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 of Trycera Financial (the “Company”) on Form
10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the “Report”), the undersigned principal executive and
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:





(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.





Date:
 April 15, 2009








/s/ Ray A. Smith


Ray Smith
*, President


(Principal
Executive Officer)
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2575 

To amend the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007 to postpone a scheduled 

increase in the minimum wage applicable to American Samoa. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 26, 2015 

Mrs. RADEWAGEN introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Education and the Workforce 

A BILL 

To amend the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007 to postpone 

a scheduled increase in the minimum wage applicable 

to American Samoa. 

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

3 SECTION 1. MINIMUM WAGE APPLICABLE TO AMERICAN 

4 SAMOA. 

5 Section 8103(b)(2)(C) of the Fair Minimum Wage 

6 Act of 2007 (29 U.S.C. 206(b)(2)(C) note) is amended 

7 by striking ‘‘and 2014’’ and inserting ‘‘2014, 2015, and 

8 2016’’. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
SIMONE M. WRIGHT, CSR 

C E R T I F I E D C O U R T R E P O R T E R

368th District Court 

 405 Martin Luther King, Box 8 simonewrightcourtreporter@gmail.com 

 Georgetown, Texas 78626 Ph. (512) 943-1280 

 

 

 

October 24, 2015

MR. JEFFREY D. KYLE

Court of Appeals

Third District of Texas

P.O. Box 12547

Austin, Texas 78711-2547

(512) 463-1733

Re: Court of Appeals No. 03-15-00469-CR

Trial Court Case No. 12-0702-K277

James Michael Reser vs. The State of Texas

Dear Mr. Kyle,

Due to formatting problems, enclosed please find the hard copies of State’s Exhibits Nos. 41, 42, 

105, 106, and 123, which were marked in the trial of the above-mentioned cause. The exhibit 

volume sent via the TAMES portal included all exhibits except these five CDs/DVDs. 

Please file these exhibits with the appropriate case.

If you have any questions at all, please do not hesitate to ask.

If you wouldn’t mind, please confirm receipt to the email address listed in the header above.

Thank you very much,

Simone M. Wright

Certified Court Reporter

Job No. 169
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally

disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may

be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

** After examining the briefs and appellate record, this three-judge panel has

determined that oral argument would not be of material assistance in the determination of

this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered

submitted without oral argument.

F I L E D

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

OCT 8 1998

PATRICK FISHER

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

 

BENNY FRED HILL,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. No. 98-6220

GLENN COWART,

Defendant-Appellee.

(D.C. No. 96-CV-2139)

(W.D. Okla.)

 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

 

Before BALDOCK, EBEL, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.**

 

Plaintiff Benny Fred Hill appeals the district court’s decision granting summary

judgment in favor of Defendant. We review the district court’s grant of summary

judgment de novo. United States v. Jenks, 129 F.3d 1348, 1352 (10th Cir. 1997). 

Applying this standard, we affirm.
2

Plaintiff is an inmate at the James Crabtree Correctional Center in Helena,

Oklahoma. On December 27, 1996, Plaintiff filed suit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983

alleging that Defendant violated his civil rights in connection with Defendant’s acts of

arresting Plaintiff for public intoxication and later testifying about the arrest before a

parole board. Specifically, Plaintiff alleged that Defendant: (1) violated his Eighth and

Fourteenth Amendment rights to receive medical care; (2) violated his Fourth and

Fourteenth Amendment rights to be free from unlawful searches and seizures; and (3)

violated his First, Fourth, Sixth, Eighth, Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendment rights by

slanderously accusing him of committing a crime. 

Defendant moved to dismiss the complaint and submitted evidence in support of

the motion. The district court referred the case to a magistrate. In a thorough and wellreasoned report and recommendation, the magistrate, treating the motion to dismiss as

one for summary judgment, recommended that the district court grant summary judgment

in favor of Defendant. In his report, the magistrate found that Plaintiff’s claims did not

rise to the level of a constitutional violation and, alternatively, that Defendant was entitled

to qualified immunity. The district court adopted the magistrate’s recommendation and

entered summary judgment in Defendant’s favor.
3

We have reviewed the parties’ briefs, the district court’s order, the magistrate’s

report and recommendation and the entire record before us. We conclude the district

court committed no reversible error. 

AFFIRMED.

Entered for the Court,

Bobby R. Baldock

Circuit Judge
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 581 

To eliminate automatic pay adjustments for Members of Congress, and for 

other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 15, 2009 

Mr. LATTA (for himself, Ms. LUMMIS, Mr. OLSON, Mr. MCCOTTER, Mr. JORDAN of Ohio, Mr. GOODLATTE, and Mr. COBLE) introduced the following 

bill; which was referred to the Committee on House Administration, and 

in addition to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, 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 eliminate automatic pay adjustments for Members of 

Congress, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. ELIMINATION OF AUTOMATIC PAY ADJUST4 MENTS FOR MEMBERS OF CONGRESS. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Paragraph (2) of section 601(a) 

6 of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (2 U.S.C. 

7 31(2)) is repealed. 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with BILLS
2 

•HR 581 IH

1 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—Section 601(a)(1) 

2 of such Act is amended— 

3 (1) by striking ‘‘(a)(1)’’ and inserting ‘‘(a)’’; 

4 (2) by redesignating subparagraphs (A), (B), 

5 and (C) as paragraphs (1), (2), and (3), respectively; 

6 and 

7 (3) by striking ‘‘, as adjusted by paragraph (2) 

8 of this subsection’’. 

9 SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE. 

10 This Act and the amendments made by this Act shall 

11 take effect on December 31, 2010. 

Æ 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with BILLS
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2458 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.2458

                     One Hundred Fourteenth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

           Begun and held at the City of Washington on Monday,
           the fourth day of January, two thousand and sixteen

                                 An Act

 
To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 
    5351 Lapalco Boulevard in Marrero, Louisiana, as the ``Lionel R. 
                  Collins, Sr. Post Office Building''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. LIONEL R. COLLINS, SR. POST OFFICE BUILDING.
    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 5351 Lapalco Boulevard in Marrero, Louisiana, shall be known 
and designated as the ``Lionel R. Collins, Sr. Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Lionel R. 
Collins, Sr. Post Office Building''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
#### In the Matter of Sammy Nalo, Appellant, v James E. Sullivan, Respondent.

— In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78: (1) to compel the Superintendent of the Ossining Correctional Facility and the New York State Department of Correctional Services (a) to expunge from the petitioner’s institutional record and all confidential records of the New York Department of Correctional Services all references to the petitioner as a member of organized crime or as an escape risk, and (b) to turn over for the petitioner’s inspection all records in his file referring to him as a member of organized crime or an escape risk, and all documents on which the New York Department of Correctional Services based its determination that the petitioner is an escape risk, and (2) to review the Department’s administrative determination of October 23, 1983, denying the petitioner outside clearance as an escape risk, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Colabella, J.), entered April 10, 1986, which denied the petition.

*312Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

We have inspected the documents in the petitioner’s file based upon which the respondent determined that he was an escape risk, and agree with the determination of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, that these materials were fully exempted from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Law (Public Officers Law art 6). All of these documents were interagency or intra-agency materials exempted under Public Officers Law § 87 (2) (g) and some were materials the disclosure of which could endanger the lives or safety of certain individuals, and thus were exempted under Public Officers Law § 87 (2) (f). The failure of the respondents and the Supreme Court, Westchester County, to disclose the underlying facts contained in these documents so as to establish that they did in fact fall " 'squarely within the ambit of [the] statutory exemptions’ ” *(Matter of Farbman & Sons v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp.,*62 NY2d 75, 83; *Matter of Fink v Lefkowitz,*47 NY2d 567, 571), did not constitute error. To make such disclosure would effectively subvert the purpose of these statutory exemptions which is to preserve the confidentiality of this information. The Supreme Court, Westchester County, proceeded properly by inspecting these materials in camera and assuring that they were in fact exempt *(see, Matter of Farbman & Sons v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., supra,*at p 83).

Further, it is clear that Special Term was correct in holding that review of the October 23, 1983 determination denying the petitioner "outside clearance” was time barred under the four-month Statute of Limitations of CPLR 217. Special Term also correctly held that there was a rational basis for the continued denial of "outside clearance” to the petitioner on the ground that he is an escape risk *(cf. Matter of Gregg v Scully,*108 AD2d 748, 749; *People ex rel. Williams v Ward,*73 AD2d 941).

We have reviewed the petitioner’s other contentions and find them to be without merit. Thompson, J. P., Bracken, Lawrence and Eiber, JJ., concur.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

November 13, 2015

No. 04-15-00412-CR

Javier CARDENAS,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 187th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2015CR1577

Honorable Steve Hilbig, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

The appellant’s brief was originally due to be filed in this appeal on September 21, 2015. 

After two motions for extensions of time were filed and granted extending the deadline for filing 

the appellant’s brief to November 20, 2015, appellant’s court-appointed attorney withdrew from 

representing appellant and new counsel was substituted. 

On November 12, 2015, appellant’s new attorney filed a third motion for extension of 

time. The motion is GRANTED, and appellant’s brief must be filed no later than December 21, 

2015. Given the original deadline for the filing of appellant’s brief, FURTHER REQUESTS 

FOR EXTENSIONS OF TIME TO FILE THE BRIEF ARE DISFAVORED.

_________________________________

Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 13th day of November, 2015.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ryan Marshal CLARKE, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 09-50231.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 15, 2011.*

Filed April 19, 2011.

Michael J. Raphael, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, Joseph B. Widman, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Riverside, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Robert Stephen Hanna, Law Office of Michael Berger, Santa Barbara, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.

*713Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, D.W. NELSON and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM**

The district court expressly determined that “[t]he defendant’s criminal history places him in criminal history category 5.” In doing so, the court necessarily rejected Clarke’s requests for downward departures and therefore complied with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32. *See United States v. Rogers,*119 F.3d 1377, 1384-85 (9th Cir.1997) (finding that a district court complied with Rule 32 by implicitly resolving an objection to the PSR).

Clarke’s challenges to two conditions of supervised release similarly fail. First, the condition requiring Clarke to “notify the probation officer within 72 hours of being arrested or questioned by a law enforcement officer” is not unconstitutionally vague because “men of common intelligence” needn’t “guess at its meaning and differ as to its application.” *United States v. Hugs,*384 F.3d 762, 768 (9th Cir.2004). Second, the condition requiring Clarke to “permit a probation officer to visit him ... at any time at home or elsewhere” is not unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment, *see Samson v. California,*547 U.S. 843, 857, 126 S.Ct. 2193, 165 L.Ed.2d 250 (2006), nor is it constitutionally overbroad or vague, or statutorily a “greater deprivation of liberty than is reasonably necessary,” *see United States v. Soltero,*510 F.3d 858, 865-67 (9th Cir. 2007).

In his plea agreement, Clarke waived his “right to appeal any sentence imposed by the Court, and the manner in which the sentence is determined” so long as he received a within or below Guidelines sentence. Because Clarke’s 96-month sentence falls within the relevant Guidelines range, we don’t consider his remaining arguments. *See United States v. Jeronimo,*398 F.3d 1149, 1154 (9th Cir.2005).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
#### Joseph Favale, Jr., Plaintiff, v M.C.P. Inc., et al., Defendants, and Dealer’s Leasing Corp., Defendant and Third-Party Defendant-Appellant, and Bellacicco & Sons, Inc., Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent.

— In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries and property damages, the third-party defendant Dealer’s Leasing Corp. (hereinafter Dealer) appeals from an interlocutory judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Morton, J.), dated January 14, 1985, which, in effect, dismissed its claim against the defendant and third-party plaintiff Bellacicco & sons, Inc. (hereinafter Bellacicco).

Ordered that the interlocutory judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The instant action was commenced by the plaintiff, *inter alia,*to recover damages for personal injuries that he suffered when his motorcycle collided with a van operated by the defendant West who was allegedly an employee of the defendant Bellacicco. In dismissing the claim of Dealer against Bellacicco, the trial court held, *inter alia,*that "as a matter of law * * * the defendant * * * West was an independent contractor at the time of the incident in question”.

We agree with the determination of the trial court.

The distinction between an independent contractor and an employee was clearly set forth in *Matter of Beach v Velzy*(238 NY 100, 103), wherein the Court of Appeals stated: "The independent contractor is one who agrees to do a specific piece of work for another for a lump sum or its equivalent who has control of himself and his helpers, as to when, within a reasonable time, he shall begin and finish the work; as to the method, means or procedure of accomplishing it; and who is not subject to discharge because he does the work as to method and detail in one way rather than another. In the relation of employer and employee the employer has control and direction not only of the work as to its result but as to the *537details and method of doing the work and may discharge the employee for disobeying such control and direction” *(see also, Matter of Morton,*284 NY 167).

Again, in *Felice v St Agnes Hosp.*(65 AD2d 388, 396), this court stated: "Whether a person is an 'employee’ or an 'independent contractor’ is an ultimate fact to be determined from the evidence itself. It may be called a conclusion to be drawn from the contract itself, the attitude of the parties toward each other, the nature of the work *and all relevant circumstances”.*

Our review of the entire record, including the agreement executed by the defendants Bellacicco and West, wherein West was specifically characterized as an "independent businessman” who had "no right or power, express or implied, to do any act or thing that would bind bellacicco, except as herein specifically provided”, leads us to the conclusion that the defendant West was not an employee of the defendant Bellacicco but rather an independent contractor *(see also, Matter of Powley v Vivian & Co.,*169 App Div 170).

We have reviewed the remaining argument raised by Dealer on appeal and find it to be without merit. Mangano, J. P., Brown, Weinstein and Spatt, JJ., concur.
# C_2021201EN.01000501.xml

| 28.5.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 201/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.5.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 201/5

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.10219 — Cerberus/Koch Industries/PQ Performance Chemicals)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 201/05)

On 10 May 2021, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32021M10219. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32021M10219. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---
#### John M. Jacobi, Doing Business as Jacobi’s Plaza Pizzeria and Restaurant, Petitioner, v New York State Liquor Authority, Respondent.

Memorandum: In determining whether petitioner suffered or permitted his premises to become disorderly in violation of Alcholic Beverage Control Law § 106 (6), the issue is not merely whether an assault occurred, but rather whether the licensee took appropriate action or stood by and permitted the disorderly conduct to continue *(Matter of Highway Tavern Corp. v McLaughlin,*105 AD2d 122, 140; *Matter of Peanutbutter Jam v New York State Liq. Auth.,*58 AD2d 703). The record does not contain substantial evidence to support the determination *(see, 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights,*45 NY2d 176, 182). (Article 78 proceeding transferred by order of Supreme Court, Erie County, NeMoyer, J.) Present — Doerr, J. P., Denman, Green, Pine and Schnepp, JJ.
Exhibit 32.1

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

      Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of DND Technologies, Inc., a
Nevada corporation (the "Company"), hereby certifies that:

      To my knowledge, the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of the Company for the
year ended December 31, 2003 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements
of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated: April 14, 2004

                                BY: /s/ Douglas N. Dixon
                                   ---------------------------------------------
                                   DOUGLAS N. DIXON
                                   CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER