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

 

Eachof the undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, inhis capacity as an officer of Force Protection, Inc. (the “Company”),that, to his knowledge, the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Qfor the period ended March 31, 2008, fully complies with the requirementsof Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934(15 U.S.C. § 78m or 78o(d)) and that the information contained in such reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company. This written statement is being furnished to theSecurities and Exchange Commission as an exhibit to such Form 10-Q. Asigned original of this statement has been provided to the Company and will beretained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commissionor its staff upon request.

 

 
| Date:  September 30, 2008 | /s/ MICHAEL MOODY                         |
|--------------------------------|-------------------------------------------|
|                           | **Michael Moody**                         |
|                           | **President and Chief Executive Officer** |
|                           |                                      |
| Date:  September 30, 2008 | /s/ FRANCIS E. SCHEUERELL, JR.            |
|                           | **Francis E. Scheuerell, Jr.**       |
|                           | **Interim Chief Financial Officer**       |

 

Thisexhibit shall not be deemed “filed” for purposes of Section 18 of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 or otherwise subject to the liabilities of thatSection, nor shall it be deemed incorporated by reference in any filings underthe Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, whether madebefore or after the date hereof and irrespective of any general incorporationlanguage in any filings.

 

----
### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N

NO. 03-16-00309- CV

Water works Corr al Cree k, LL C; and Sal twater Disposal System s, LLC, App ellants
v. Aquatech Saltw ater Disposal L LC d/b /a AquaT ech Wate r & D isposal , LLC; and Eric Schm itz, Appellees

F ROM TH E DISTRI CT COURT O F TRAVIS CO UNTY, 200 TH JUDICI AL DISTRICT NO. D-1 -GN-1 5-0 0194 3, H ONO RAB LE K ARIN CRUMP , JUDGE P RESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
P ER CURIAM

Appellants hav e fi l ed a motion to stay proce eding s in the district court while their interlocutory appea l is pending in this Court. I n their response to the motion, appellee s informed the Court that the parties a

re sc heduled to attend a mediation orde red by the district court a

nd that the mediation is scheduled f

or Jul y 14, 2016. We abate this appe al to allow the parties to c onduct the schedule d mediation. See T ex . R
. App. P. 29.3 (appe llate court may make any temporar y order s
nece ssary to prese rve parties’ rig hts). The parties shall submit either a joint status repor t conce rning the status of settlement neg otiations or a motion to reinstate on or befor e Aug ust 1, 2016. The appea l will remain aba ted until further or der of this Court.Be fore Chief J ustice Rose, Jus tices Pemberton a nd Bour land Abated Filed: June 30, 2016

2
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7472

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus MICHAEL HAMILTON, Defendant - Appellant.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. Frank W. Bullock, Jr., Chief District Judge. (CR-94-66, CA-97-1296) Submitted: April 27, 1999 Decided: May 19, 1999 Before MURNAGHAN, HAMILTON, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael Hamilton, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Michael Hamilton seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate ofappealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Hamilton , Nos. CR-94-66; CA-97- 1296 (M.D.N.C. Sept. 17, 1998). 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.

DISMISSED
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE  CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED FROM FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS  FOR THE SIX MONTHS  ENDED  APRIL 30,  1997 AND IS  QUALIFIED  IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.

Amounts inapplicable or not disclosed as a separate line on the Balance Sheet or
Statement of Income are reported as 0 herein.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
<CURRENCY>                                     US DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              OCT-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 NOV-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   APR-30-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                            349
<SECURITIES>                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   8,111
<ALLOWANCES>                                      243
<INVENTORY>                                    10,257
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               19,361
<PP&E>                                         14,843
<DEPRECIATION>                                  3,318
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 30,946
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           3,937
<BONDS>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                       18,594
<OTHER-SE>                                      8,370
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   30,975
<SALES>                                        23,137
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               23,146
<CGS>                                          13,493
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  17,890
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    5
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  (72)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 11
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 5,240
<INCOME-TAX>                                    1,847
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             3,393
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                    3,393
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   0.088
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   0.088
                                               


</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v James Crooks, Appellant.

[943 NYS2d 90]—

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Laura A. Ward, J., at colloquy; Ronald A. Zweibel, J., at nonjury trial and sentencing), rendered March 17, 2010, as amended April 7, 2010, convicting defendant of burglary in the second degree, and sentencing him to a term of eight years, unanimously modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, to the extent of reducing the sentence to a term of five years, and otherwise affirmed. Judgment, same court (Ronald A. Zweibel, J.), rendered March 31, 2010, as amended April 7, 2010, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of burglary in the third degree, and sentencing him to a concurrent term of one year, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s request to proceed pro se did not obligate the court to make a sua sponte inquiry into whether defendant was instead entitled to new counsel. As in *People v Davis*(10 AD3d 583, 583 [2004], *lv denied*4 NY3d 743 [2004]), “[although defendant had expressed dissatisfaction with his attorney, his sole request was for permission to proceed pro se, and not for substitution of counsel.” In any event, even if defendant had specifically requested new counsel, his critical comments regarding his lawyer’s performance did not constitute the “specific factual allegations” that are required to trigger a court’s duty to make “minimal inquiry” *(People v Porto,*16 NY3d 93, 100 [2010]).

Defendant argues that the evidence supporting his conviction of burglary in the second degree was legally insufficient because the housing project whose basement he entered unlawfully was allegedly not a dwelling. This argument is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we reject it on the merits. We also find that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence *(see People v Danielson,*9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]).

*418Burglary of the basement of an apartment building constitutes burglary of a “dwelling” *(see*Penal Law § 140.00 [2], [3]; § 140.25; *People v Rohena,*186 AD2d 509 [1992], *lv denied*81 NY2d 794 [1993]). For purposes of the dwelling element of second-degree burglary, a Housing Authority building is a dwelling because it meets the definition set forth in Penal Law § 140.00 (3). Nothing in Penal Law § 140.10 (e) is to the contrary.

We find the sentence excessive to the extent indicated. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.E, Acosta, Renwick and Richter, JJ.
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 157 (Wednesday, August 18, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 46237]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-17707]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission


Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural 
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP21-1030-000.
    Applicants: Fieldwood Energy LLC, Fieldwood Energy Offshore LLC, 
QuarterNorth Energy LLC, GOM Shelf LLC.
    Description: Joint Petition of Fieldwood Energy LLC et al for 
Limited Waiver of ``shipper-must-have-title'' Policy, Request for 
Expedited Action and Shortened Comment Period.
    Filed Date: 8/11/21.
    Accession Number: 20210811-5078.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 8/18/21.

    Docket Numbers: RP21-1031-000.
    Applicants: Northern Natural Gas Company.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: 202108012 Carlton Flow 
Obligation to be effective 11/1/2021.
    Filed Date: 8/12/21.
    Accession Number: 20210812-5043.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 8/24/21.

    Docket Numbers: RP21-1032-000.
    Applicants: DBM Pipeline, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rate Filing to be 
effective 8/1/2021.
    Filed Date: 8/12/21.
    Accession Number: 20210812-5084.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 8/24/21.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system 
(https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/search/fercgensearch.asp) by querying 
the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above 
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the 
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be 
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the 
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing 
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying 
facilities filings can be found at:http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 
(toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: August 12, 2021.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-17707 Filed 8-17-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
#### Blanche M. Powers vs. Joseph L. Bergman.

Suffolk.

November 24, 1911.

November 29, 1911.

Present: Rugg, C. J., Hammond, Braley, Sheldon, & DeCourcy, JJ.

*Practice, Civil,*New trial.

A motion for a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence is addressed to the discretion of the trial judge, which is a judicial and not an arbitrary discretion. In the present case, which was an action for assault and battery, it was held that there was nothing in the record to show even unwise action of the trial judge in overruling such a motion.

Rugg, C. J.

These exceptions relate to a refusal to grant a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence. The action is to recover damages for an assault. The affidavits indicate that the alleged newly discovered evidence tends to show that the defendant was at another place at the time of the assault. A motion for a new trial ordinarily is addressed to the discretion of the trial court, to the exercise of which no exception lies. Although it is a judicial and not an arbitrary discretion which must be exercised, in the present case there is nothing to indicate even unwise action by the trial judge.* The newly discovered evidence was itself of a character which may have failed to carry to his mind conviction of its truthfulness. He saw the witnesses on both sides during the trial, and having denied a motion for a new trial upon the usual grounds, may have been satisfied that, notwithstanding the new evidence, the verdict ought to stand. Even if the evidence, which has been discovered, would justify *347a different verdict, a motion for a new trial may be refused rightly. There is nothing in this record to support an exception to the discretion of the Superior Court. *Freeman*v. *Boston,*175 Mass. 208. *Behan*v. *Williams,*123 Mass. 366. *Parker*v. *Hardy,*24 Pick. 246. In *Manzigian*v. *Boyajian,*183 Mass. 125, which clearly is decisive of the present case, only the excepting party was heard.

*E. F. McClennen,*for the defendant.

*J. J. Walsh, (J. F. Lynch*with him,) for the plaintiff.

These exceptions appear to be within the terms of R. L. c. 156, § 13. They are overruled and double costs are awarded against the defendant and interest at the rate of twelve per cent per annum from the time the exceptions were allowed.

*So*ordered.

*

*DeCourcy,*J.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM GULF
EXPLORATION CONSULTANTS, INC. FORM 10-K FOR THE PERIOD ENDED DECEMBER 31,
1996, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                           5,789
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 5,789
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   5,789
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          121,910
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        19,911
<OTHER-SE>                                   (136,032)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     5,789
<SALES>                                          3,183
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 3,183
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  108,530
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,047
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                382,914
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            382,914
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   382,914
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .20
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .20
        

</TABLE>
Merrill Schneider, OSB #77336 

merrillschneider@schneiderlaw.com 

Schneider Kerr Law Offices 

PO Box 14490 

Portland, Oregon 97293 

Phone: 503-255-9092 

Fax:503-255-9145 

Attorney for Plaintiff 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

ROGER CLARK, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

CAROLYN COLVIN, 

Commissioner of Social Security, 

Defendant. 

2: 15-CV-00240-KI 

ORDER FOR ATTORNEY 

FEES UNDER 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) 

The court finds and orders an attorney fee of $7,096.50 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 406(b). 

The attorney fee of $4,333.38 allowed pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act will be 

refunded to Plaintiff upon counsel's receipt of the allowed 406(b) fee awarded. 

Dated this 13 day of /upf. '2016. 

G"Mt 

United States District 

f'l 

Comt 

~,r Judge\/' 

Case 2:15-cv-00240-KI Document 33 Filed 09/13/16 Page 1 of 1
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 161 (Tuesday, August 24, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47294-47295]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-18147]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Bureau of Industry and Security


Regulations and Procedures Technical Advisory Committee; Notice 
of Partially Closed Meeting

    The Regulations and Procedures Technical Advisory Committee will 
meet September 14, 2021, at 10:00 a.m., Eastern Daylight Time, via 
teleconference. The Committee advises the Office of the Assistant 
Secretary for Export Administration on implementation of the Export 
Administration Regulations (EAR) and provides for continuing review to 
update the EAR as needed.

Agenda

Public Session

1. Opening remarks by the Chairman
2. Opening remarks by the Bureau of Industry and Security
3. Presentation of papers or comments by the Public
4. Regulations Update
5. Working Group Reports
6. Automated Export System Update

[[Page 47295]]

Closed Session

7. Discussion of matters determined to be exempt from the provisions 
relating to public meetings found in 5 U.S.C. app. 2 10(a)(1) and 
10(a)(3).

    The open session will be accessible via teleconference to 
participants on a first come, first serve basis. To join the 
conference, submit inquiries to Ms. Yvette Springer at 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#2e77584b5a5a4b007d5e5c4740494b5c6e4c475d004a414d00494158"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="d089a6b5a4a4b5fe83a0a2b9beb7b5a290b2b9a3feb4bfb3feb7bfa6">[email protected]</span></a>, no later than September 7, 2021.
    To the extent that time permits, members of the public may present 
oral statements to the Committee. The public may submit written 
statements at any time before or after the meeting. However, to 
facilitate the distribution of public presentation materials to the 
Committee members, the Committee suggests that presenters forward the 
public presentation materials prior to the meeting to Ms. Springer via 
email.
    The Assistant Secretary for Administration, with the concurrence of 
the delegate of the General Counsel, formally determined on May 14, 
2021, pursuant to Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 
as amended (5 U.S.C. app. 2 10(d)), that the portion of the meeting 
dealing with pre-decisional changes to the Commerce Control List and 
the U.S. export control policies shall be exempt from the provisions 
relating to public meetings found in 5 U.S.C. app. 2 10(a)(1) and 
10(a)(3). The remaining portions of the meeting will be open to the 
public.
    For more information, call Yvette Springer at (202) 482-2813.

Yvette Springer,
Committee Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 2021-18147 Filed 8-23-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-JT-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
POWER OF ATTORNEY
  Name
    
    Title
    
    Date/s/ John D. Johnson
    
    Chief Executive Officer
    
    October 7, 2009John D. Johnson
    
    (principal executive officer)/s/ John Schmitz
    
    Executive Vice President &
    
    October 7, 2009John Schmitz
    
    Chief Financial Officer
(principal financial officer)/s/ Michael Toelle
    
    Chairman of the Board
    
    October 7, 2009Michael Toelle/s/ Bruce Anderson
    
    Director
    
    October 7, 2009Bruce Anderson/s/ Donald Anthony
    
    Director
    
    October 7, 2009Donald Anthony/s/ Robert Bass
    
    Director
    
    October 7, 2009Robert Bass/s/ Dennis Carlson
    
    Director
    
    October 7, 2009Dennis Carlson/s/ Curt Eischens
    
    Director
    
    October 7, 2009Curt Eischens/s/ Steve Fritel
    
    Director
    
    October 7, 2009Steve Fritel




---



##### 



Name
    
    Title
    
    Date/s/ Jerry Hasnedl
    
    Director
    
    October 7, 2009Jerry Hasnedl/s/ David Kayser
    
    Director
    
    October 7, 2009David Kayser/s/ James Kile
    
    Director
    
    October 7, 2009James Kile/s/ Randy Knecht
    
    Director
    
    October 7, 2009Randy Knecht/s/ Greg Kruger
    
    Director
    
    October 7, 2009Greg Kruger/s/ Michael Mulcahey
    
    Director
    
    October 7, 2009Michael Mulcahey/s/ Richard Own
    
    Director
    
    October 7, 2009Richard Owen/s/ Steve Riegel
    
    Director
    
    October 7, 2009Steve Riegel/s/ Daniel Schurr
    
    Director
    
    October 7, 2009Daniel Schurr/s/ Duane Stenzel
    
    Director
    
    October 7, 2009Duane Stenzel
**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 Columbia Laboratories, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
David L. Weinberg, 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 to the best of my knowledge:
 
 (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 result of operations of the
      Company.
 
 
 /s/
      David L. Weinberg
      David
      L. Weinberg
      Chief
      Financial Officer
      March
      16, 2005