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



Informational Addendum to Report on Form 10-K

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



Not Filed Pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934



The undersigned Chief Executive Officer of OYO Geospace Corporation do hereby certify as follows:



Solely for the purpose of meeting the requirements of Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and solely to the extent this certification may be applicable to this Report on Form 10-Q, the undersigned hereby certify that this Report on Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in this Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of OYO Geospace Corporation.



/s/    Gary D. OwensName:    Gary D. OwensTitle:      Chief Executive OfficerAugust 11, 2003
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19
- 1798

LEO LIONEL PAYNE , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. JESSICA MANGUM, Prosecuting Attorney, in her individual and official capacity , Defendant

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Columbia

. J. Michelle Childs , District Judge. ( 3:18

- cv
- 01993

- JMC )

Submitted : November 21 , 2019 Decided: November 25, 2019

Before KEENAN and DIAZ , Circuit Judges , and SHEDD , Senior Circuit Judge

.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Leo Lionel Payne, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Leo Lionel Payne appeals the district court’s or der accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2012) and dismissing as moot his motion for default judgment

. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Payne v. Mangum , No. 3:18

- cv
- 01993

- JMC (D.S.C. July 23, 2019) . We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
**Exhibit 23**

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

To Intelligroup, Inc. 

 We consent to the incorporationby reference in Intelligroup, Inc.’s (the “Company”) RegistrationStatements (File Nos. 333-11486, 333-31809, 333-56143, 333-67583, 333-73051,333-94285 and 333-70244) of our reports dated October 3, 2005, appearing in thisAnnual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2004. 

/s/ J.H. Cohn LLP 

Roseland, New Jersey October 20, 2005 

 

----
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

AMMON BUNDY; et al.,

 Defendants - Appellants.

No. 16-30080

D.C. No. 3:16-cr-00051-BR-1

District of Oregon, 

Portland

ORDER

Before: REINHARDT, MURGUIA, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

Appellant’s unopposed motion to expedite this appeal is granted. The Clerk

shall calendar this case during the month of June, 2016. See 9th Cir. Gen. Ord.

3.3.g. 

Briefing is complete.

FILED

MAY 09 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

SLL/MOATT

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 532 Filed 05/10/16 Page 1 of 1
NORTH CHANNEL CONEJOS RIVER NEAR LA SAUSESLatitude: 37.3Longitude: -105.746Elevation: 7506

NORTH CHANNEL CONEJOS RIVER NEAR LA SAUSES

Courtesy NRCS - Go to San Antonio Sink Site Page...



San Antonio Sink

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Cumbres Trestle Site Page...



Cumbres Trestle

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Lily Pond Site Page...



Lily Pond
# L_2018102EN.01010001.xml

| 23.4.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 102/100 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.4.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 102/100

---

Corrigendum to Commission Decision 2010/270/EU of 6 May 2010 amending Parts 1 and 2 of Annex E to Council Directive 92/65/EEC as regards the model health certificates for animals from holdings and for bees and bumble bees (notified under document C(2010) 2624)

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 118 of 12 May 2010
  )

On page 61, in the Annex, point 2, in the certificate, vertical title on the left:

for:

‘... ofconsinment ...’,

read:

‘... of consignment ...’.

---
**Exhibit32.2**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OFTHE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of Blount International, Inc. (the “Company”)on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, James S.Osterman, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 ofthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(i)            The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

(ii)           The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company as of the datesand for the periods expressed in the report.

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906 has been provided to BlountInternational, Inc. and will be retained by Blount International, Inc. andfurnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

Date:August 8, 2006
| /s/Calvin E. Jenness      |   |
|---------------------------|--------|
| Calvin E. Jenness         |
| Senior Vice President and |
| Chief Financial Officer   |

 

----
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SANDRA AGRAZ, an individual,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

GOLDEN EMPIRE MORTGAGE, INC.; et al.,

Defendants

- Appellees. No. 17

- 55037

D.C. No. 2:16

- cv

- 07088

- PA

- AS

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California Percy Anderson, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 18, 2017 **

Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

Sandra Agraz appeals from the district court’s order dismissing her federal

claims alleging violations of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act

(“RESPA”) and the Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”) . We have jurisdiction under

28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review d e novo a dismissal on the basis of the statute of

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

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

# FILED

DEC 21 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 17

- 55037

limitations and under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Cholla Ready Mix, Inc. v. Civish

,

382 F.3d 969, 973 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Agraz’s RESPA claim and TILA

damages claim because these claims are barred by the applicable statutes of

limitation and Agraz failed to allege facts demonstrating that equitable tolling

should apply. See 12 U.S.C. § 2614 (RESPA claims are su bject to one

- and three

year statutes of limitation ); 15 U.S.C. § 1640(e) (TILA damages claims are subject

to a one

- year statute of limitations); Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.

,

656 F.3d 1034, 1045 (9th Cir. 2011) (federal standard for equitable tolling).

The district court properly dismissed Agraz’s TILA rescission claim because

Agraz failed to allege facts sufficient to show that she exercised the right to rescind

within three years of the consummation of her loan

. See 15 U.S.C. § 1635(f)

(borrower ’s right to rescind “shall expire three year s after the date of

consummation of the transaction or upon the earlier sale of the property” ); see also

Jesinoski v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. , 135 S. Ct. 790, 792 (2015)

( “[R]escission is effected when the borrower notifies the creditor of his intenti on to

rescind.” ).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Agraz’s federal

claims without leave to amend because amendment would be futile. See

Cervantes , 656 F.3d at 1041 (setting forth standard of review and explaining that a3 17

- 55037

distr ict court may dismiss without leave to amend where amendment would be

futile).

AFFIRMED.
##### 



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 Quarterly Report of Hyperion Solutions Corporation (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2004 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report),
I, David W. Odell, 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:  (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: May 10, 2004 /s/ DAVID W. ODELL
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee, v. Ernesto V. SAMPSON, Private, U. S. Army, Appellant.

No. 30,690.

U. S. Court of Military Appeals.

Jan. 23, 1976.

*Colonel Alton H. Harvey*and *Captain John R. Osgood*were on the pleadings for Appellant, Accused.

*Major John T. Sherwood, Jr., Captain Richard S. Kleager,*and *Captain Larry R. McDowell*were on the pleadings for Appellee, United States.

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM:

At his trial by a military judge sitting alone as a special court-martial, the accused was convicted of an offense that was charged as noncapital under Article 134, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. *267§ 934, and specifically alleged that it violated section 1001 of title 18 of the United States Code. The finding is supported by accused’s plea of guilty as well as statements that he made during the providence inquiry. The petition, however, was granted on an issue which involves the legality of the sentence that included a bad-conduct discharge, partial forfeitures for 6 months, and confinement at hard labor for 4 months.

The problem is not unique. Previously, when considering similar questions, this Court has held that a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001 laid as a crime or offense not capital under Article 134, UCMJ, “is closely related” to a violation of Article 107, UCMJ, for sentence purposes. *United States v. Kuchinsky,*17 U.S.C.M.A. 93, 96, 37 C.M.R. 357, 360 (1967); *United States v. DeAngelo,*15 U.S.C.M.A. 423, 35 C.M.R. 395 (1965); *United States v. Middleton,*12 U.S.C.M.A. 54, 30 C.M.R. 54 (1960). Furthermore, because the misconduct does not charge the signing of an official document and the accused is not a noncommissioned officer, the legal maximum punishment may not exceed confinement at hard labor for 3 months and forfeitures of two-thirds pay for a like period.1 Therefore, the approved sentence is illegal.

Although a rehearing on sentence might be appropriate under other circumstances, this course is not warranted. The record reflects that accused has been separated from the service and the unexecuted portion of his sentence extending to confinement and forfeitures was suspended with a provision for remission effective September 18, 1974, which was less than 3 months after his trial on June 28,1974. Accordingly, to terminate these proceedings, we affirm only that portion of the confinement and forfeitures that ran from the date of the imposition of sentence to the date the unexecuted portion of the confinement and forfeitures was ordered suspended.2 As modified, the decision of the Court of Military Review is affirmed.

1

. Table of Maximum Punishments, paragraph 127c, Section A, Manual for Courts-Martial, United States, 1969 (Rev.).

2

. Article 57(a) and (b), UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. §§ 857(a) and (b).
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
ACCOMPANYING CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                          30,469
<SECURITIES>                                    31,954
<RECEIVABLES>                                   55,686
<ALLOWANCES>                                     3,886
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               122,384
<PP&E>                                          12,878
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 144,532
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           58,553
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             2
<OTHER-SE>                                      67,389
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   144,532
<SALES>                                         52,840
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                95,752
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   26,008
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                60,955
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 10,022
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,908
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              6,114
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     6,114
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .27
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .25


</TABLE>
WILC - WILLOW CREEKLatitude: 41.893Longitude: -121.027Elevation: None

WILC - Willow Creek

Courtesy NRCS - Go to State Line Site Page...



State Line

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Strawberry Site Page...



Strawberry

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Crowder Flat Site Page...



Crowder Flat
197, 179 P.3d•556, 558 (2008); Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120

Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004); Smith ix Eighth Judicial Din. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 679, 818 P.2d 849, 851, 853 (1991). Accordingly, we ORDER the petition DENIED.
Saitta Gibbons Pickering

cc: Hon. Scott N. Freeman, District Judge Fahrendorf, Viloria, Oliphant & Oster, LLP Zupancic Rothbone Law Group P.C. Law Offices of Jerry Carter, PC Washoe District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 J.
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2168 Introduced in House (IH)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2168

To make the current Dungeness crab fishery management regime permanent 
                        and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 30, 2015

Ms. Herrera Beutler (for herself, Mr. Larsen of Washington, Mr. Kilmer, 
Mr. DeFazio, and Mr. Schrader) introduced the following bill; which was 
             referred to the Committee on Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To make the current Dungeness crab fishery management regime permanent 
                        and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``West Coast Dungeness Crab Management 
Act''.

SEC. 2. DUNGENESS CRAB FISHERY MANAGEMENT.

    Section 203 of the Act entitled ``An Act to approve a governing 
international agreement between the United States and the Republic of 
Poland, and for other purposes'', approved November 13, 1998 (Public 
Law 105-384; 16 U.S.C. 1856 note) is amended--
            (1) by striking subsection (i); and
            (2) by redesignating subsection (j) as subsection (i).
                                 <all>
```
#### The People of the State of New York, Appellant, v David L. Reynolds, Respondent.

Memorandum: The People appeal from an order dismissing an indictment which charged defendant with 10 counts of grand larceny in the second degree (Penal Law § 155.35) and nine counts of issuing a bad check (Penal Law § 190.05 [1]). Defendant, an accountant, was charged with swindling large sums of money from his friends and clients during a four-year period. The hearing court, after reviewing the Grand Jury minutes in camera, concluded that the cumulative effect of the admission of hearsay and opinion evidence coupled with inadequate legal instructions mandated dismissal of the indictment. We disagree.

Viewing this record in the light most favorable to the People *(People v Warner-Lambert Co.,*51 NY2d 295, 299, *cert denied*450 US 1031), we conclude that the evidence before the Grand Jury, if unexplained and uncontradicted, would warrant conviction by a trial jury *(People v Dunleavy,*41 AD2d 717, *affd*33 NY2d 573; *People v Lancaster,*114 AD2d 92, *lv granted*67 NY2d 945; *People v Potwora,*44 AD2d 207, 210), and that the Grand Jury was properly instructed on the substantive law *(see, People v Goetz,*68 NY2d 96, 115-116; *People v Calbud, Inc.,*49 NY2d 389, 394-395). Therefore, it was error for the court to dismiss the indictment on grounds other than legal insufficiency since defendant had only raised the sufficiency of evidence and prosecutorial misconduct in his motion to dismiss the indictment *(People v Novack,*74 AD2d 652). (Appeal from order of Cattaraugus County Court, Sprague, J. — dismiss indictment.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Denman, Green, Pine and Balio, JJ.
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2126 

To prohibit the Secretary of Health and Human Services from replacing 

ICD–9 with ICD–10 in implementing the HIPAA code set standards. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 30, 2015 

Mr. POE of Texas (for himself, Mr. FARENTHOLD, Mr. ROGERS of Alabama, 

Mr. BROOKS of Alabama, Mr. GRIFFITH, Mr. TOM PRICE of Georgia, and 

Mr. ROE of Tennessee) introduced the following bill; which was referred 

to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined 

by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall 

within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To prohibit the Secretary of Health and Human Services 

from replacing ICD–9 with ICD–10 in implementing the 

HIPAA code set standards. 

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 ‘‘Cutting Costly Codes 

5 Act of 2015’’. 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2126 IH

1 SEC. 2. PROHIBITING REPLACEMENT OF ICD–9 WITH ICD–10 

2 IN IMPLEMENTING HIPAA CODE SET STAND3 ARDS. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of Health and 

5 Human Services may not implement, administer, or en6 force the regulations issued on January 16, 2009 (74 Fed. 

7 Reg. 3328), the regulation issued on September 5, 2012 

8 (77 Fed. Reg. 54664), or any similar regulation, insofar 

9 as any such regulation provides for the replacement of 

10 ICD–9 with ICD–10 as a standard for code sets under 

11 section 1173(c) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 

12 1320d–2(c)) and section 162.1002 of title 45, Code of 

13 Federal Regulations. 

14 (b) GAO REPORT ON ICD–9 REPLACEMENT.— 

15 (1) STUDY.—The Comptroller General of the 

16 United States, in consultation with stakeholders in 

17 the medical community, shall conduct a study to 

18 identify steps that can be taken to mitigate the dis19 ruption on health care providers resulting from a re20 placement of ICD–9 as such a standard. 

21 (2) REPORT.—Not later than 6 months after 

22 the date of the enactment of this Act, the Comp23 troller General shall submit to each House of Con24 gress a report on such study. Such report shall in25 clude such recommendations respecting such replace26 ment and such legislative and administrative steps 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 2126 IH

1 as may be appropriate to mitigate the disruption re2 sulting from such replacement as the Comptroller 

3 General determines appropriate. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Richard Kelly, True Name Richard Kelley, Appellant.

After viewing the evidence in this case in the light most favorable to the People, we conclude that the evidence clearly proves the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt *(see, People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620).

Further, the defendant’s claim that the trial court improperly limited the scope of cross-examination of the victim is without merit. It is well settled that the scope of cross-examination rests largely in the sound discretion of the court *(see, People v Mandel,*48 NY2d 952, *cert denied and appeal dismissed*446 US 949, *reh denied*448 US 908). In the instant case the court properly exercised its discretion in not permitting cross-examination regarding complainant’s living with her mother and losing custody of her child, which were collateral to the issue involved *(see, People v Jackson,*124 AD2d 823 [No. 67] [decided herewith]).

The defendant’s claim that certain comments made by the prosecutor during his summation were prejudicial is similarly without merit. Initially, we note that all but one of the defendant’s claims in this area are unpreserved for appellate review *(see,*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Dordal,*55 NY2d 954; *826
      *People v Jones,*89 AD2d 875). In any event, it is clear upon the record that the prosecutor’s appeal to the jury was entirely reasonable and permissible since it rested on evidence which was properly before the jury and was in direct response to the defense counsel’s attack on the complainant’s credibility *(see, People v Galloway,*54 NY2d 396; *People v Lawrence,*91 AD2d 642; *People v Arce,*42 NY2d 179; *People v Gilmore,*106 AD2d 399). Mangano, J. P., Weinstein, Lawrence and Eiber, JJ., concur.
# L_2009224EN.01002101.xml

| 27.8.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 224/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.8.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 224/21

---

Corrigendum to Council Regulation (EC) No 428/2009 of 5 May 2009 setting up a Community regime for the control of exports, transfer, brokering and transit of dual-use items

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 134 of 29 May 2009
  )

Official Journal of the European Union L 134 of 29 May 2009

On page 268, Annex VI, correlation table:

Line 8, which reads:

| ‘— | Article 2(2)(iv)’ |
| --- | --- |

‘—

Article 2(2)(iv)’

shall be deleted.

---
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








I, Scott
Scherr, Chief Executive Officer of The Ultimate Software Group, Inc., hereby
certify to the best of my knowledge and belief that this Annual Report on Form
10-K fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)) and that the
information contained in this Annual Report on Form 10-K fairly represents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of The
Ultimate Software Group, Inc.




/s/ Scott
Scherr


Scott
Scherr


Chief
Executive Officer




Date: March
2, 2009