alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONS**

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report of StarTek, Inc. (the “Registrant”) on Form 10-Q forthe quarter ended June 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), each of the undersignedindividuals, certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to hisknowledge:

 

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

2)              The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.

 

 
| Date: July 30, 2010 | /s/A. LAURENCE JONES                                             |
|--------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                     | A. Laurence Jones                                                |
|                     | President and Chief  Executive Officer                           |
| * *                 | * *                                                         |
|                     |                                                             |
| Date: July 30, 2010 | /s/ DAVID G. DURHAM                                              |
|                     | David G. Durham                                                  |
|                     | Executive Vice President,  Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer |

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating,acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed formwithin the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906,has been provided to the Corporation and will be retained by the Corporationand furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff uponrequest.

 

----
III 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 151 

Congratulating the University of Minnesota Duluth men’s ice hockey team 

on winning their first National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) 

Division I Men’s Hockey National Championship. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 14, 2011 

Ms. KLOBUCHAR (for herself and Mr. FRANKEN) submitted the following 

resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

MAY 4, 2011 

Committee discharged; considered and agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

Congratulating the University of Minnesota Duluth men’s 

ice hockey team on winning their first National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) Division I Men’s 

Hockey National Championship. 

Whereas on Saturday, April 9, 2011, the University of Minnesota Duluth won the 2011 NCAA Division I Men’s Ice 

Hockey Championship; 

Whereas this is the first national championship for the University of Minnesota Duluth Bulldogs men’s ice hockey 

team (the ‘‘University of Minnesota Duluth’’); 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
2 

SRES 151 ATS 

Whereas the University of Minnesota Duluth won the Frozen 

Four championship game with a 3 to 2 sudden death win 

over the University of Michigan; 

Whereas on Thursday, April 7, 2011, the University of Minnesota Duluth defeated the University of Notre Dame in 

the Frozen Four semifinal game with a score of 4 to 3 

to advance to the national championship game; 

Whereas the game was played before a sellout crowd of more 

than 19,200 fans at the Xcel Energy Center in St. Paul, 

Minnesota; 

Whereas the University of Minnesota Duluth finished the 

2010–2011 season with the most wins since the 2003– 

2004 season; 

Whereas in the 2010–2011 season the University of Minnesota Duluth had the most fans for a home schedule in 

50 Division I seasons, averaging more than 6,800 fans; 

Whereas the University of Minnesota Duluth never lost more 

than 1 game in a row, a first in program history; and 

Whereas the University of Minnesota Duluth had 6 wins and 

1 loss in the postseason, closing with 4 straight wins and 

beating the top 2 teams in the Eastern College Athletic 

Conference in the East Regional and the top 2 teams in 

the Central Collegiate Hockey Association in the Frozen 

Four: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate— 

2 (1) recognizes the achievements of the players, 

3 coaches, students, and staff whose hard work and 

4 dedication helped the University of Minnesota DuVerDate Mar 15 2010 23:36 May 04, 2011 Jkt 099200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\SR151.ATS SR151

jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
3 

SRES 151 ATS 

1 luth win the 2011 NCAA Division I Men’s Hockey 

2 National Championship; and 

3 (2) recognizes University of Minnesota Duluth 

4 Chancellor Lendley Black and Athletic Director Bob 

5 Nielson, who have shown great leadership in bring6 ing athletic success to the University of Minnesota 

7 Duluth. 

Æ 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
#### In the Matter of William Walker, Jr., Appellant, v Sharisse N. Diaz, Respondent.

[943 NYS2d 913] —

In a child custody proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the father appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (IDV Part) (Morgenstern, J.), dated June 7, 2010, which, sua sponte, suspended his visitation with the subject child.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County (IDV Part), for further proceedings on the issue of visitation consistent with the child’s best interest.

“ *‘A*noncustodial parent is entitled to meaningful visitation. Denial of that right is so drastic that it must be based on substantial evidence that visitation would be detrimental to the welfare of the child’ ” *(Matter of Pettiford-Brown v Brown,*42 AD3d 541, 542 [2007], quoting *Matter of Kachelhofer v Wasiak,*10 AD3d 366, 366 [2004]). When adjudicating visitation issues, a court must determine the best interests of the child *(see Matter of Indig v Indig,*90 AD3d 1050, 1051 [2011]; *Matter of Mohabir v Singh,*78 AD3d 1056 [2010]; *Matter of Mera v Rodri*
      *1226
      *guez,*73 AD3d 1069, 1069-1070 [2010]; *Matter of Thompson v Yu-Thompson,*41 AD3d 487, 488 [2007]).

Here, the Supreme Court failed to determine the best interests of the child before suspending the father’s visitation with the child. Accordingly, the matter must be remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County (IDV Part), for further proceedings on the issue of visitation consistent with the child’s best interests. Rivera, J.R, Chambers, Roman and Miller, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
THE  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION   EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
CONSOLIDATED  BALANCE  SHEET AND THE  CONSOLIDATED  STATEMENT OF INCOME FILES AS
PART OF THE  QUARTERLY  REPORT ON FORM 10-Q 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>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-01-1999
<CASH>                                             897
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           1,935
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 1,700
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                      9,705
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                        105,785
<ALLOWANCE>                                        546
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 122,973
<DEPOSITS>                                      88,207
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                                321
<LONG-TERM>                                     17,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            18
<OTHER-SE>                                      17,427
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 122,973
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  2,008
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                  147
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                    41
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 2,196
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               1,012
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,263
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                              933
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                       17
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                    714
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    224
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                         131
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       131
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .09
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .09
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    3.22
<LOANS-NON>                                        591
<LOANS-PAST>                                       342
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                   529
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        0
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                  546
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                               546
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                             47



</TABLE>
Fourth Department,

April, 2012

(April 20, 2012)

#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Leslie Blair, Also Known as Jahman, Also Known as Dred, Appellant.

[943 NYS2d 314]

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (David D. Egan, J.), rendered February 15, 2008. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of murder in the second degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him, upon a jury verdict, of murder in the second degree (Penal Law § 125.25 [3]). Defendant contends that Supreme Court improperly questioned him when he testified on his own behalf and that he was deprived of a fair trial thereby. Defendant failed *1404to preserve that contention for our review *(see People v Charleston,*56 NY2d 886, 887 [1982]). We conclude, in any event, that defendant’s contention is without merit. Indeed, the court properly acted within its power “to encourage clarity ... in the development of proof,” without giving any impression with respect to its own view of “the credibility of the testimony of any witness or the merits of any issue in the case” *(People v Moulton,*43 NY2d 944, 945 [1978]; *see People v Arnold,*98 NY2d 63, 67-68 [2002]). Defendant further contends that the court abused its discretion in overruling defense counsel’s objection concerning the scope of the redirect examination of a witness by the People. That contention lacks merit, inasmuch as defendant opened the door to the redirect examination by only partially exploring on cross-examination the issue whether the witness and defendant had engaged in criminal activity together in the past, rendering further examination and clarification on that issue appropriate *(see People v Massie,*2 NY3d 179, 183-184 [2004]; *People v Melendez,*55 NY2d 445, 451 [1982]; *People v Alvie J.,*286 AD2d 930, 931 [2001]).

Finally, defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention concerning the allegedly improper introduction of evidence of prior bad acts committed by him. In any event, we conclude that any error in the admission of that evidence is harmless *(see generally People v Crimmins,*36 NY2d 230, 241-242 [1975]). The evidence of defendant’s guilt in assisting in the murder is overwhelming, and there is no significant probability that defendant otherwise would have been acquitted *(see id.; People v Orbaker,*302 AD2d 977, 977-978 [2003], *lv denied*100 NY2d 541 [2003]). The overwhelming evidence included the scar from a gunshot wound in the webbing between defendant’s thumb and forefinger, the gunshot wound to the right front of the victim’s neck, and defendant’s admission to an acquaintance following the shooting that he was holding down the victim when the gun wielded by another participant discharged *(see generally People v Breland,*83 NY2d 286, 292-293 [1994]). Present — Scudder, P.J., Smith, Garni and Sconiers, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                          12,552
<SECURITIES>                                     3,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                   24,505
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (1,447)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                53,787
<PP&E>                                          21,498
<DEPRECIATION>                                (11,889)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 166,055
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           35,060
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            23
<OTHER-SE>                                     128,245
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   166,055
<SALES>                                         51,404
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                51,404
<CGS>                                           11,530
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   68,392
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   125
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  10
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (16,535)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,951
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (20,486)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (20,486)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.00)
        

</TABLE>
1

The HONORABLE JIMM LARRY HENDREN, Chief Judge, United States

District Court for the Western District of Arkansas.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 11-1250

___________

James Kevin Warford, *

*

Appellant, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

v. * Western District of Arkansas.

*

United Parcel Service, Inc., * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: August 4, 2011

Filed: August 11, 2011

___________

Before LOKEN, BYE, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Arkansas resident James Warford appeals the district court’s1

 denial of his

motion to remand his diversity action against United Parcel Service, Inc., which had

been removed from Arkansas state court. After careful de novo review, see In re

Prempro Prods. Liab. Litig., 591 F.3d 613, 619 (8th Cir. 2010), we conclude that, on

its face, the complaint sufficiently demonstrated that the amount in controversy

exceeded the jurisdictional amount. Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________
PEOPLES-SIDNEY FINANCIAL CORPORATION


                                  EXHIBIT 99.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the Quarterly Report of Peoples-Sidney  Financial Corporation
(the  "Corporation")  on Form 10-QSB for the period ended  December 31, 2002, as
filed  with  the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on  the  date  of  this
Certification  (the  "Report"),  I, Douglas  Stewart,  the  President  and Chief
Executive  Officer of the Corporation,  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 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 Corporation.




                          /s/ Douglas Stewart
                          -----------------------
                          Douglas Stewart, President and Chief Executive Officer

                          Date: February 12, 2003
<PAGE>   1
 
                                                                      EXHIBIT 21
 
                  SUBSIDIARIES OF QUINTEL COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
 
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                   STATE OF INCORPORATION
                           SUBSIDIARY                                 OR ORGANIZATION
                           ----------                              ----------------------
<C>  <S>                                                           <C>
 1.  Calling Card Company, Inc. .................................  New York
 2.  New Lauderdale L.C. ........................................  Florida
 3.  N.L. Corp. .................................................  Delaware
 4.  Creative Direct Marketing, Inc. ............................  Delaware
 5.  Quintel Hair Products, Inc. ................................  Delaware
 6.  Quintel Products, Inc. .....................................  Delaware
 7.  Quintelco., Inc. ...........................................  Delaware
 8.  Quintel Psychic Zone, Inc. .................................  Delaware
 9.  Quintel LaBuick Products, LLC...............................  Delaware
10.  Quintel Cellular, LLC.......................................  Delaware
11.  Quintel Comm., Inc..........................................  Delaware
12.  Quintel Financial Information Services, Inc.................  Delaware
</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-1830

DORIS NEILL MOZLEY,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States Tax Court. (Tax Ct. No. 00-4865)

Submitted: November 29, 2001 Decided: December 5, 2001

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Doris Neill Mozley, Appellant Pro Se. David English Carmack, Janet

A. Bradley, Tamara Wenda Ashford, Paula Marie Junghans, UNITED

STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C.; Stuart L. Brown,

Richard W. Skillman, INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, Washington, D.C.,

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Doris Mozley appeals from the tax court’s order determining

deficiencies with respect to her 1995 and 1996 federal income tax

liability. Our review of the record and the tax court’s opinion

discloses no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the tax court. Mozley v. Commissioner, No. 00-4865 (U.S.

Tax Ct. May 31, 2001). We dispense with oral argument because the

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

AFFIRMED
#### Fred DIXON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 08-13548

Non-Argument Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

Jan. 8, 2009.

Richard Keith Alan, II, Law Office of Richard K. Alan, II, West Palm Beach, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Lee Alan Kraftchick, Miami-Dade County Attorney’s Office, Miami, FL, for Defendant-Appellee.

Before HULL, PRYOR and HILL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant Dixon seeks reversal of a judgment dismissing his claim for damages resulting from the entrance upon, inspection of, and ultimate demolition of a building on his property.

After extensive and somewhat troublesome litigation and the creation of an extensive record, the district court determined that appellant had been afforded full process insofar as the determination of the unsafe conditions of his building was concerned and that this process included sufficient evidence to support that determination.

Appellant had also asserted a claim for damages because the inspector had entered his premises without consent or warrant, a violation of the Fourth Amendment. After the district court had entered the order referred to above to dismiss the action, appellant moved for relief from and vacation of that order due to the Fourth Amendment claim. In a detailed analysis of the record, the district court concluded that the inspection, if it occurred as described, had taken place more than four years prior to the action, so the statute of limitations had run and the claim is time-barred.

Our review of these two orders and the extensive record upon which they are based demonstrates that the district court correctly analyzed the situation and that the orders were correctly and lawfully entered. The judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 161 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 161

         Designating May 2011, as ``National Inventors Month''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 3, 2011

  Mr. Leahy (for himself, Mr. Grassley, and Mr. Coons) submitted the 
        following resolution; which was considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
         Designating May 2011, as ``National Inventors Month''.

Whereas the first United States patent was issued in 1790 to Samuel Hopkins of 
        the State of Vermont for a process to make better fertilizer;
Whereas American inventors have contributed to advances in life sciences, 
        technology, and manufacturing;
Whereas the Constitution specifically provides for the granting of exclusive 
        rights to inventors for their discoveries;
Whereas the United States patent system is intended to implement that 
        constitutional imperative and incentivize inventions;
Whereas American inventors benefit from an up-to-date and efficient patent 
        system and the economy, jobs, and consumers of the United States benefit 
        from the inventions;
Whereas the next great American invention could be among the 700,000 patent 
        applications pending as of the date of approval of this resolution in 
        the United States Patent and Trademark Office;
Whereas the last changes to the United States patent system were made nearly 60 
        years ago;
Whereas an updated patent system will unleash innovation and create jobs in the 
        United States without adding to the deficit;
Whereas every May, a new class of inventors is inducted into the National 
        Inventors Hall of Fame;
Whereas in the 112th Congress, a bill was introduced in the House of 
        Representatives entitled the ``America Invents Act'' (H.R. 1249) to make 
        reforms to the United States patent system; and
Whereas the Senate on March 8, 2011, passed the bill entitled the ``America 
        Invents Act'' (S. 23), which will make the first comprehensive reforms 
        to the United States patent system in nearly 60 years: Now, therefore, 
        be it
    Resolved, That the Senate designates May 2011, as ``National 
Inventors Month''.
                                 <all>
```