employee directors receive an option to
purchase 10,000 shares of common stock, which also immediately vest. The exercise price of these
options is the fair market value as determined by the board of directors on the date of grant. Each
such option expires ten years after the date of grant.



     The Company reimburses its non-employee directors for reasonable expenses incurred in
connection with attending board and committee meetings.
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

No. 19

- 10847

**In the Matter of: Acis Capital Management, L.P.,**

Debtor **,**

**-----------------------------**
**Neutra Limited;**

Appellant **,**

versus

**Robin E. Phelan, Chapter 11 Trustee,**

Appellee

**.**

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No . 3:19

- CV

- 291 United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED June 17, 2021
Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 19-10847 Document: 00515903826 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/17/2021No. 19

- 10847

2 Before **Smith, Ho,** and **Oldham,** C ircuit J udges

**. Per Curiam**  **:** *
Having thoroughly reviewed the parties’ briefs and arguments , we conclude the district court ’s judgment affirming the bankruptcy court’s order confirming the Chapter 11 plan must be **AFFIRMED**

. We further
conclude t he appeal of the district court’s plan injunction is moot and must
be **DISMISSED**

.

* 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. Case: 19-10847 Document: 00515903826 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/17/2021
----

Information procedure — Technical rules

(2005/C 134/04)

(Text with EEA relevance)

Directive 98/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations and of rules on Information Society services. (OJ L 204, 21.7.1998, p. 37; OJ L 217, 5.8.1998, p. 18).

Notifications of draft national technical rules received by the Commission

The Commission draws attention to the judgement delivered on 30 April 1996 in the ‘CIA Security’ case (C-194/94 — ECR I, p. 2201), in which the Court of Justice ruled that Articles 8 and 9 of Directive 98/34/EC (formerly 83/189/EEC) are to be interpreted as meaning that individuals may rely on them before national courts which must decline to apply a national technical regulation which has not been notified in accordance with the Directive.

This judgement confirms the Commission's communication of 1 October 1986 (OJ C 245, 1.10.1986, p. 4).

Accordingly, breach of the obligation to notify renders the technical regulations concerned inapplicable, and consequently unenforceable against individuals.

For more information on the notification procedure, please write to:

Also consult the website: http://europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/tris/

If you require any further information on these notifications, please contact the national departments listed below:

LIST OF NATIONAL DEPARTMENTS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF DIRECTIVE 98/34/EC

BELGIUM

CZECH REPUBLIC

DENMARK

GERMANY

ESTONIA

GREECE

SPAIN

FRANCE

IRELAND

ITALY

CYPRUS

LATVIA

LITHUANIA

LUXEMBOURG

HUNGARY

MALTA

NETHERLANDS

AUSTRIA

POLAND

PORTUGAL

SLOVENIA

SLOVAKIA

FINLAND

SWEDEN

UNITED KINGDOM

EFTA - ESA

TURKEY

----

(1)  Year - registration number - Member State of origin.

(2)  Period during which the draft may not be adopted.

(3)  No standstill period since the Commission accepts the grounds of urgent adoption invoked by the notifying Member State.

(4)  No standstill period since the measure concerns technical specifications or other requirements or rules on services linked to fiscal or financial measures, pursuant to the third indent of the second paragraph of Article 1(11) of Directive 98/34/EC.

(5)  Information procedure closed.

----
EXHIBIT
32.1




CERTIFICATION
OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AND EXCHANGE ACT RULES 13a-14(b)
AND 15d-14(b)


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





In
connection with the Annual Report of Pier Acquisition I, Inc. (the “Company”) on
Form 10-K for the period ending July 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Philip J. Huml,
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 and
belief:





(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 the operation of the
      Company.





Date:  December
      15, 2010/s/ Philip
      J. HumlChief
      Executive Officer and President
                Pier
      Acquisition I, Inc.




This
certification accompanies the 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.





A signed
original 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.
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 Homeland Security

###### Federal Emergency Management Agency

          - [Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-1824-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2008-0018]

# AGENCY:

Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Oregon (FEMA-1824-DR), dated March 2, 2009, and related determinations.

# DATES:

*Effective Date:*                         March 13, 2009.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Peggy Miller, Disaster Assistance Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-3886.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Oregon is hereby amended to include the following area among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of March 2, 2009.

Washington County for Public Assistance [Categories A-G] (already designated for emergency protective measures [Category B], including snow removal assistance, under the Public Assistance program).

The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters);  97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Nancy Ward,

Acting Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.

 [FR Doc. E9-6713 Filed 3-24-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATIONS OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL

OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Stephen J. Fanning, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of Thermage, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2006 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Annual Report on Form 10-K fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Thermage, Inc.



|                       |  |        |  |                                      
|---------------------- |  | ------ |  | -------------------------------------
|Date: December 8, 2006 |  | By:    |  | /s/ Stephen J. Fanning               
|                       |  | Name:  |  | Stephen J. Fanning                   
|                       |  | Title: |  | President and Chief Executive Officer

I, Laureen DeBuono, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of Thermage, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2006 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Annual Report on Form 10-K fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Thermage, Inc.



|                       |  |        |  |                        
|---------------------- |  | ------ |  | -----------------------
|Date: December 8, 2006 |  | By:    |  | /s/ Laureen DeBuono    
|                       |  | Name:  |  | Laureen DeBuono        
|                       |  | Title: |  | Chief Financial Officer
Cecil LEEDY, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. John LEEDY, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-2542

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

July 20, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
2011 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

6-6-2011

Karen Malleus v. John George

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Precedential

Docket No. 10-3539

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2011

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2011 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"Karen Malleus v. John George" (2011). 2011 Decisions. Paper 972.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2011/972
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

______

No. 10-3539

______

DR. KAREN MALLEUS,

 Appellant

v.

DR. JOHN J. GEORGE, in his individual capacity;

DR. JILL M. HACKMAN, in her individual capacity;

DR. JEFFREY A. CONRAD, in his individual capacity;

INTELLIGENCER JOURNAL/LANCASTER, New Era Editor DOE;

SUNDAY NEWS EDITOR DOE;

LANCASTER NEWSPAPERS, INC.; CINDY STAUFFER

______

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. No. 5-10-cv-01357)

District Judge: Honorable Juan R. Sánchez

______

Argued April 15, 2011

Before: FISHER, JORDAN and COWEN, Circuit Judges. 

______

ORDER AMENDING OPINION

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the opinion in the above case, filed May 26, 

2011, be amended as follows:

Page 3, first paragraph, which read:

Appellant Dr. Karen Malleus appeals the final order of the 

United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania 

granting John J. George, Jill M. Hackman, and Jeffrey A. Conrad’s 

motion to dismiss Malleus’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim that they 

violated her Fourteenth Amendment privacy rights. For the reasons 

discussed below, we will affirm.
shall read:

Appellant Dr. Karen Malleus appeals the final order of the 

United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania 

granting Dr. John J. George, Dr. Jill M. Hackman, and Dr. Jeffrey A. 

Conrad’s motion to dismiss Malleus’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim that 

they violated her Fourteenth Amendment privacy rights. For the 

reasons discussed below, we will affirm.

Page 3, Section I, first paragraph, which read:

Malleus was a school board member for the Warwick School 

District. George and Hackman were also members of the school 

board. Conrad was the head of the Warwick Republican Party, and 

later a candidate for the school board.

shall read:

Malleus was a school board member for the Warwick School 

District. George was the superintendent of the Warwick School 

District. Hackman was the director of pupil services and later the 

acting assistant superintendent of the Warwick School District. 

Conrad was the head of the Warwick Republican Party, and later a 

candidate for the school board.

By the Court,

/s/ D. Michael Fisher

Circuit Judge

Dated: June 6, 2011
Exhibit 32.1 

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

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

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended September 30, 2009 of Virtual Closet, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the “Company”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Annual Report”), I, You Ting Zhu, Chairman, President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section            1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1. The Annual Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

2. The information contained in this Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.

 

Date: October 19, 2009 

 

/s/ You Ting Zhu

You Ting Zhu 

President, Secretary Treasurer, Principal Executive Officer, 

Principal Financial Officer and Director
Khiry Terrel BEACHUM v. STATE

CR-15-1013

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

October 14, 2016

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Jamie CRUZ, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE o/b/o Reagan Vinson, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D16-4009

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

June 22, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
Exhibit-32.1 -- Certification per Sarbanes-Oxley Act (Section 906)

I am the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Nevada
Processing Solutions, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the "Company").  I am
delivering this certificate in connection with the Form 10-K of the Company
for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2009 and filed with the U. S. Securities
and Exchange Commission ("Form 10-K").

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I hereby certify that, to the best of my
knowledge, the Form 10-K fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
that the information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
the Company.

Dated:  August 7, 2009
        --------------
                                    /s/ J. Chad Guidry
                                    -------------------------------------
                                        J. Chad Guidry
                                        Title:  Chief Executive Officer
                                                Chief Financial Officer
                                                Director

<PAGE>