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



CERTIFICATIONS

PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF

THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C SECTION 1350)



The
undersigned, as the Chief Executive Officer of Logility, Inc., certifies that, to the best of his knowledge and belief, the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended October 31, 2005 (the Report), which accompanies
this certification, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of Logility, Inc. at the dates and for the periods indicated. The foregoing certification is made pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350) and shall not be relied upon for any other
purpose.



|                                |  |                                             
|------------------------------- |  | --------------------------------------------
|This 12th day of December, 2005 |  | /s/ J. Michael Edenfield                    
|                                |  | J. Michael Edenfield Chief Executive
Officer



The undersigned, as the Chief
Financial Officer of Logility, Inc., certifies that, to the best of his knowledge and belief, the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended October 31, 2005 (the Report), which accompanies this certification, fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Logility, Inc. at
the dates and for the periods indicated. The foregoing certification is made pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350) and shall not be relied upon for any other purpose.



|                                |  |                                           
|------------------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------
|This 12th day of December, 2005 |  | /s/ Vincent C. Klinges                    
|                                |  | Vincent C. Klinges Chief Financial
Officer



A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been
provided to Logility, Inc. and will be retained by Logility, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



The information in this Exhibit 32.1 shall not be deemed filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, nor shall
it be deemed incorporated by reference in any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, except as shall be expressly set forth by specific reference in such filing.
# USCIS Exempts Biometric Services Fee for all Form I-539 Applicants

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) today announced that it is exempting the biometric services fee for Form I-539, Application to Extend/Change Nonimmigrant Status.

Beginning Oct. 1, we are exempting the $85 biometric services fee as part of the application process for Form I-539. You do not need to pay the fee if your application is postmarked Oct. 1 or later. However, if you file Form I-539 prior to Oct. 1, certain filers will still be scheduled for an ASC appointment and should still attend that appointment as scheduled. In most cases, after Oct. 1 applicants will not be scheduled to attend a biometric services appointment. However, if USCIS determines that biometrics are required, the applicant will receive a notice with information about appearing for their biometric services appointment.

If you mistakenly submit the biometric services fee and the payment is submitted separately from the Form I-539 fee, we will return the biometric services fee and accept the Form I-539. If you mistakenly submit the biometric services fee and the payment is combined with a paper-based Form I-539 filing fee, this is considered an incorrect filing and we will reject the Form I-539. If you mistakenly authorize a credit card payment that combines the biometric services fee with the Form I-539 application fee, we will accept the application, and only charge the application fee.

The biometric services fee exemption will apply to all applicants filing on or after Oct.1, including those applicants filing Form I-539 requesting an extension of stay in or change of status to H-4, L-2, or E nonimmigrant for whom USCIS had previously suspended the biometrics requirement through Sept. 30, 2023. As mentioned in the USCIS Fiscal Year 2022 Progress Report (PDF, 1.08 MB), we are committed to accomplishing our goal of removing the biometric services fee and requirement for all Form I-539 applicants.

09/25/2023

0 / 2000To protect your privacy, please do not include any personal information in your feedback. Review our Privacy Policy.
Exhibit
      32.1 Section
      906 Certification




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 Nutra Pharma Corp. (the “Company”) on Form
      10-KSB/Amendment Number 2 for the period ending December 31, 2007, as filed
      with
      the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Rik
      J. Deitsch, Chief Executive Officer and 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.





/s/ Rik
                J. DeitschRik
                J. DeitschChief
                Executive Officer and Chief Financial OfficerDate:
                October 3, 2008
EXHIBIT 32.02CERTIFICATION BY CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER      I, Theresa D. Becks, the Chief Financial Officer of Campbell & Company, Inc. as managingoperator, of The Campbell Fund Trust, certify that (i) the Form 10Q for the quarter ended September30, 2005 of The Campbell Fund Trust fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the information contained in the Form 10Q for thequarter ended September 30, 2005 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial conditionand results of operations of The Campbell Fund Trust.      THE CAMPBELL FUND TRUST   By:  Campbell & Company, Inc., managing operator        By:       /s/ Theresa D. Becks    Theresa D. Becks    Chief Financial Officer
#### State of Nebraska, appellee, v. Jeffrey D. Leanna, appellant.

646 N.W.2d 263

Filed June 21, 2002.

No. S-00-1260.

Thomas J. Garvey for appellant.

Don Stenberg, Attorney General, and J. Kirk Brown for appellee.

Hendry, C.J., Wright, Connolly, Gerrard, Stephan, McCormack, and Miller-Lerman, JJ.

Wright, J.

This appeal arises from the denial of a motion to set aside a conviction pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2264 (Cum. Supp. 2000). The Sarpy County District Court denied the motion, finding that § 29-2264 is unconstitutional as a violation of Neb. Const, art. II, § 1. Jeffrey D. Leanna appeals.

Leanna filed an application to set aside a conviction on October 16,2000, after he completed all terms and conditions of probation *115related to a 1997 conviction for burglary, a Class III felony. The district court entered an order denying the motion to set aside, finding that it did not have authority to grant the motion.

The issues raised in this appeal are identical to those in *State*v. *Spady, ante*p. 99, 645 N.W.2d 539 (2002). It is therefore unnecessary to restate the analysis in this opinion.

In *Spady,*we concluded that § 29-2264 is constitutional and is not in violation of article II, § 1. For the reasons set forth in *Spady,*the judgment of the district court which denied Leanna’s motion to set aside the conviction is reversed, and the cause is remanded to the district court for further proceedings.

Reversed and remanded for FURTHER PROCEEDINGS.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Donald A. DYER, also known as Blabber Dyer, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-30985

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

June 16, 2011.

*459William Scott Laragy, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Matthew M. Coman, Esq., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, New Orleans, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Donald A. Dyer, Jonesville, VA, pro se.

Before BENAVIDES, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Donald A Dyer, federal inmate # 25959-034, seeks a certificate of appealability (COA) from the denial of relief under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) or 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion from his 400-month sentence for conspiracy to distribute heroin. A COA is not required to challenge the denial of § 3582 relief.

To obtain a COA, Dyer must make “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). Where, as here, the district court has denied relief on the merits, to obtain a COA the petitioner must demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000).

Dyer argues that § 3582(a) authorizes the district court to reduce a sentence when an amendment to the Guidelines has the effect of lowering a sentencing range. He also contends that § lBl.ll(b)(2), p.s., allows a district court to lower a sentence that has already been imposed when there is a subsequent clarifying amendment to the Guidelines. He argues that the district court erred when it declined to address his motion under § lBl.ll(b)(2), and he asks this court to determine whether Amendment 503 is clarifying or substantive.

Section 3582(a) does not authorize the district court to reduce a sentence but instructs the district court to consider the factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) in determining whether to impose a sentence and in determining the length of any such sentence. § 3582(a). The relief that Dyer seeks falls more properly under § 3582(c), which permits the district court to modify a sentence once it has been imposed, and under § 2255, which permits a prisoner to attack a sentence collaterally. *See*§ 3582(c); § 2255. Dyer’s argument that Amendment 503 to the Guidelines entitled him to a reduction in his sentence is not cognizable under § 2255 and fails to make the required showing. *See Slack,*529 U.S. at 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595. Nor does Dyer’s argument entitle him to relief under § 3582(c)(2). *See United States v. Drath,*89 F.3d 216, 217-18 (5th Cir.1996).

IT IS ORDERED a COA is DENIED; the denial of § 3582(c)(2) relief is AFFIRMED.

*

 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.
##### 



EXHIBIT 99.1

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 Quarterly Report of Georgia-Carolina Bancshares, Inc.
(the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2002, as
amended (the Report), the undersigned, Patrick G. Blanchard, President and
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and James M. Thomas, Chief Financial
Officer, do hereby 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
our knowledge:

(1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) 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.

|    |  |                                                                             | 
|--- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 
|By: |  | /s/ Patrick G. Blanchard                                                   
|    |  |                                                                            
|    |  | Patrick G. Blanchard
President and Chief Executive Officer
October 25, 2002
|    |  |                                                                            
|    |  | /s/ James M. Thomas                                                        
|    |  |                                                                            
|    |  | James M. Thomas
Chief Financial Officer
October 25, 2002
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6097 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify timing rules for 

determining gross income with respect to certain construction contracts. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

AUGUST 10, 2010 

Mr. HERGER (for himself and Ms. BERKLEY) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify 

timing rules for determining gross income with respect 

to certain construction contracts. 

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 ‘‘American Job Builders 

5 Tax Reform Act of 2010’’. 

6 SEC. 2. INDEXING OF SMALL CONTRACTOR THRESHOLD 

7 FOR CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS. 

8 (a) SMALL CONTRACTOR THRESHOLD TO CORRECT

9 FOR PRIOR INFLATION.—Clause (ii) of section 

10 460(e)(1)(B) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 6097 IH

1 amended by striking ‘‘$10,000,000’’ and inserting 

2 ‘‘$40,000,000’’. 

3 (b) SMALL CONTRACTOR THRESHOLD INDEXED FOR

4 INFLATION.—Subsection (e) of section 460 of such Code 

5 is amended by adding at the end the following new para6 graph: 

7 ‘‘(7) INFLATION ADJUSTMENT.— 

8 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—In the case of a tax9 able year beginning after 2009, the 

10 $40,000,000 amount in 460(e)(1)(B)(ii) shall 

11 be increased by an amount equal to— 

12 ‘‘(i) such dollar amount, multiplied by 

13 ‘‘(ii) the cost-of-living adjustment de14 termined under section 1(f)(3) for the cal15 endar year in which the taxable year be16 gins, determined by substituting ‘calendar 

17 year 2010’ for ‘calendar year 1992’ in sub18 paragraph (B) thereof. 

19 ‘‘(B) ROUNDING.—If any amount as ad20 justed under subparagraph (A) is not a multiple 

21 of $100, such amount shall be rounded to the 

22 next lowest multiple of $100.’’. 

23 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

24 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after 

25 December 31, 2009. 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 6097 IH

1 SEC. 3. MINIMUM TAX TREATMENT NOT TO APPLY TO CON2 STRUCTION CONTRACTS. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Paragraph (3) of section 56(a) of 

4 the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking 

5 the second sentence and inserting the following: 

6 ‘‘For purposes of the preceding sentence, in the case of 

7 a construction contract (as defined in section 460(e)(4)), 

8 section 460(b)(1)(B) shall not apply.’’. 

9 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

10 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after 

11 December 31, 2009. 

Æ 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with BILLS
#### Philip Butti et al., Appellants, v Craig Rollins, as Executor of Irving Rollins, Deceased, et al., Respondents.

In a medical malpractice action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Kutner, J.), entered May 28, 1985, which, upon a jury verdict, is in favor of the defendants and against them.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with one bill of costs to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

Submission of a case on the theory of res ipsa loquitur is warranted only when a plaintiff has established that the event is of a kind which ordinarily does not occur absent someone’s negligence, that the event was caused by an agency or instrumentality within the exclusive control of the defendant, and that the event was not due to any voluntary action or contribution on the part of the plaintiff *(Ebanks v New York City Tr. Auth.,*70 NY2d 621; *Dermatossian v New York City Tr. Auth.,*67 NY2d 219, citing *Corcoran v Banner Super Mkt.,*19 NY2d 425, 430, *mod on remittitur*21 NY2d 793 [quoting Prosser, Torts § 39, at 218 (3d ed)]). "[WJithout proof of control, an essential predicate for the application of the doctrine of *res ipsa loquitur*[is] absent” *(Interested Underwriters v Associated Ceilings Corp.,*55 NY2d 635, 637). While it is not necessary that a plaintiff establish that there was only a single person or entity in control of that which is alleged to have caused the damage in order for res ipsa loquitur to apply *(see, Schroeder v City & County Sav. Bank,*293 NY 370, *rearg denied*293 NY 764; *Corcoran v Banner Super Mkt.,*19 NY2d 425, *supra),*the instant plaintiffs’ failure to establish that the event was caused by an instrumentality in the control of the defendant hospital warranted the court’s refusal to submit the case to the jury insofar as it was against that defendant on a theory of res ipsa loquitur. We have examined all of the plaintiffs’ remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Mangano, J. P., Niehoff, Spatt and Harwood, JJ., concur.
Form of Series 4 Preferred Stock Certificate


 Exhibit 4.1 
  

					
	Number P4-    	  	CELL THERAPEUTICS, INC.	  	*    * Shares
		  	A Washington Corporation	  	Series 4 Preferred Stock

 THIS CERTIFIES THAT *                            *
is the record holder of *                             (    )* shares
of Series 4 Preferred Stock of Cell Therapeutics, Inc. (the “Corporation”) transferable only on the share register of the Corporation by the holder, in person or by such holder’s duly authorized attorney, upon surrender
of this certificate properly endorsed or assigned. 
 This certificate and the shares represented hereby shall be held subject
to all of the provisions of the Amended and Restated Articles of Incorporation (the “Articles of Incorporation”) and the Second Amended and Restated Bylaws (the “Bylaws”) of the Corporation and any amendments thereto, a copy
of each of which is on file at the office of the Corporation and made a part hereof as fully as though the provisions of said Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws were imprinted in full on this Certificate, to all of which the holder of this
Certificate, by acceptance hereof, assents and agrees to be bound. 
 The shares represented by this Certificate may become
convertible into shares of Common Stock as set forth in the Articles of Incorporation. 
 The Corporation will furnish without
charge to each shareholder who so requests, the powers, designations, preferences and relative, participating, optional or other special rights of each class of stock or series thereof and the qualifications, limitations or restrictions of such
preferences or rights. 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Corporation has caused this Certificate to be signed by its duly authorized
officers this      day of             , 2010. 
  

					
	  
	 		  	  

	[Louis A. Bianco, Chief Financial Officer]	 		  	[Louis A. Bianco, Executive Vice President, Finance and Administration]







 FOR VALUE RECEIVED, THE UNDERSIGNED HEREBY SELLS, ASSIGNS AND TRANSFERS UNTO
                                        
  SHARES REPRESENTED BY THE WITHIN CERTIFICATE AND DOES HEREBY IRREVOCABLY CONSTITUTE AND APPOINT
                             ATTORNEY TO TRANSFER THE SAID SHARES ON THE SHARE REGISTER OF THE WITHIN
NAMED CORPORATION WITH FULL POWER OF SUBSTITUTION IN THE PREMISES. 
 DATED
                     
  

	
	  

	(Signature)


 NOTICE: THE SIGNATURE ON THIS ASSIGNMENT
MUST CORRESPOND WITH THE NAME AS WRITTEN UPON THE FACE OF THIS CERTIFICATE, IN EVERY PARTICULAR, WITHOUT ALTERATION OR ENLARGEMENT, OR ANY CHANGE WHATEVER.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE>                                  5
<CIK>                                      0001001907
<NAME>                                     SPACEHAB, INC.
<MULTIPLIER>                               1,000
<CURRENCY>                                 U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                  1.000
<CASH>                                           6,184
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   12,342
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                21,041
<PP&E>                                         166,903
<DEPRECIATION>                                  58,258
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 220,213
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           34,811
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     11,892
<COMMON>                                        82,195
<OTHER-SE>                                          16
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   220,213
<SALES>                                         26,966
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                26,966
<CGS>                                           22,524
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   22,524
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 6,044
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 812
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (2,252)
<INCOME-TAX>                                      (772)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (1,480)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (1,480)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (0.13)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.13)



</TABLE>