alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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 on Form 10-Q of Active Power, Inc. (the
Company) for the period ending March 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, John K. Penver, Vice President of Finance, Chief Financial Officer and Secretary of
the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



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



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

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



/s/    John K. PenverJohn K. PenverVice President of Finance, Chief Financial Officer and
SecretaryApril 28, 2009
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to

Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I, T. Kendall Hunt, certify, based upon a review of the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for VASCO Data Security International, Inc. for the quarter ended September 30, 2006, that to the best of my knowledge:



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



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







|                                                               |  | 
|-------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 
|/s/ T. Kendall Hunt                                            |  | 
|                                                               | 
|T. Kendall Hunt                                                |  | 
|Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board of Directors |  | 
|November 8, 2006                                               |  |
1

The Honorable E. Richard Webber, United States District Judge for the

Eastern District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 03-1331

___________

Darius J. Whitson, Sr., *

*

Appellant, *

*

v. * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

Mary Ann L. Medler, Judge; David D. * Eastern District of Missouri.

Noce, Judge, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: April 1, 2004

Filed: April 9, 2004 

___________

Before MELLOY, HANSEN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Darius Whitson appeals the district court’s1

 preservice dismissal under 28

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) of his complaint seeking the removal of two magistrate

judges. Following de novo review, see Moore v. Sims, 200 F.3d 1170, 1171 (8th Cir.

2000) (per curiam), we agree with the district court that dismissal was appropriate.

Accordingly, we affirm under 8th Circuit Rule 47B. We also grant Whitson leave to
-2-

proceed in forma pauperis, and we remand for the district court to assess and collect

the appellate filing fee.

______________________________
COURT OF APPEALS

	SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	FORT WORTH

	NO. 2-08-310-CR

TOMMY JOSEPH CHATMAN	APPELLANT

	V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS	STATE

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

	FROM THE 371ST DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

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

	MEMORANDUM OPINION1

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

	Appellant Tommy Joseph Chatman pleaded guilty to two counts of possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance of four grams or more but less than 200 grams.  Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, Chatman was sentenced to ten years’ confinement for one count and eight years’ confinement for the other count.  The trial court entered its certification of Chatman’s right to appeal in accordance with rule 25.2(a)(2).  See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2).  The certification states that this “is a plea-bargain case, and the defendant has NO right of appeal.”

	On August 27, 2008, Chatman filed a notice of appeal.  On September 3, 2008, we notified Chatman’s counsel that the certification indicating his client had no right to appeal had been filed in this court and that this appeal would be dismissed unless Chatman or any party desiring to continue the appeal filed a response showing grounds for continuing the appeal.  See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(d).  Chatman responded with a copy of a “Motion of Appeal” and stated that he was told he could “appeal under Attorney Ineffective.”

	Rule 25.2(a)(2) limits the right to appeal in a plea bargain case to those matters that were raised by written motion filed and ruled on before trial or after getting the trial court’s permission to appeal.  Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2)(A), (B).  Chatman does not contend that he did either of these things.  Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal.  See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(d), 43.2(f).

							PER CURIAM

PANEL:  HOLMAN, GARDNER, and WALKER, JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED:  October 2, 2008
#### In the Matter of David C. Eger, Respondent, v Erwin Levine et al., Constituting the Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Saratoga Springs, Appellants.

Mahoney, P. J.,

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Brown, J.), entered August 31, 1988 in Saratoga County, which granted petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to annul respondents’ determination denying petitioner’s request for a use variance.

Petitioner owns a four-family dwelling in the City of Sara-toga Springs, Saratoga County. Petitioner’s request to the City Building Inspector for a certificate of occupancy was refused on the ground that a four-unit dwelling is not permitted in an R-3 zone where the building is located. Petitioner appealed to respondents, claiming that the building was a nonconforming use because there were four apartments at the time of the effective date of the applicable zoning ordinance. This position was supported by unsworn letters from residents in the area and refuted only by the Building Inspector’s reference to unspecified city records indicating that there were only three apartments in the building at the appropriate time. Petitioner also testified as to his economic hardship if only three apartments were allowed. Respondents denied petitioner’s appeal because he failed to demonstrate sufficient financial hardship. Petitioner then commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge respondents’ determination. Supreme Court concluded that petitioner established a nonconforming use and annulled respondents’ determination. Respondents appeal.

As Supreme Court noted, respondents failed to pass explicitly on petitioner’s contention that the building constituted a nonconforming use. Respondents did not specifically reject petitioner’s proof supporting his contention and we agree with Supreme Court that these letters were sufficient to establish petitioner’s position. The Building Inspector’s reference to unspecified records in an attempt to refute petitioner’s proof is *999too vague and uncertain to be given credence. We further find no merit to respondents’ contention that the record is insufficient to make a determination. Regardless of petitioner’s showing of economic hardship, we agree with Supreme Court that petitioner established a preexisting nonconforming use. Accordingly, respondents’ failure to grant petitioner the relief sought was irrational so that Supreme Court properly granted the petition *(see, e.g., Matter of Howes v Langendorfer,*137 AD2d 960).

Judgment affirmed, with costs. Mahoney, P. J., Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., Mercure and Harvey, JJ., concur.
#### *In re*BIAGINI, Marc Joseph

(MR 21058)

Downers Grove, IL

*682Order of the Court:

The motion by the Administrator of the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission to approve and confirm the report and recommendation of the Hearing Board is allowed, and respondent Marc Joseph Biagini is disbarred.
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 82 (Friday, April 27, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 21189]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-10498]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[Declaration of Disaster #3332) (Amendment # 1)]


Commonwealth of Massachusetts

    In accordance with notices received from the Federal Emergency 
Management Agency, dated April 16, 2001 and April 19, 2001, the above-
numbered Declaration is hereby amended to include Bristol, Plymouth, 
Suffolk and Worcester Counties in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts as 
disaster areas caused by severe storms beginning on March 5, 2001. In 
addition, the Declaration is hereby amended to establish the incident 
period for this disaster as beginning on March 5, 2001 and continuing 
through April 16, 2001.
    In addition, applications for economic injury loans from small 
businesses located in Barnstable, Franklin, Hampden and Hampshire 
Counties in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts; Windham and Tolland 
Counties in the State of Connecticut; Cheshire County in the State of 
New Hampshire; and Bristol and Newport Counties in the State of Rhode 
Island may be filed until the specified date at the previously 
designated location. Any counties contiguous to the above named primary 
counties and not listed here have been previously declared.
    The number assigned for economic injury in the State of Connecticut 
is 9L5000.
    All other information remains the same, i.e., the deadline for 
filing applications for physical damage is June 9, 2001 and for 
economic injury the deadline is January 9, 2002.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 59002 and 
59008.)

    Dated: April 20, 2001.
James E. Rivera,
Acting Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.
[FR Doc. 01-10498 Filed 4-26-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 83 (Monday, April 30, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 21370]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-10656]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[I.D.041801A]


Marine Mammals; File No.782-1613

<BD>AGENCY: <RM>National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National 
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

<BD>ACTION: <RM>Issuance of permit.

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

<BD>SUMMARY: <RM>Notice is hereby given that The National Marine Mammal 
Laboratory, NMFS, 7600 Sand Point Way, N.E., Seattle, Washington 98115-
0070, has been issued a permit to take California sea lions 
(<IT>Zalophus californianus<RM>), harbor seals (<IT>Phoca 
vitulina<RM>), and northern elephant seals (<IT>Mirounga 
angustirostris<RM>), and to incidentally harass northern fur seals 
(<IT>Callorhinus ursinus<RM>) for purposes of scientific research.

<BD>ADDRESSES: <RM>The permit and related documents are available for 
review upon written request or by appointment in the following 
office(s):
    Permits and Documentation Division, Office of Protected Resources, 
NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910 (301/
713-2289).

<BD>FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: <RM>Tammy Adams or Ruth Johnson, 
301/713-2289.

<BD>SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: <RM>On February 14, 2001, notice was 
published in the Federal Register (66 FR 10272) that a request for a 
scientific research permit to take California sea lions (<IT>Zalophus 
californianus<RM>), harbor seals (<IT>Phoca vitulina<RM>), and northern 
elephant seals (<IT>Mirounga angustirostris<RM>), and to incidentally 
harass northern fur seals (<IT>Callorhinus ursinus<RM>) had been 
submitted by the above-named organization. The requested permit has 
been issued under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 
1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361 <IT>et seq<RM>.), the Regulations 
Governing the Taking and Importing of Marine Mammals (50 CFR part 216), 
and the Fur Seal Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1151 <IT>et 
seq<RM>.).

    Dated: April 24, 2001.
Ann D. Terbush,
Chief, Permits and Documentation Division, Office of Protected 
Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 01-10656 Filed 4-27-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-S
Designated for electronic publication only

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS

NO. 97-945

RONALD T. WOODS, APPELLANT,

 V.

TOGO D. WEST, JR.,

SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, APPELLEE.

Before NEBEKER, Chief Judge, and KRAMER and STEINBERG, Judges.

O R D E R

Note: Pursuant to U.S. Vet. App. R. 28(i),

this action may not be cited as precedent.

In a single-judge decision dated March 9, 1999, the Court concluded that the appellant had

not submitted a well grounded claim to establish service connection for cirrhosis of the liver.

Accordingly, the Court affirmed the May 19, 1997, decision of the Board of Veterans' Appeals

that denied entitlement to service connection. On March 29, 1999, the appellant filed a motion

that the Court construes as one seeking reconsideration by the single judge. The panel also

construes the motion as one for a panel decision. In its decision the Court held, "there is simply

no evidence of a nexus between the veteran's cirrhosis of the liver and any in-service disease or

injury." Slip op. at 3. In his motion the appellant cites to several pages in the record diagnosing

cirrhosis of the liver. When examined, these citations only reinforce the Court's holding that the

record on appeal contains no evidence pertaining to a medical nexus.

Upon consideration of the foregoing, and the record on appeal, it is

ORDERED by the single judge that the appellant's motion for reconsideration is denied.

It is further

ORDERED by the panel that the appellant's motion for panel review is denied.

DATED: May 14, 1999 PER CURIAM.
2

Copies to:

Ronald T. Woods

103 Blue Harbor Dr.

Tavernier, FL 33070

General Counsel (027)

Department of Veterans Affairs

810 Vermont Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20420

rab
Exhibit
32.1





CERTIFICATION


PURSUANT
TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


(SUBSECTIONS
(a) AND (b) OF SECTION 1350,


CHAPTER
63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE)





In
connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Intermec, Inc. (the
“Company”) for the period ended March 30, 2008, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Patrick
J. Byrne, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
1350, 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/
      Patrick J. ByrnePatrick J.
      ByrneChief
      Executive OfficerMay 5,
      2008
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-31025 USDC No. 97-CV-1269

REINIER NESLO, Petitioner-Appellant,

versus BURL CAIN, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary; RICHARD P. IEYOUB, Attorney General, State of Louisiana, Respondents-Appellees.

--------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana

--------------------- August 10, 1998 Before JONES, BARKSDALE and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Reinier Neslo, Louisiana prisoner # 95210, seeks a certificate of appealability (COA) to appeal the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 application without prejudice for failure to exhaust state remedies based on the pendency of two state writ applications. Neslo objected in the district court to the dismissal of his application and suggested that he be allowed to delete his unexhausted claims and proceed with theNo. 97-31025 - 2 - exhausted claims. Neslo argues in his request for a COA that the district court erred in refusing to allow him to proceed on the exhausted claims because the dismissal was not without prejudice due to the operation of the statute of limitations. District courts must dismiss mixed habeas corpus petitions containing both unexhausted and exhausted claims. Rose v. Lundy , 455 U.S. 509, 522 (1982). Prisoners who submit mixed petitions are entitled to resubmit a petition with only exhausted claims or to exhaust the remainder of their claims. Id . at 520. The AEDPA’s limitations period began to run on April 24, 1996, and was tolled from October 11, 1996, to September 19, 1997, while Neslo’s state habeas proceedings were pending. The one-year period expired in March 1998. If this court were to affirm the district court’s dismissal of Neslo’s mixed petition now, it would effectively be with prejudice to refiling under the AEDPA’s statute of limitations. The district court abused its discretion in dismissing Neslo’s § 2254 application without allowing to him proceed as requested on his exhausted claims in light of the statute of limitations. Brewer v. Johnson , 139 F.3d 491, 492-93 (5th Cir. 1998). A COA is hereby GRANTED, the judgment is VACATED, and the case is REMANDED to the district court. If all claims are now exhausted, the district court is directed to consider all claims. If all claims have not been exhausted, the district court shall allow Nelso to delete any unexhausted claims from his petition.No. 97-31025 - 3 - Neslo’s motion for an appeal property bond, construed as a request for release pending appeal, is DENIED. Neslo’s motion for appointment of counsel is also DENIED. His motion for IFP is
DENIED AS MOOT. GRANT COA, VACATE AND REMAND; DENY MOTIONS FOR PROPERTY BOND, IFP, AND APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket No. RP96-320-044]

Take notice that on April 19, 2001, Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP (Gulf South) filed with the Commission a contract between Gulf South and the following company for disclosure of a recently negotiated rate transaction. As shown on the contract, Gulf South requests an effective date of April 1, 2001.

Special Negotiated Rate Between Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP and Mobile Gas Services Corporation, Contract No. 27430

Gulf South states that it has served copies of this filing upon all parties on the official service list created by the Secretary in this proceeding.

Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in accordance with section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/​online/​rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance). Comments, protests, and interventions may be filed electronically via the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web site at http://www.ferc.fed.us/​efi/​doorbell.htm.

David P. Boergers,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 01-10475  Filed 4-26-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-18-00447-CR

Raul Daniel NORRIS,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

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

Trial Court No. 2017CR9017

Honorable Raymond Angelini, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE ALVAREZ, JUSTICE CHAPA, AND JUSTICE RIOS

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s judgment is 

AFFIRMED.

SIGNED May 29, 2019.

_____________________________

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Bernard J. Zolnowski, Jr., Appellant.

(Appeal No. 2.)

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Counsel’s application to withdraw granted (see, *People v Crawford,*71 AD2d 38). (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Rossetti, J. — grand larceny, third degree.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Denman, Green, Balio and Davis, JJ.