alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 32.1
                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K (the "Report") of ARC
Wireless Solutions, Inc. (the "Company") for the year ended December 31, 2004,
each of the undersigned Randall P. Marx, the Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, and Monty R. Lamirato, the Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
hereby certifies 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 the
undersigneds' knowledge and belief:

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

     (2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.



Dated:  March 15, 2006                 /s/ Randall P. Marx
                                       -------------------
                                       Randall P. Marx
                                       Chief Executive Officer


Dated:  March 15, 2006                 /s/ Monty R. Lamirato
                                       ---------------------
                                       Monty R. Lamirato
                                       Chief Financial Officer
##### 



Exhibit 32.2 Visual Networks, Inc. Written Statement of Chief Financial Officer
Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 The undersigned, the Chief Financial Officer of Visual Networks, Inc. (the Company), hereby
certifies that, to his knowledge, on the date hereof:  (a)
    the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended March 31,
2005 filed on the date hereof with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report)
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934; and(b)
    information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company. /s/ Donald E. ClarkeDonald E. ClarkeExecutive Vice President and Chief Financial OfficerMay 6, 2005
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM BRUNSWICK
TECHNOLOGIES, INC.'S CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AS OF AND FOR THE YEAR
ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.  AMOUNTS ARE ROUNDED TO THOUSANDS (EXCEPT FOR PER SHARE
AMOUNTS).
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED> 
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                             355
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,658
<ALLOWANCES>                                        39
<INVENTORY>                                      3,263
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 6,726
<PP&E>                                           7,454
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,453
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  18,634
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            5,314
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      6,589
<COMMON>                                           464
<OTHER-SE>                                         (5)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    18,634
<SALES>                                         19,816
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                19,816
<CGS>                                           15,318
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    3,621
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (303)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 252
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    928
<INCOME-TAX>                                       335
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                593
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       593
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.29
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.26
        

</TABLE>
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1827 

To allow funds under title II of the Elementary and Secondary Education 

Act of 1965 to be used to provide training to school personnel regarding 

how to recognize child sexual abuse. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 15, 2015 

Mr. TAKANO introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Education and the Workforce 

A BILL 

To allow funds under title II of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to be used to provide 

training to school personnel regarding how to recognize 

child sexual abuse. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Helping Schools Pro5 tect Our Children Act of 2015’’. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1827 IH

1 SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. 

2 Section 2103(a) of the Elementary and Secondary 

3 Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6603(a)) is amended 

4 by striking ‘‘2002’’ and inserting ‘‘2016’’. 

5 SEC. 3. TRAINING TEACHERS TO RECOGNIZE CHILD SEX6 UAL ABUSE. 

7 (a) STATE ACTIVITIES.—Section 2113(c) of the Ele8 mentary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 

9 6613(c)) is amended by adding at the end the following: 

10 ‘‘(19) Providing training for all school per11 sonnel, including teachers, principals, and pupil serv12 ices personnel, regarding how to recognize child sex13 ual abuse.’’. 

14 (b) LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCY ACTIVITIES.— 

15 Section 2123(a) of the Elementary and Secondary Edu16 cation Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6623(a)) is amended by 

17 inserting after paragraph (8) the following: 

18 ‘‘(9) Providing training for all school personnel, 

19 including teachers, principals, and pupil services per20 sonnel, regarding how to recognize child sexual 

21 abuse.’’. 

22 (c) ELIGIBLE PARTNERSHIP ACTIVITIES.—Section 

23 2134(a) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 

24 of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6634(a)) is amended— 

25 (1) in paragraph (1)(B), by striking ‘‘and’’ 

26 after the semicolon; 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 1827 IH

1 (2) in paragraph (2)(C), by striking the period 

2 at the end and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and 

3 (3) by adding at the end the following: 

4 ‘‘(3) providing training for school personnel, in5 cluding teachers, principals, and pupil services per6 sonnel, regarding how to recognize child sexual 

7 abuse.’’. 

Æ 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 96-60368

Conference Calendar

 

JAMES M. LYLE, IV, ET AL.,

Plaintiffs,

JAMES M. LYLE, IV; CHARLES HAMPTON,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

versus

JOE PRICE, Sheriff; RICK GASTON, Capt., Warden;

FIDELITY AND DEPOSIT COMPANY OF MARYLAND,

Defendants-Appellees.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 1:92-CV-578-GR

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

December 15, 1999

Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

James M. Lyle, IV (Prisoner No. 02386) and Charles Hampton

(Prisoner No. 03230-043) seek leave to proceed in forma pauperis

(IFP), following the district court’s certification that their

appeals from the judgment in favor of the defendants in a civilrights complaint are taken in bad faith. Lyle and Hampton argue 
No. 96-60368

-2-

that the district court was clearly erroneous in finding that

there was no factual basis for their claims. 

Neither Hampton nor Lyle have shown that they can bring any

claims of arguable merit on appeal. Accordingly, both IFP

motions are DENIED and the appeal is DISMISSED. 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. 

IFP DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                     EXHIBIT 21


                     LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES OF THE COMPANY


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                        JURISDICTION OF
                                       INCORPORATION OR
NAME                                     ORGANIZATION
----                                     ------------
<S>                                    <C>
LCC Design Services, L.L.C.                  Delaware
LCC Development Company, L.L.C.              Delaware
LCC Europe GmbH                              Germany
Eurofon de France S.A.R.L.                   France
LCC, United Kingdom                    United Kingdom
Microcell Management, Inc.                   Delaware
LCC International AS                         Norway
LCC do Brazil                                Brazil
LCC Asia Pacific PTE. LTD.                   Singapore
</TABLE>
114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1737 

AN ACT 

To nullify certain guidance of the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection and to provide requirements for guidance issued by the Bureau with respect to indirect auto 

lending. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 1737 EH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Reforming CFPB Indi3 rect Auto Financing Guidance Act’’. 

4 SEC. 2. NULLIFICATION OF AUTO LENDING GUIDANCE. 

5 Bulletin 2013–02 of the Bureau of Consumer Finan6 cial Protection (published March 21, 2013) shall have no 

7 force or effect. 

8 SEC. 3. GUIDANCE REQUIREMENTS. 

9 Section 1022(b) of the Consumer Financial Protec10 tion Act of 2010 (12 U.S.C. 5512(b)) is amended by add11 ing at the end the following: 

12 ‘‘(5) GUIDANCE ON INDIRECT AUTO FINANC13 ING.—In proposing and issuing guidance primarily 

14 related to indirect auto financing, the Bureau 

15 shall— 

16 ‘‘(A) provide for a public notice and com17 ment period before issuing the guidance in final 

18 form; 

19 ‘‘(B) make available to the public, includ20 ing on the website of the Bureau, all studies, 

21 data, methodologies, analyses, and other infor22 mation relied on by the Bureau in preparing 

23 such guidance; 

24 ‘‘(C) redact any information that is exempt 

25 from disclosure under paragraph (3), (4), (6), 
3 

•HR 1737 EH

1 (7), or (8) of section 552(b) of title 5, United 

2 States Code; 

3 ‘‘(D) consult with the Board of Governors 

4 of the Federal Reserve System, the Federal 

5 Trade Commission, and the Department of Jus6 tice; and 

7 ‘‘(E) conduct a study on the costs and im8 pacts of such guidance to consumers and 

9 women-owned, minority-owned, veteran-owned, 

10 and small businesses, including consumers and 

11 small businesses in rural areas.’’. 

12 SEC. 4. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION. 

13 Nothing in this Act shall be construed to apply to 

14 guidance issued by the Bureau of Consumer Financial 

15 Protection that is not primarily related to indirect auto 

16 financing. 

Passed the House of Representatives November 18, 

2015. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 
114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1737 

AN ACT 

To nullify certain guidance of the Bureau of Conwith respect to indirect auto lending. quirements for guidance issued by the Bureau sumer Financial Protection and to provide re-
#### RUTH WILLIAMS, PETITIONER-RESPONDENT, v. CORBY’S ENTERPRISE LAUNDRY, RESPONDENT-PETITIONER.

*Mr. Isidor Kalisch*for the petitioner.

*Mr. Herman M. Wilson*for the respondent.

February 27, 1961.

Denied.
#### The People of the State of New York, Appellant, v Juan Hernandez, Respondent.

— Appeal by the People from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Heller, J.), dated March 29, 1985, which, after a hearing, granted the defendant’s motion to suppress evidence.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law and the facts, the defendant’s motion to suppress is denied, and matter remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for further proceedings.

The defendant was charged with criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, and a hearing was held on his motion to suppress certain evidence. At the hearing, Police Officer Riley testified that at 10:55 p.m. on October 8, 1984, he and his partner were flagged down by an unidentified Hispanic woman. She told the officers that an armed male Hispanic was dealing drugs out of a maroon car about a half block away. The woman pointed the car out to the officers, but then left the scene.

The officers approached the vehicle to investigate. A pedestrian who had been speaking to the defendant, who was the vehicle’s driver and sole occupant, walked away, and the defendant started the car and began to pull away from the curb. The officers followed and stopped him, however, and Officer Riley exited his vehicle to question the defendant. As he approached, Riley saw the defendant lean over towards the passenger side of the vehicle. The officer asked the defendant for his license and registration, and directed him to step out of the car; he then turned his flashlight into the car and saw a gun on the floor of the passenger side.

Based on the above testimony, the Supreme Court, Kings County, granted the defendant’s motion to suppress, on the ground that the police were not possessed of information sufficient to provide the basis for a stop. We disagree and reverse.

The information given to the police by the unidentified woman was sufficient to justify the police attempt to stop and question the defendant *(see, People v Russ,*61 NY2d 693, 694). As the initial stop was therefore lawful, the subsequent direction that the defendant exit the vehicle was also proper, *493particularly in light of the defendant’s movements in the car at the officer’s approach *(see, People v Russ, supra; Pennsylvania v Mimms,*434 US 106; *People v Landy,*59 NY2d 369, 376; *People v Benjamin,*51 NY2d 267, 271). Further, shining the flashlight into the car was not an unreasonable intrusion as the contents of the car were in plain view, but for the dark *(People v Cruz,*34 NY2d 362, 370; *People v Duncan,*75 AD2d 823, 824). The defendant’s motion to suppress must, therefore, be denied, and the case remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for further proceedings. Fiber, J. P., Kunzeman, Kooper and Spatt, JJ., concur.
#### SINERSON v. THE STATE.

(Decided May 15, 1913.)

Appeal from Lowndes Circuit Court.

Heard before Hon. A. E. Gamble.

No counsel marked for appellant.

R. C. Briokell, Attorney General, for the State.

Per curiam.

Affirmed on certificate. .
GCMRC, Cooperator, and Tribal River Trips and Field Activities, 

January-December 2020 

Launch Take 

out Project Number, Agency, and Project Description Location 

21-Jan 29-Jan Project H, GCMRC, Lees Ferry Trout Monitoring Glen Canyon

13-Feb 28-Feb Project A, GCMRC, Water Quality and Sediment Monitoring Grand Canyon

10-Mar 13-Mar Project H, AGFD, Lees Ferry Trout Monitoring Glen Canyon

16-Jun 2-Jul Project D, GCMRC, Cultural Resources Monitoring Grand Canyon

19-Jun 26-Jun Project H, GCMRC, Lees Ferry Trout Monitoring Glen Canyon

21-Jun 6-Jul Project I, AGFD, Mainstem Fish Monitoring Grand Canyon

5-Jul 26-Jul Project G, GCMRC, Juvenile Humpback Chub Monitoring: 

JCM & JCM west Grand Canyon

10-Jul 20-Jul Project F, GCMRC, Aquatic Food Base Monitoring Grand Canyon

15-Jul 19-Jul Project H, AZGFD, Lees Ferry Trout Monitoring Glen Canyon

12-Aug 28-Aug Project A, GCMRC, Water Quality and Sediment Monitoring Grand Canyon

14-Aug 17-Aug Project C, GCMRC, Terrestrial Vegetation Monitoring Glen Canyon

26-Aug 11-Sep Project C, GCMRC, Terrestrial Vegetation Monitoring Grand Canyon

2-Sep 18-Sep Project I, USFWS, Mainstem Fish Monitoring Grand Canyon

15-Sep 21-Sep Project H, GCMRC, Lees Ferry Trout Monitoring Glen Canyon

14-Sep 27-Sep Project I, GCMRC, Mainstem Fish Monitoring (Seining) Grand Canyon

15-Sep 25-Sep Project G, USFWS, Little Colorado River Humpback Chub 

Monitoring

Little Colorado 

River

21-Sep 25-Sep Project H, AGFD, Lees Ferry Trout Monitoring Glen Canyon

30-Sep 16-Oct Project B, GCMRC, Sandbar and Campsite Monitoring Grand Canyon

3-Oct 9-Oct Project I, USFW, Diamond Down Fish Monitoring Grand Canyon

2-Oct 23-Oct Project G, GCMRC, Juvenile Humpback Chub Monitoring: 

JCM east & JCM west Grand Canyon

14-Oct 24-Oct Project G, USFWS, Little Colorado River Humpback Chub 

Monitoring

Little Colorado 

River

22-Oct 26-Oct Project I, AGFD, Diamond Down Fish Monitoring Grand Canyon

4-Nov 12-Nov Project G, GCMRC, LCR MUX Antenna Installation Little Colorado 

River

6-Nov 10-Nov Project H, GCMRC, Lees Ferry Trout Monitoring Glen Canyon
#### CSFB 2004-C3 Bronx Apts LLC, Appellant-Respondent, v Sinckler, Inc., Respondent-Appellant, et al., Defendants.

[949 NYS2d 21]

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Norma Ruiz, J.), entered on or about February 16, 2012, which, insofar as appealed from, denied plaintiffs motion for summary judgment foreclosing a commercial mortgage and dismissing defendant Sinckler, Inc.’s defenses and affirmative defenses, granted the part of Sinckler’s motion that sought to vacate a prior order appointing a receiver and denied the part that sought summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground of standing, unanimously modified, on the law, to grant plaintiffs motion, and to deny the part of Sinckler’s motion that sought to vacate the order appointing a receiver, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

The record establishes that plaintiff was validly assigned the note and mortgage that is the subject of this foreclosure action *(see Bank of N.Y. v Silverberg,*86 AD3d 274, 280-281 [2011]). Although Sinckler asserted a number of defenses and affirmative defenses, its entire argument is premised upon the contention that plaintiff lacks standing to bring this action because the assignment was invalid. Thus, since this argument lacks merit, plaintiff should have been granted summary judgment on its foreclosure claim. We note that Sinckler admits in its papers on appeal that if plaintiff has standing, then there are no triable issues of fact.

The mortgage agreement provides for the appointment of a receiver, in an action to foreclose the mortgage, “as a matter of strict right and without notice to Mortgagor and without regard to the adequacy of the Property for the repayment of the *681indebtedness secured hereby.” Thus, plaintiff was entitled, “without notice and without regard to adequacy of any security of the debt, to the appointment of a receiver of the rents and profits of the premises covered by the mortgage” (Real Property Law § 254 [10]; *see Naar v Litwak & Co.,*260 AD2d 613 [1999]). Under the circumstances, vacatur of the order appointing the receiver was not warranted *(see Naar,*260 AD2d at 614-615). Concur — Saxe, J.P., Friedman, Renwick, DeGrasse and Richter, JJ.
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group

March 8‐9, 2011

List of Attachments

No. Attachment Presenter / Author

1 Action Item Tracking Report Shane Capron

2 Proposed Knowledge Assessment II Steps (Workshops) During FY 11 PPT and 2005

Knowledge Assessment of the Effects of Glen Canyon Dam on the Colorado

Ecosystem: An Experimental Planning Support Document dated Aug. 30, 2006

Ted Melis

3 Updates on USBR Environmental Documents PPT Glen Knowles

4a Table 3 ‐ Socioeconomic Implementation Plan Shane Capron

Helen Fairley

4b Federal Register Notice prepared by NPS dated Feb. 8, 2011. Action: Agency

Information Collection Activities: Proposed Information Collection; Colorado River

Valuation Survey.

Bruce Peacock

4c Economic Values of National Park System Resources Along the Colorado River: A

Proposal for Estimating Magnitude and Significance  

4d White Paper: Economic Values of National Park System Resources Within the

Colorado River Watershed dated April 17, 2006

4e Final Report: Economic Values of National Park System Resources Within the

Colorado River Watershed: Phase II

5a 2012 Hydrograph Development PPT Dave Trueman

5b WY2012 Hydrograph: Grand Canyon Trust Rick Johnson

6a A Genetic Management Plan for Captive and Translocated Endangered  

Humpback Chub in the Lower Colorado River Basin dated November 2010 Wade Wilson

6b Genetics Management Plan PPT

7 Goal 3. Extirpated Species Ad Hoc Group Report PPT Larry Stevens

8 FY 2010 Annual Reporting Meeting & Direction to BAHG

Notes and Recommendations for follow‐up or FY 2012 Budget/Workplan Changes Shane Capron

9a Fiscal Year 2010 Science Advisors Report to the GCDAMP  and PPT

Dave Garrett

9b A Prospectus to Evaluate Tradeoff and Decision Support Methods for the

GCDAMP and PPT

9c Review of TWG Developed Appendix and Related Changes to the GCMRC Draft

Core Monitoring Plan

10a Appendix B, TWG Review and Approval of Individual Core Monitoring Plans  

Shane Capron 10b General Core Monitoring Plan dated February 18, 2011

10c General Core Monitoring Plan Criteria Development PPT

10d General Core Monitoring – Structured Decision Making Process handout

11 Guidelines for Productive Group Interaction handout Mary Orton
EXHIBIT 32.1



SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER



Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and in connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of
Caremark Rx, Inc. (the Corporation) for the period ended June 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, the Chief Executive Officer of the Corporation,
certifies that:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Corporation.
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                       
|-----------------------
|Date: August 8, 2005   
|                       
|/s/ E. Mac Crawford    
|E. Mac Crawford        
|Chief Executive Officer