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 Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I, Hal M. Krisbergh, the Principal Executive Officer of WorldGate Communications, Inc., hereby certify, pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Form 10-Q of WorldGate Communications, Inc., for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2008, which this
certification accompanies, fully complies with requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and information contained in the
June 30, 2008 Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of WorldGate Communications, Inc.

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

Dated:
August 14, 2008

/s/HAL M. KRISBERGHHal M. Krisbergh Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)


---



QuickLinks
Order entered March 15 , 2019

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05 - 18 - 00891 - CR No. 05 - 18 - 00892 - CR No. 05 - 18 - 00893 - CR FIDEL ANGEL NAVARRO, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXA S, Appellee On Appeal from the 291st Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause Nos. F 17 - 75719 - U , F 17 - 75720 - U , & F 17 - 75721 - U 

### O RDER A p pellant was convicted of two offenses of indecency with a child and one offense of aggravated sexual assault of a child younger than fourteen years of age. Appellant filed his brief

on March 11, 201 9 . In the brief, he uses the name s of the victim s . Accordingly, we STRIKE appellant’s brief. We ORDER appellant to file, within TEN DAYS of the date of thi s order, an amended brief that identifies the victim s (and any witness who was under the age of eighteen at the time of the offenses) either generically (“victim” or “complaining witness”) or by initials only. We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this ord er to Gary Udashen and the Dallas County District Attorney’s Office

. s/ CORY L. CARLYLE JUSTICE
#### Hassan Shabazz, Plaintiff, v City of New York et al., Defendants. (And a Third-Party Action.) The Perecman Firm, PLLC, Nonparty Appellant, v Segal & Lax, P.C., Nonparty Respondent.

[942 NYS2d 89]

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Julia I. Rodriguez, J.), entered December 2, 2011, which, after a hearing for the judicial determination of the apportionment of legal fees earned in a personal injury action, apportioned 15% or $110,126.98 of the net contingency fee to the outgoing attorneys Segal & Lax, PC., and apportioned the remainder to the incoming attorneys the Perecman Firm, PLLC, unanimously modified, on the facts, to reduce the apportionment of the net contingency fee to Segal & Lax to 5%, and increase the apportionment to the Perecman Firm to 95%, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Although the outgoing attorneys served the notices of claim on the municipal defendants, obtained plaintiffs medical records, represented him in a municipal 50-h hearing, and commenced the action by filing and serving a summons and complaint, the record shows that the incoming attorneys performed significantly more work. Indeed, the incoming attorneys conducted all of the discovery and depositions in the case, retained all of the experts, selected a jury, represented plaintiff throughout the 10-day jury trial, obtained a $4 million verdict in plaintiffs favor, made and opposed post-verdict motions, and ultimately negotiated a $2.2 million settlement on plaintiffs behalf in an action that was complicated by plaintiffs credibility issues and the lack of witnesses. Accordingly, we modify the apportionment of the attorney’s fee to the extent indicated *(see Brown v Governele,*29 AD3d 617 [2006]; *Poulas v James Lenox House, Inc.,*11 AD3d 332 [2004]; *Greenberg v Cross Is. Indus., Inc.,*522 F Supp 2d 463, 469 [ED NY 2007]). Concur — Andrias, J.P., Friedman, Moskowitz, Freedman and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.
|   | 1.     | Such      Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2008 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 such Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal      year ended December 31, 2008 fairly presents, in all material respects,      the financial condition and results of operations of the      Company. |

| /s/      Hua Meng                                                    |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Hua      Meng                                                        |
|                                                                 |
| Chief      Financial Officer                                         |
|                                                                 |
| (Principal      Financial Officer and Principal Accounting  Officer) |

----
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 84 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 84

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow refunds of Federal 
 motor fuel excise taxes on fuels used in mobile mammography vehicles.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

             January 25 (legislative day, January 5), 2011

Mr. Vitter (for himself and Mr. Cochran) introduced the following bill; 
     which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow refunds of Federal 
 motor fuel excise taxes on fuels used in mobile mammography vehicles.

    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 ``Mobile Mammography Promotion Act of 
2011''.

SEC. 2. REFUNDS OF FEDERAL MOTOR FUEL EXCISE TAXES FOR FUEL USED IN 
              MOBILE MAMMOGRAPHY VEHICLES.

    (a) Refunds.--Section 6427 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is 
amended by inserting after subsection (e) the following new subsection:
    ``(f) Fuels Used in Mobile Mammography Vehicles.--Except as 
provided in subsection (k), if any fuel on which tax was imposed by 
section 4041 or 4081 is used in any highway vehicle designed 
exclusively to provide mobile mammography services to patients within 
such vehicle, the Secretary shall pay (without interest) to the 
ultimate purchaser of such fuel an amount equal to the aggregate amount 
of the tax imposed on such fuel.''.
    (b) Exemption From Retail Tax.--Section 4041 of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new 
subsection:
    ``(n) Fuels Used in Mobile Mammography Vehicles.--No tax shall be 
imposed under this section on any liquid sold for use in, or used in, 
any highway vehicle designed exclusively to provide mobile mammography 
services to patients within such vehicle.''.
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall take 
effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
#### Tony E. KANNO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. THREE UNKNOWN AGENTS OF the FEDERAL MARSHALS OF OKLAHOMA CITY OFFICE, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 11-6187.

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

Nov. 23, 2011.

Tony E. Kanno, Oklahoma City, OK, pro se.

*615Before O’BRIEN, McKAY, and TYMKOVICH, Circuit Judges.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

MONROE G. McKAY, Circuit Judge.

After examining Plaintiffs brief and the appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). This case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

Plaintiff, appearing pro se,1 appeals the dismissal of his civil rights action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(l) for failure to state a claim and frivolousness. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the district court’s order.

Plaintiff, a citizen of Nigeria, was incarcerated in the David C. Moss Criminal Justice Center in Tulsa, Oklahoma, at the time he filed his complaint. He has since been released. Plaintiff contends that he has been under investigation in “secret court” and has been “given an unconstitutional death penalty by the Department of Homeland Security.” (Appellant’s Br. at 5, 7.) Plaintiff claims he is being slowly burned to death by drones that use a microwave to boil and cook parts of his body, and that he is only alive because he understood the weapons and kept himself wet.

The district court dismissed Plaintiffs complaint as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(l). A claim may be dismissed as frivolous “if the facts alleged are clearly baseless, a category encompassing allegations that are fanciful, fantastic, and delusional.” *Denton v. Hernandez,*504 U.S. 25, 32-33, 112 S.Ct. 1728, 118 L.Ed.2d 340 (1992) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). We review the district court’s determination of factual frivolousness under an abuse-of-discretion standard, *see id.,*and we are not persuaded that the district court abused its discretion in this case by finding the allegations to be clearly baseless.

For substantially the same reasons given by the magistrate judge and the district court, we AFFIRM the dismissal of Plaintiffs action. Plaintiffs motion to proceed *in forma pauperis*on appeal is DENIED.

*

 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R.App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.

1

. We liberally construe Plaintiff’s pro se filings. *See Ledbetter v. City of Topeka, Kan.,*318 F.3d 1183, 1187 (10th Cir.2003).
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 132 (Wednesday, July 14, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 37195-37196]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-15089]


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

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


Sunshine Act Meeting

    The National Science Board's ad hoc Committee on Nominating the NSB 
Class of 2022-2028, hereby gives notice of the scheduling of a 
teleconference for the transaction of National Science Board business, 
as follows:

TIME AND DATE: Monday, July 19, 2021, from 5:00-6:00 p.m. EDT.

PLACE: This meeting will be held by teleconference through the National

[[Page 37196]]

Science Foundation, 2415 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, VA 22314.

STATUS: Closed.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: The agenda of the teleconference is: To 
discuss NSB Class of 2022-2028 nominee cumulative rankings and arrive 
at a short list.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:  Point of contact for this meeting 
is: Chris Blair, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#2f4c4d434e465d6f415c4901484059"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="fd9e9f919c948fbd938e9bd39a928b">[email protected]</span></a>, 703/292-7000. Meeting information and 
updates may be found at http://www.nsf.gov/nsb/meetings/notices.jsp#sunshine. Please refer to the National Science Board 
website www.nsf.gov/nsb for general information.

Chris Blair,
Executive Assistant to the National Science Board Office.
[FR Doc. 2021-15089 Filed 7-12-21; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 817 

To provide for the inclusion of independent regulatory agencies in the application of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1501 

et seq.). 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 14, 2011 

Mr. PORTMAN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on the Budget 

A BILL 

To provide for the inclusion of independent regulatory agencies in the application of the Unfunded Mandates Reform 

Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.). 

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

3 SECTION 1. INCLUSION OF APPLICATION TO INDEPENDENT 

4 REGULATORY AGENCIES. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 421(1) of the Congres6 sional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (2 

7 U.S.C. 658(1)) is amended by striking ‘‘, but does not in8 clude independent regulatory agencies’’. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 817 IS

1 (b) EXEMPTION FOR MONETARY POLICY.—The Un2 funded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1501 et 

3 seq.) is amended by inserting after section 5 the following: 

4 ‘‘SEC. 6. EXEMPTION FOR MONETARY POLICY. 

5 ‘‘Nothing in title II, III, or IV shall apply to rules 

6 that concern monetary policy proposed or implemented by 

7 the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System 

8 or the Federal Open Market Committee.’’. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM METRIKA
SYSTEMS CORPORATION'S QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q FOR THE PERIOD ENDED APRIL
4, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-02-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-04-1998
<CASH>                                          45,347
<SECURITIES>                                     6,097
<RECEIVABLES>                                   13,480
<ALLOWANCES>                                       913
<INVENTORY>                                      7,470
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                77,768
<PP&E>                                          14,518
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,562
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 101,227
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           28,212
<BONDS>                                          2,979
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            83
<OTHER-SE>                                      65,651
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   101,227
<SALES>                                         14,712
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                14,712
<CGS>                                            8,174
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    8,174
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   992
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   253
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 132
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,358
<INCOME-TAX>                                       944
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,414
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,414
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .17
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .17
        


</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 421 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 421

 To amend the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 to require 
   the Secretary of Energy to provide grants for lithium production 
                       research and development.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           February 28, 2011

  Mrs. Hagan introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
       referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 to require 
   the Secretary of Energy to provide grants for lithium production 
                       research and development.

    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 ``Powering America's Lithium 
Production Act of 2011''.

SEC. 2. GRANTS FOR LITHIUM PRODUCTION RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT.

    Subtitle E of title VI of the Energy Independence and Security Act 
of 2007 (42 U.S.C. 17241 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the 
following:

``SEC. 657. GRANTS FOR LITHIUM PRODUCTION RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT.

    ``(a) Definition of Eligible Entity.--In this section, the term 
`eligible entity' means--
            ``(1) a private partnership or other entity that is--
                    ``(A) organized in accordance with Federal law; and
                    ``(B) engaged in lithium production for use in 
                advanced battery technologies;
            ``(2) a public entity, such as a State, tribal, or local 
        governmental entity; or
            ``(3) a consortium of entities described in paragraphs (1) 
        and (2).
    ``(b) Grants.--The Secretary shall provide grants to eligible 
entities for research, development, demonstration, and commercial 
application of domestic industrial processes that are designed to 
enhance domestic lithium production for use in advanced battery 
technologies, as determined by the Secretary.
    ``(c) Use.--An eligible entity shall use a grant provided under 
this subsection to develop or enhance--
            ``(1) domestic industrial processes that increase lithium 
        production, processing, or recycling for use in advanced 
        lithium batteries; or
            ``(2) industrial process associated with new formulations 
        of lithium feedstock for use in advanced lithium batteries.
    ``(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized to be 
appropriated to the Secretary to carry out this section $10,000,000 for 
each of fiscal years 2011 through 2014.''.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000714909
<NAME> 82I
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                          37,107
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   45,585
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                82,692
<PP&E>                                       9,885,479
<DEPRECIATION>                               9,565,522
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 402,649
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           15,737
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     386,912
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   402,649
<SALES>                                         85,403
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                85,911
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  151,445
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (65,534)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (65,534)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (65,534)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (12.30)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### David CLARK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GOODWILL INDUSTRIES OF HAWAII, INC.; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 10-15126.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*526Submitted June 15, 2011.*

Filed July 6, 2011.

David Clark, Waianae, HI, pro se.

Christopher J. Cole, Esquire, Arvis K Poai, Joseph Andrew Ernst, Carlsmith Ball LLP, Honolulu, HI, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before: CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

David Clark appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his action alleging hostile work environment, discrimination, and retaliation. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, *Donohue v. Quick Collect, Inc.,*592 F.3d 1027, 1030 (9th Cir.2010), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on the hostile work environment claim based on Clark’s coworker’s single e-mail because the EEOC charge was filed more than 300 days after the incident. *See*42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e); *Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan,*536 U.S. 101, 118, 122 S.Ct. 2061, 153 L.Ed.2d 106 (2002) (for an EEOC charge of hostile work environment to be timely, the employee must file the charge within the statutory time period of any act that forms the hostile work environment). Moreover, even if Clark’s EEOC charge had been timely as to this claim, the district court properly concluded that the e-mail “was neither severe nor pervasive enough to alter the conditions of [his] employment.” *Manatt v. Bank of Am.,*339 F.3d 792, 799 (9th Cir.2003).

The district court properly granted summary judgment on the discrimination claim *527because Clark failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant’s legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its adverse employment actions were a pretext for discrimination. *See Leong v. Potter,*347 F.3d 1117, 1124-25 (9th Cir.2003).

The district court properly granted summary judgment on the retaliation claim because Clark failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether there was a causal link between his alleged protected activity and his termination. *See Cohen v. Fred Meyer, Inc.,*686 F.2d 793, 796-97 (9th Cir.1982) (there is no causal link if the decisionmaker is unaware of the protected activity).

Clark’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

Clark’s motion for appointment of counsel is denied.

AFFIRMED.

**

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