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**





In
      connection with the Annual Report of Optigenex Inc. (the "Company") on Form
      10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Daniel Zwiren, the
      Chief Executive Officer 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
              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 has been provided
      to
      Optigenex Inc. and will be retained by Optigenex Inc. and furnished to the
      Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.




Date:
      May
      15, 2008




/s/
                DANIEL ZWIREN


Daniel
      Zwiren


Chief
      Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
#### Charles Hyatt, Appellant, v. The State of New York, Respondent.

(Submitted April 14, 1890;

decided April 29, 1890.)

Appeal from award of the Board of Claims made March 14, 1889, which dismissed a claim filed by the appellant.

*T. E. Hancock*for appellant.

*Charles F.*Tabor, Attorney-General, for*espondent.

Agree to affirm ; no opinion.

All concur.

Award affirmed.
#### Carey M. HOROWITZ LCIS 73622, Petitioner, v. C. Murray HENDERSON, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary, Respondent.

Civ. A. No. 19101.

United States District Court, W. D. Louisiana, Shreveport Division.

May 9, 1974.

*670James B. Wells, Bossier City, La., for petitioner.

Charles A. Marvin, Dist. Atty., 26th Judicial Dist., Minden, La., for respondent.

AMENDED RULING

DAWKINS, Senior District Judge.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit remanded this case with instructions that we clarify our holding as to whether petitioner was denied effective assistance of counsel at the time he entered his guilty plea, as well as at his sentencing.

In accordance with that order, we have considered the Supreme Court decisions in Tollett v. Henderson, 411 U.S. 258, 93 S.Ct. 1602, 36 L.Ed.2d 235 (1973), and Dukes v. Warden, 406 U.S. 250, 92 S.Ct. 1551, 32 L.Ed.2d 45 (1972).

In addition to our previous findings, based upon the State record, the unrefuted testimony of petitioner was that after counsel (Mr.- Freeman) was appointed to represent him, he went to see the attorney who told him that if he testified in behalf of “Leo” (the retained client) that “I’ll see to it that you get probation.” (Tr. 83, 24-28.) He further testified that the sheriff told him he would receive a two-year probated sentence and that, when he went to Court for sentencing, he thought he merely had come to get “two years probation,” but that his attorney was not present for sentencing.

We agree that a conflict of interest is not necessarily grounds upon which to vacate sentence, and that advice of an attorney to his client, whether right or wrong, would not be grounds necessarily to vacate sentence. Not-' withstanding, it was, and is, our conclusion that when Court-appointed counsel deliberately sacrifices his client’s basic interests in order to have him testify in behalf of a retained client in an effort to gain the latter’s release, and the former was led to believe that, by doing so, he would obtain a probated sentence, and particularly when appointed counsel fails to appear with his client at sentencing, this clearly amounts to a *serious*conflict of interest. Obviously, such behavior by the lawyer does not come within the range of competence demanded of all attorneys.

Therefore, we determined, and now redetermine, that petitioner had totally ineffective assistance from his appointed counsel both when he entered his guilty plea and when he was sentenced.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gina Marie MORSETTE, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 07-30151.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted Nov. 17, 2008.

Filed Jan. 13, 2009.

*114Joseph E. Thaggard, Assistant U.S., USHE, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Helena, MT, Eric B. Wolff, Esquire, Assistant U.S., USBI, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Billings, MT, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

June Lord, Esquire, June Lord Law Office, Great Falls, MT, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, B. FLETCHER and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM *

Appellant Gina Marie Morsette challenges her 108-month prison sentence for conspiracy to possess methamphetamine with intent to distribute. Morsette maintains that the district court erroneously relied on the uncorroborated hearsay statement of another methamphetamine dealer to calculate her base offense level. We agree.

The uncorroborated hearsay statement lacked sufficient indicia of reliability to support the determination that 1.5 kilograms or more of methamphetamine were attributable to Morsette. *See United States v. Garcia-Sanchez,*189 F.3d 1143, 1149 (9th Cir.1999). On remand, the district court is to calculate the sentence without relying on the hearsay statement.

VACATED and REMANDED for re-sentencing.

*

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
MICHAEL FRANCIS MURRAY,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

HARLEY G. LAPPIN, 

 Defendant.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Civil Action No. 09-00992 

 DAR

FINAL JUDGMENT 

 In accordance with the Memorandum Opinion and Order filed on this date, judgment is

hereby entered in favor of Defendant with respect to all of Plaintiff’s claims.

_____/s/______________ 

DEBORAH A. ROBINSON

United States Magistrate Judge
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 of Zaldiva, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ending September 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Annual Report"), we, Nicole Leigh van Coller, President, and Christopher Ebersole, CFO 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:  (1)  The Annual 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 Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.  Date:December 31 , 2007By:/s/ Nicole Leigh van CollerNicole Leigh van CollerPresidentDate:December 31 , 2007By:/s/Christopher EbersoleChristopher EbersoleCFO
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Algis Julius Gale, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Harrington, J.), rendered June 20,1983, convicting him of criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

This case presents no reason to vacate defendant’s plea of guilty. We additionally note that the sentence imposed was not excessive *(see, People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80). Mangano, J. P., Gibbons, Bracken and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Timothy I., Appellant, v Mr. Campbell, as Director of Capital District Psychiatric Center, Respondent.

[944 NYS2d 674]—

Garry, J.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Connolly, J.), entered November 15, 2011 in Albany County, which, among other things, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 70, upon renewal, adhered to its prior decision denying petitioner’s application for habeas corpus relief.

Following his plea of not responsible by reason of mental disease or defect to charges of arson, petitioner was committed in 2001 to a secure facility operated by the Office of Mental Health, where he remained pursuant to a series of retention orders until 2010, when the Office of Mental Health successfully applied to continue his retention at a nonsecure inpatient facility. Thereafter, petitioner commenced this proceeding for a writ of habeas corpus alleging that his condition had improved such that he should be immediately released. Following a hearing, Supreme Court denied the application. Upon petitioner’s motion for reconsideration, the court denied reargument and, to the extent the motion could be deemed an application for leave to renew, granted renewal, but adhered to its prior decision denying habeas corpus relief. Petitioner appeals.

Initially, we note that no appeal lies from the denial of a motion to reargue *(see Hoover v State of New York,*80 AD3d 1020 [2011]). Further, we agree with Supreme Court that there is no *1498merit to petitioner’s claim that counsel was ineffective in failing to introduce petitioner’s medical records into evidence at the hearing. The record indicates that counsel made a strategic decision to rely on petitioner’s testimony as well as the testimony of a psychologist currently treating him, and petitioner’s assertion that his medical records would have demonstrated his entitlement to immediate release is purely speculative (see *Matter of Shangraw v Shangraw,*61 AD3d 1302, 1304-1305 [2009]; *Matter of Hissam v Machín,*41 AD3d 955, 957 [2007], *lv denied*9 NY3d 809 [2007]).

Peters, P.J., Rose, Lahtinen and Malone Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs.
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 786 

To amend title 10, United States Code, to modify the appointment and 

grade of the Chief of the Army Medical Specialist Corps. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 12, 2011 

Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota introduced the following bill; which was read 

twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To amend title 10, United States Code, to modify the appointment and grade of the Chief of the Army Medical 

Specialist Corps. 

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

3 SECTION 1. APPOINTMENT AND GRADE OF CHIEF OF THE 

4 ARMY MEDICAL SPECIALIST CORPS. 

5 Section 3070(b) of title 10, United States Code, is 

6 amended— 

7 (1) in the first sentence, by striking ‘‘captain’’ 

8 and inserting ‘‘lieutenant colonel’’; and 

9 (2) by inserting after the first sentence the fol10 lowing new sentence: ‘‘An appointee who holds a 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 786 IS

1 lower regular grade shall be appointed in the regular 

2 grade of brigadier general.’’. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 32

Written Statement of Co-Chief Executive Officers and Chief Financial Officer  Pursuant to Section 906  of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350)

The undersigned, the Co-Chief Executive Officers and the Chief Financial Officer of Regal Entertainment Group, a Delaware corporation (the "Company"),
each hereby certifies that, to his/her knowledge on the date hereof:



| |  | /s/MICHAEL L. CAMPBELLMichael L. Campbell
Co-Chief Executive Officer
March 15, 2005
| |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |  | /s/KURT C. HALLKurt C. Hall
Co-Chief Executive Officer
March 15, 2005              
| |  | /s/AMY E. MILESAmy E. Miles
Chief Financial Officer
March 15, 2005                 



QuickLinks
#### Adam R. Stearns et al., Appellants, v Irene O’Brien, Respondent.

(Appeal No. 2.)

[942 NYS2d 852]

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Ontario County (Craig J. Doran, A.J.), entered January 21, 2011 in a personal injury action. The judgment dismissed the complaint upon a verdict of no cause of action.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Plaintiffs contend on appeal that Supreme Court erred in denying their motion to set aside the verdict of no cause of action, finding that Adam R. Stearns (plaintiff) did not sustain a serious injury. Previously, we affirmed an order that denied those parts of defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint with respect to the permanent consequential limitation and significant limitation of use categories of serious injury as defined by Insurance Law § 5102 (d) *(Stearns v O’Brien,*77 AD3d 1383 [2010]). We note that plaintiffs met their burden at trial by submitting the requisite objective proof that plaintiff was injured as a result of the accident. Nevertheless, we agree with defendant that the jury was entitled to conclude that the injury was nothing more than “a mild, minor, or slight limitation of use” *(King v Johnston,*211 AD2d 907, 907 [1995]; *see Gaddy v Eyler,*79 NY2d 955, 957 [1992]). Present — Scudder, P.J., Fahey, Lindley and Martoche, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>

This Schedule contains summary financial
information extracted from the financial
statements contained in the body of the
accompanying Form 10-Q and is qualified in
its entirety by reference to such financial
statements.

</LEGEND>



<MULTIPLIER>                               1
       
<S>                              <C>

<PERIOD-TYPE>                          6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                OCT-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                     APR-30-1997
<CASH>                            18,475,690
<SECURITIES>                               0
<RECEIVABLES>                              0
<ALLOWANCES>                               0
<INVENTORY>                                0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                  20,627,426
<PP&E>                             1,797,736
<DEPRECIATION>                       939,980
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                    22,535,782
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>              1,368,490
<BONDS>                                    0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                      0
<PREFERRED>                                0
<COMMON>                             577,392
<OTHER-SE>                        20,589,900
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>      22,535,782
<SALES>                                    0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           0
<CGS>                                      0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                      3,495,709
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                    (514,284)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                           0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                   (2,981,425)
<INCOME-TAX>                               0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>               (2,981,425)
<DISCONTINUED>                             0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                            0
<CHANGES>                                  0
<NET-INCOME>                      (2,981,425)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                          (0.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                              0
        





</TABLE>
```

[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 132 (Wednesday, July 14, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 37148]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-14905]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER21-2296-000]

Ensign Wind Energy, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-
Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of 
Ensign Wind Energy, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, 
with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes 
a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future 
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, 
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's 
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone 
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that 
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with 
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of 
liability, is July 27, 2021.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with internet 
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an 
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the 
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the 
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically may mail similar pleadings to 
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, 
Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in docketed 
proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services, 12225 
Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the 
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an 
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the 
internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) using 
the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three 
digits in the docket number field to access the document. At this time, 
the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public 
Reference Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency 
concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the 
President on March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission at [email protected] or call toll-free, 
(886) 208-3676 or TYY, (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: July 7, 2021.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-14905 Filed 7-13-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
```
(a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or
caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be
designed under our supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by
others within those entities, particularly during the
period in which this report is being prepared;(b)
    
    Designed such internal control over financial
reporting, or caused such internal control over
financial reporting to be designed under our
supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding
the reliability of financial reporting and the
preparation of financial statements for external
purposes in accordance with generally accepted
accounting principles;(c)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants
disclosure controls and procedures and presented in
this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of
the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end
of the period covered by this report based on such
evaluation; and(d)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants
internal control over financial reporting that occurred
during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the
registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an
annual report) that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the
registrants internal control over financial reporting;
and
  (a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; and(b)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control
over financial reporting.
 Date: October 4, 2010
    By:
    /s/ Nigel JamesNigel JamesPresident and Principal Executive Officer
FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CARLOS ALBERTO BRINGASRODRIGUEZ, AKA Patricio IronRodriguez,

 Petitioner,

 v.

LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney

General,

 Respondent.

No. 13-72682

Agency No. A200-821-303

ORDER

THOMAS, Chief Judge:

Upon the vote of a majority of nonrecused active judges, it is ordered that

this case be reheard en banc pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 35(a)

and Circuit Rule 35-3. The three-judge panel opinion shall not be cited as

precedent by or to any court of the Ninth Circuit. 

Judges McKeown and Watford did not participate in the deliberations or 

vote in this case.

FILED

JUN 14 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
**Exhibit 32.(i)**

 

CERTIFICATION SECTION 1350

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of Penns Woods Bancorp, Inc. (the “Company”)on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2008, as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, RonaldA. Walko, Chief Executive Officer, 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 Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)                                  the information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultof operations of the Company.

 
| /s/  Ronald A. Walko |   |
|----------------------|--------|

RonaldA. Walko

ChiefExecutive Officer

 

August 5,2008

 

1

----