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, Howard C. Bluver, President & Chief Executive Officer of Suffolk Bancorp (the “Company”), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that: (1) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2012 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); 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: August 9, 2012


/s/ Howard C. Bluver


Howard C. Bluver


President & Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION 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, Pedro (Pete) P. Rodriguez, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge, the Quarterly Report of Exar
Corporation on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 29, 2008 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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Exar Corporation.



|                                                                                                       
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: August 8, 2008                                                                                   
|                                                                                                       
|/s/ Pedro (Pete) P. Rodriguez                                                                          
|Pedro (Pete) P. Rodriguez Chief Executive Officer,
President and Director (Principal Executive Officer)
----

| A.   | the      Executive and Rivex Pharma Inc. entered into an employment agreement dated      for reference July 25, 1997 (the “Employment  Agreement”); |
|----------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| B.   | Rivex      Pharma Inc. and Helix BioPharma Corp. subsequently amalgamated to form the      Company such that the Employment Agreement is now between the Company and      the Executive; |
|----------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| C.   | the      parties wish to amend the Employment Agreement, upon the terms set out in      this Amendment; |
|----------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 1.   | The      third paragraph of the Employment Agreement is deleted and replaced with      the following, with effect on and after December 17,  2008: |
|----------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 2.   | The      first clause after the third paragraph of the Employment Agreement is      deleted and replaced with the following, with effect on and after January      1, 2008: |
|----------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 3.   | The      parties confirm that, as of August 1, 2005, the performance compensation      is 1.5% of the first $1.5M of gross sales, and 2% of gross sales      thereafter. |
|----------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 4.   | All      other provisions of the Employment Agreement shall remain in full force      and effect, except that where this Amendment may be in conflict with the      provisions of the Employment Agreement, then this Amendment shall      govern. |
|----------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
**Exhibit 99.3**

Certificationof Periodic Report

 

 

I, Melinda G. Kile, Vice President ofFinance  of NeoRx Corporation (the“Company”), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

 

a.               the QuarterlyReport on Form 10-Q for the Company for the quarterly period ended March 31,2003 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (12 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

 

b.              the informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 

 
| Date:  May 15, 2003 | By:    | /s/ MELINDA G. KILE |
|--------------------------|--------|---------------------|
|                     |   |                |
|                     |   | Melinda G. Kile     |

** **

**A signed original of this written statement required bySection 906 has been provided to NeoRx Corporation and will be retained byNeoRx Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission orits staff upon request.**

 

 

----
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-KSB of Optionable, Inc. (the
"Company") for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350:

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

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


Date:  March  23, 2007                                  /s/ Kevin Cassidy
                                                        Kevin Cassidy
                                                        Chief Executive Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3038 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3038

   To extend and modify the temporary suspension of duty on certain 
 women's footwear, not covering the ankle, designed to be worn in lieu 
 of, but not over, other footwear as a protection against water, oil, 
           grease, or chemicals or cold or inclement weather.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 9, 2012

 Ms. Cantwell introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To extend and modify the temporary suspension of duty on certain 
 women's footwear, not covering the ankle, designed to be worn in lieu 
 of, but not over, other footwear as a protection against water, oil, 
           grease, or chemicals or cold or inclement weather.

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

SECTION 1. CERTAIN WOMEN'S FOOTWEAR, NOT COVERING THE ANKLE, DESIGNED 
              TO BE WORN IN LIEU OF, BUT NOT OVER, OTHER FOOTWEAR AS A 
              PROTECTION AGAINST WATER, OIL, GREASE, OR CHEMICALS OR 
              COLD OR INCLEMENT WEATHER.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.23.83 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to certain women's footwear, 
not covering the ankle, designed to be worn in lieu of, but not over, 
other footwear as a protection against water, oil, grease, or chemicals 
or cold or inclement weather) is amended--
            (1) in the article description, by striking ``$20/pair'' 
        and inserting ``$23/pair''; and
            (2) by striking the date in the effective period column and 
        inserting ``12/31/2015''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) apply to 
goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 
the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
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


     In  connection  with the  Annual  Report of Tarpon  Industries,  Inc.  (the
"Company")  on Form 10 for the year ended  December  31,  2007 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Periodic  Report"),
I, James W. Bradshaw, Chief Executive 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 Periodic  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 Periodic Report fairly presents,  in
          all  material  respects,   the  financial  condition  and  results  of
          operations of the Company.






Dated:  March 31, 2008                        /s/ James W. Bradshaw
                                        ---------------------------------------
                                                  James W. Bradshaw
                                               Chief Executive Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2668 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2668

           To suspend temporarily the duty on tungsten oxide.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 7, 2012

   Mr. Casey introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
           To suspend temporarily the duty on tungsten oxide.

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

SECTION 1. TUNGSTEN OXIDE.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``     9902.01.00      Tungsten oxide      Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/  ''.
                        (CAS No. 8024-37-                                                  31/2015.......
                        1) (provided for
                        in subheading
                        2825.90.30)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
with respect to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for 
consumption, on or after the 15th day after the date of the enactment 
of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v.

GERALD EDWARDS,

Defendant

- Appellant. No. 19

- 30092

D.C. No. 3:08

- cr

- 00092

- JWS

- 1

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Alaska John W. Sedwick, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted March 3 , 2020 * *

Before: MURGUIA

, CHRISTEN , and BADE , Circuit Judges.

Gerald Edwards appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his

“M otion to S top C ollection of R estitution. ” We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1291, and we affirm

.

As an initial matter, we decline to enforce the appeal waiver in Edwards’s

* 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 10 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 19

- 30092

plea agreement, as the government urges, because the waiver does not clearly

apply to an appeal of the restitution order. S ee United States v. Charles , 581 F.3d

927, 931 (9th Cir. 2009).

Edwards argues that the district court erred by failing to order the

government to stop collecting against his 2009 restitution judgment

. Edwards did

not challenge the validity of his restitution order on direct appeal . Even assuming

he could challenge it now, we conclude that he is not entitled to relief because he

has not shown that collection of restitution, in the amount to which he stipulated at

sentencing, would result in “ a complete miscarriage of justice

. ” Uni ted States v.

Gianelli , 543 F.3d 1178, 11 84

- 85 (9th Cir. 2008)

.

We do not reach E dwards’s remaining arguments because they were not

specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the district court or his opening

brief. See Padgett v. Wright , 587 F.3d 9 83, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009)

.

This disposition is without prejudice to Edwards moving in the district court

,

pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3664(k), for an adjustment to the restitution payment

schedule based on a material change in his economic circumstance.

Edwards’s motion to file a late reply brief is granted. The Clerk will file the

reply brief received at Docket Entry No. 28

.

AFFIRM ED.
1 The Honorable James E. Gritzner, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 07-2838

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the v. * Southern District of Iowa. * Luqman Abdul-Aziz, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: March 11, 2008 Filed: March 20, 2008(Corrected: 4/07/08)

___________ Before WOLLMAN, BOWMAN, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Luqman Abdul-Aziz appeals from the se ntence imposed by the District Court 1 upon his conviction as a felon in possession of a firearm. We affirm.
This case is before us fo r the second time. In the first appeal, we affirmed Abdul-Aziz's conviction but vacated his sent ence and remanded to the District Court for resentencing. United States v. Abdul-Aziz , 486 F.3d 471, 479 (8th Cir. 2007). We held that the District Court's justification for imposing a two-level enhancement for-2- obstruction of justice under United States Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 3C1.1 was insufficient because the explanation did not show that the court made "an independent determination that the defendant perjured himself" at tria l but instead relied on the fact of conviction. Abdul-Aziz , 486 F.3d at 479. On remand, the District Court held a hearing, made the necessary finding that A bdul-Aziz perjured himself, added the twolevel enhancement for obstruction of jus tice, and again sentenced Abdul-Aziz to thirty-three months in prison. Abdul-Azi z again appeals his sentence challenging the obstruction of justice enhancement. On appeal, we review the District Court's factual findings for clear error and its application of the Guidelines de novo. Id. at 478. Abdul-Aziz argues there was "no evidence" to support the court's finding of perjury. Br. of Appellant at 8. We disagree. See Abdul-Aziz , 486 F.3d at 474–78 (detailing the evidence before the court at trial). Giving "great deference" to the experienced trial judge's finding, explicitly stated at the resentencing heari ng, that Abdul-Aziz lied under oath at trial, we conclude that the obstruction enhan cement was properly applied in this case. United States v. Denton , 434 F.3d 1104, 1114 (8th Cir. 2006). The judgment of the District Court is affirmed.

______________________________
```

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 14 (Wednesday, January 22, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 3658]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-01166]

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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 8601]

Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition 
Determinations: ``Venice: The Golden Age of Art and Music''

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: 
Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 
(79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 
1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 
Stat. 2681, et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, et seq.), Delegation of 
Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, and Delegation of Authority No. 
236-3 of August 28, 2000, I hereby determine that the objects to be 
included in the exhibition, ``Venice: The Golden Age of Art and 
Music,'' imported from abroad for temporary exhibition within the 
United States, are of cultural significance. The objects are imported 
pursuant to loan agreements with the foreign owners or custodians. I 
also determine that the exhibition or display of the exhibit objects at 
the Portland Art Museum, Portland, Oregon, from on or about February 
15, 2014, until on or about May 11, 2014, and at possible additional 
exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, is in the national 
interest. I have ordered that Public Notice of these Determinations be 
published in the Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, including a 
list of the exhibit objects, contact Paul W. Manning, Attorney-Adviser, 
Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-
632-6469). The mailing address is U.S. Department of State, SA-5, L/PD, 
Fifth Floor (Suite 5H03), Washington, DC 20522-0505.

    Dated: January 10, 2014.
Evan Ryan,
Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, 
Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2014-01166 Filed 1-21-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
```
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 77 (Thursday, April 23, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 18546]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-9209]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


Mendocino Resource Advisory Committee

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Mendocino County Resource Advisory Committee will meet 
April 24, 2009 (RAC) in Willits, California. Agenda items to be covered 
include: (1) Approval of minutes, (2) Handout Discussion (3) Public 
Comment, (4) Financial Report (5) Sub-committees (6) Matters before the 
group (7) Discussion--approval of projects (8) Next agenda and meeting 
date.

DATES: The meeting will be held on April 24, 2009, from 9 a.m. until 12 
noon.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Mendocino County Museum, 
located at 400 E. Commercial St. Willits, California.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Roberta Hurt, Committee Coordinator, 
USDA, Mendocino National Forest, Covelo Ranger District, 78150 Covelo 
Road, Covelo CA 95428. (707) 983-6658; e-mail 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#e3948a8d878e8a8f8fa3948a8f8f8a97908c8d8f8a8d86cd808c8e"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="02756b6c666f6b6e6e42756b6e6e6b76716d6c6e6b6c672c616d6f">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The meeting is open to the public. Persons 
who wish to bring matters to the attention of the Committee may file 
written statements with the Committee staff by April 23, 2009. Public 
comment will have the opportunity to address the committee at the 
meeting.

    Dated: April 14, 2009.
Lee Johnson,
Designated Federal Official.
[FR Doc. E9-9209 Filed 4-22-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
* 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. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-31241 Conference Calendar

RAYMOND ROCHON, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus BURL CAIN, Warden; RICHARD L. STALDER; EDWIN EDWARDS, Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana

USDC No. 95-CV-1701

- - - - - - - - - - December 10, 1997 Before BARKSDALE, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Raymond Rochon, Louisiana prisoner # 93625, filed an action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against various employees of the Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections alleging that prison officials were failing to protect him from his enemies. The district court dismissed the action as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) and we review the dismissal for abuse of discretion. Denton v. Hernandez , 504 U.S. 25, 31-33 (1992)No. 96-31241 -2- The fact that Washington attacked Rochon in 1988 does not establish that Rochon was in any current danger from Washington. The prison officials have continued to house the two inmates in different facilities, with the only lapse in the separation being that Washington came to Angola to play ball. Rochon does not allege that Washington attacked him or had any contact with him at that time. Accordingly, the factual allegations in Rochon’s complaint do not give rise to a claim of deliberate indifference to his safety. See Neals v. Norwood , 59 F.3d 530, 533 (5th Cir. 1995); Farmer v. Brennan , 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994). This appeal is without arguable merit and is thus frivolous. Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). We caution Rochon that future frivolous civil suits and appeals filed by him or on his behalf will invite the imposition of sanctions. Rochon is cautioned further to review any pending suits and appeals to ensure that they do not raise arguments that are frivolous. APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED. 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2.