alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Pollinating Insect-Biology, Management, Systematics Research: Logan, UT
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    CareersSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




Welcome to the wide world of bees! Come learn about native bee diversity, the pollination needs of plants, and how to raise or enhance important, unusual bees. For more information, see our Bees, Pollination, and How To pages under Research Projects.
 For more information on Bees, please click the image.
 For more information on Pollination, please click the image.
 For more information on How To's, please click the image.


Mission


People Branstetter, Michael Cox-Foster, Diana Graham, Kelsey Griswold, Terry Huntzinger, Craig Ikerd, Harold Johnson, Makenna Klomps, Ellen
                                            *- -* Koch, Jonathan Lindsay, Tien Love, Byron McCabe, Lindsie


Pacific West Area   Diana.Cox-Foster@ars.usda.gov


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
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, Paul DePond, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of Notify Technology Corporation on Form 10-QSB
for the fiscal quarter ended December 31, 2006 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB fairly presents in
all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Notify Technology Corporation.



|                        |  |  |  |        |  |                        
|----------------------- |  |  |  | ------ |  | -----------------------
|                        |  |  |  | By:    |  | /s/ Paul F. DePond     
|                        |  |  |  | Name:  |  | Paul F. DePond         
|                        |  |  |  | Title: |  | Chief Executive Officer
|                        |  |  | 
|Date: February 14, 2007 |  |  |  |        |  |                        

I, Gerald W. Rice, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of Notify Technology Corporation on Form 10-QSB for the fiscal quarter ended December 31, 2006 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Notify Technology Corporation.



|                        |  |  |  |        |  |                        
|----------------------- |  |  |  | ------ |  | -----------------------
|                        |  |  |  | By:    |  | /s/ Gerald W. Rice     
|                        |  |  |  | Name:  |  | Gerald W. Rice         
|                        |  |  |  | Title: |  | Chief Financial Officer
|                        |  |  | 
|Date: February 14, 2007 |  |  |  |        |  |                        

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Notify Technology
Corporation and will be retained by Notify Technology Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM JULY 31, 
1997 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FORM 10-Q.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-31-1997
<CASH>                                         108,021
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   34,670
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,276
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               145,398
<PP&E>                                           9,179
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,329
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 172,536
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           63,418
<BONDS>                                         42,401
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            63
<OTHER-SE>                                      66,654
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   172,536
<SALES>                                         50,590
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                67,153
<CGS>                                            1,168
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   84,562
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   258
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,306
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (21,715)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,172
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (22,887)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (22,887)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.59)<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.59)<F2>
<FN>
<F1>For purposes of this exhibit, primary means basic.
<F2>Amounts have been restated to comply with the provisions of Statement of
Financial Accounting Standards No. 128, "Earnings per Share."
</FN>
        


</TABLE>
#### Bernard L. Schwartz, Respondent-Appellant, v Gerald Guterman et al., Appellants-Respondents. Bernard L. Schwartz, Respondent-Appellant, v City Partners et al., Appellant-Respondent.

Order and intermediate judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Louis Grossman, J.), entered on August 15, 1985, unanimously affirmed, without costs and without disbursements. No opinion. Concur &emdash;Murphy, P. J., Kupferman, Lynch, Milonas and Rosenberger, JJ.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Mario RAMIREZ-GUILLEN, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 08-40243

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Jan. 20, 2009.

James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for PlaintiffAppellee.

Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, *813Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before DAVIS, GARZA, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Mario Ramirez-Guillen has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Ramirez-Guillen has not filed a response. Our independent review of the record and counsel’s brief discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cíe. R. 42.2.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. 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 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
#### Williamson *v.*The State.

March 9, 1915.

Indictment for murder. Before Judge George. Taylor superior court. January 5, 1915.

*Jere M. Moore*and *O. B. Marshall,*for plaintiff in error.

*Warren Grice, attorney-general, George G. Palmer, solicitor-general, G. W. Foy,*and *A. L. Henson,*contra.

Hill, J.

1. Where one ground of a motion for a new trial was that certain named jurors trying the case were not impartial and qualified, for the reason that they were; biased and prejudiced, and had expressed opinions before the trial to the effect that “they were going to try the defendant and they ought to hang him,” and that hanging was too good, for him, and if on the jury they would so find, the judge on the hearing of such motion is the trior of the competency of the jurors; and where the jurors attacked deny making the statements attributed to them on oath, and under the conflicting evidence the judge finds that the jurors were competent, his discretion will not be controlled, unless abused. *Hall*v. *State,*141 *Ga.*7 (80 S. E. 307) ; *Frank*v. *State,*141 *Ga.*247 (18), 283 (80 S. E. 1016); *Wall*v. *State,*126 *Ga.*550 (4), 553 (55 S. E. 484). He did not abuse his discretion in the present ease.

*(a)*Nor was it error to hold, on conflicting evidence, that the jurors had not disqualified themselves by separating during the trial, nor by talking to a witness for the State about the case pending the trial.

2. Eailure to charge the jury the law with reference to the impeachment of witnesses, even where the same is applicable, in the absence of a timely written request for a charge on that subject, is not cause for a new trial. *Robinson*v. *Stale,*114 *Ga.*445 (40 S. E. 253).

3. The evidence was sufficient to support the verdict, and none of the other assignments of error show cause for the grant of a new trial.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur, except Fish, G. J., absent.*
# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 5- 34 87

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ Rex Gard
ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el la nt

v.
Den ni s Kae m in gk , Secre ta ry of C orrect io ns forSta te of S ou th Dako ta , in di vi du al ly andin hi s o ffi ci al cap aci ty; Dou g Webe r, Dire ct orof P ris on Ope rat io ns , in di vi du al ly andinhi s o ffi ci al cap aci ty; Bo b Do ol ey , W ard en at M ik e Dur fee S ta te Pri so n, i nd iv idua ll y an d i n h is off

ic ia l capa ci ty; Troy Pon to , Ass oc ia te W ard en at S DSP, in di vi du al ly andin hi s o ffi ci al cap aci ty; Lelan d Tjeerd sm a, Majo r, Headof S pe ci al Secu rit y , Mik e Dur fee S ta te Pri so n, in di vi du al ly andin hi s o ffi ci al cap aci ty; Cli fto n F an tro y , Uni t M an ag er atSDSP Uni t, i nd iv idua ll y

an d i n h is off

ic ia l capa ci ty; Geor ge Degl m an , Uni t M an ag er at Mi ke Durf

ee St at e Pri so n, i nd iv idua ll y an d i n h is off

ic ia l capa ci ty; Sgt . Larso n, Serg ean t atMi ke Durf

ee St at e Pri so n, i nd iv idua ll y an d i n h is off

ic ia l capa ci ty; Pro pe rty Office r Ber th el so n, Pr op ert y Offic er atth e SDSP Wareh ou se in di vi du al ly
an d i n h is off

ic ia l capa ci ty
ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an ts - App el le es

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Dis tri ctof S ou th Dako ta- Sio ux Fal ls

__ __ __ __ __ __ Subm it te d: Nov em

be r 4, 2 01 6 Fi le d: Nov em

be r 8, 2 01 6 [Unpubl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __Befo re WOL LMAN, ARNOLD, andGRUENDER, Circu itJu dg es
.

__ __ __ __ __ __ PER CURI AM.

So ut h Dak ot a in m at e Rex Gard ap pe al s th e di st ric t co ur t’s a d v e r s e gr an t of 1

su m m ary jud gm en t in hi s 42 U.S.C. § 19 83 act io n. Upo n de no vo rev ie w, we fin d no
erro r in th e di st ric t co ur t’s th or ou gh an d well -rea so ne d an al y si s of Mr. Gard ’s cl ai m s. See M ur ch is on v. Ro ge rs , 77 9 F .3d88 2, 8 86 -8 7 (8 th Cir . 20 15 ) (v ie win g s umm ary jud gm en t re co rdin li gh t m os t favo rab le to no n- m ov an t, an d d rawi ng all reas on ab le in fere nc es fro m it i n hi s fav or ). W e fin d no m eri t to Mr. Gard ’s ch al le ng es to th e ot he r ru li ng s he id en ti fie s. Whi le we co nc lu de th at affi rm an ce is warra nt ed , se e 8t h Ci r. R. 47 B, we m od ify th e di st ric t co ur t’s jud gm en t to refl ect th at th e ad ve rs e gr an t of su m m ary jud gm en t d oe s n otco ns ti tu te a st rik e u nd er 2 8 U.S.C. § 19 15 (g ).

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

The Hon or ab le Lawren ce L. Pi ers ol , Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e 1 Dis tri ct of So ut h Dak ot a, ad op ti ng th e rep or t an d reco m m en da ti on s of th e Hon or ab le Vero ni ca L. Duf

fy , Uni te d St at es Mag is tra te Ju dg e fo r th e Dis tri ct of So ut h Dak ot a.

-2

-
Exhibit 32.2


                           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 Blount International, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2003 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Calvin E. Jenness, Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and
Treasurer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

    (ii) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
    material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
    of the Company as of the dates and for the periods expressed in the
    report.



Date:  March 10, 2004

/s/ Calvin E. Jenness
---------------------
Calvin E. Jenness
Senior Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
#### In the Matter of Isabelita Gonzalez, Appellant, et al., Petitioner, v Division of Housing and Community Renewal of *682the State of New York, Respondent, et al., Respondents.

[943 NYS2d 889] —

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Emily Jane Goodman, J.), entered May 6, 2010, dismissing the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, and bringing up for review an order, same court and Justice, entered July 17, 2009, which denied the petition to annul a determination of respondent Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR), dated November 19, 2007, which affirmed an order of the DHCR Rent Administrator, dated January 11, 2007, granting respondents-owners ’ application for a substantial rehabilitation exemption from rent stabilization, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

DHCR’s determination was rationally based on the record and not arbitrary and capricious or contrary to law *(see Matter of Pell v Board of Educ. of Union Free School Dist. No. 1 of Towns of Scarsdale & Mamaroneck, Westchester County,*34 NY2d 222, 230-231 [1974]). Indeed, the record supports DHCR’s finding that the building had been substantially rehabilitated within the meaning of Rent Stabilization Code (9 NYCRR) § 2520.11 (e) and DHCR’s Operational Bulletin 95-2 *(cf. Matter of Pavia v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal,*22 AD3d 393 [2005]). There is no evidence that the documents and affidavits submitted by the owners to DHCR were fabricated or fraudulent, or that DHCR was biased.

To the extent petitioner relies on the equitable doctrines of laches and estoppel, those doctrines cannot be invoked against the agency to prevent it from discharging its statutory duties *(see Matter of Kenton Assoc. v Division of Hous. & Community Renewal,*225 AD2d 349, 350 [1996]).

We have considered petitioner’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Tom, J.P., Sweeny, Renwick, Freedman and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.

Motion seeking to enlarge the record denied.
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1113 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1113

    To extend certain temporary judgeships in the Federal judiciary.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 31, 1997

   Mr. Grassley (for himself, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Hatch, Mr. DeWine, Mr. 
 Hagel, and Mr. Warner) introduced the following bill; which was read 
          twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To extend certain temporary judgeships in the Federal judiciary.

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

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF CERTAIN TEMPORARY JUDGESHIPS.

    Section 203(c) of the Judicial Improvements Act of 1990 (Public Law 
101-650; 104 Stat. 5101; 28 U.S.C. 133 note), as amended by Public Law 
104-60 (109 Stat. 635; 28 U.S.C. 133 note), is amended--
            (1) by striking paragraph (1); and
            (2) by striking the last 2 sentences and inserting ``Except 
        with respect to the western district of Michigan and the 
        eastern district of Pennsylvania, the first vacancy in the 
        office of district judge in each of the judicial districts 
        named in this subsection, occurring 10 years or more after the 
        confirmation date of the judge named to fill the temporary 
        judgeship created by this subsection, shall not be filled. The 
        first vacancy in the office of district judge in the western 
        district of Michigan, occurring after December 1, 1995, shall 
        not be filled. The first vacancy in the office of district 
        judge in the eastern district of Pennsylvania, occurring 5 
        years or more after the confirmation date of the judge named to 
        fill the temporary judgeship created for such district under 
        this subsection, shall not be filled.''.
                                 <all>
```
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 415 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. RES. 415

    Designating April 4, 2012, as ``National Association of Junior 
                           Auxiliaries Day''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 29, 2012

    Mr. Wicker (for himself and Mr. Pryor) submitted the following 
             resolution; which was considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
    Designating April 4, 2012, as ``National Association of Junior 
                           Auxiliaries Day''.

Whereas the National Association of Junior Auxiliaries and the members of the 
        National Association of Junior Auxiliaries provide valuable service and 
        leadership opportunities for women who wish to take an active role in 
        their communities;
Whereas the mission of the National Association of Junior Auxiliaries is to 
        encourage member chapters to render charitable services that--

    (1) are beneficial to the general public; and

    (2) place a particular emphasis on providing for the needs of children; 
and

Whereas since the founding of the National Association of Junior Auxiliaries in 
        1941, the organization has provided strength and inspiration to women 
        who want to effect positive change in their communities: Now, therefore, 
        be it
    Resolved, That the Senate--
            (1) designates April 4, 2012, as ``National Association of 
        Junior Auxiliaries Day'';
            (2) recognizes the great contributions made by members of 
        the National Association of Junior Auxiliaries to their 
        communities and to the people of the United States; and
            (3) especially commends the work of the members of the 
        National Association of Junior Auxiliaries to better the lives 
        of children in the United States.
                                 <all>
```
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Faiz Shabazz, Appellant.

—Appeal by defendant from a judg*688ment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Moskowitz, J.), rendered May 17, 1984, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

Contrary to defendant’s claim, the accomplice testimony of Florence Boone was sufficiently corroborated by the testimony of Sylvia Pullum and Luis Landers *(see,*CPL 60.22; *People v Glasper,*52 NY2d 970). We also note that defendant’s guilt was overwhelmingly established. We have considered defendant’s remaining claims, and find them to be without merit. Lazer, J. P., Mangano, Brown and Kooper, JJ., concur.