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

SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION

In connection with the Quarterly Report of enherent Corp. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2010,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Pamela Fredette, Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, adopted as
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 result of operations of the Company.



|                                               
|-----------------------------------------------
|/s/ Pamela Fredette                            
|Pamela Fredette                                
|Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President
|August 9, 2010                                 

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 enherent, Corp. and will be retained by enherent Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
**Exhibit 32.01**

 

**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 amendment no. 2 to the annual report of MobiClear, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-KSB/A for the year ended December 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Stephen P. Cutler, Chief Executive 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, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

 

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

 

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

 

 

/s/ Stephen P. Cutler

Stephen P. Cutler

Chief Executive Officer

June 3, 2008

 

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 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.
Clear All

        08 January 2024    

                    USS McFaul Returns Home from 8-month Deployment                 
                NORFOLK, Va. - The Arleigh-Burke class guided-missile destroyer USS McFaul (DDG 74) returned to Norfolk, Va., Jan. 4, 2024 after an 8-month deployment to the Atlantic Ocean and U.S. 5th Fleet areas of operations.            

#####  

##### Navy.mil  |  Navy.com  |  Navy FOIA  |  DoD Accessibility/Section 508  |  No Fear Act  |  Open Government  |  Plain Writing Act USA.gov  |  Veterans Crisis Line  |  VA Vet Center  |  FVAP  |   DoD Safe Helpline  |  Navy SAPR  |  NCIS Tips  |  Privacy Policy  |  Site Map  |  Contact US

###### Commander, U.S. Fleet Forces Command   |   1562 Mitscher Ave., Suite 250   |   Norfolk, Virginia 23551-2487

###### Official U.S. Navy Website
Case 1:07-cv-04510-AKH     Document 5      Filed 09/05/2007     Page 1 of 1
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 the Interior

###### Geological Survey

# SUMMARY:

Respondents supply information through a mailed survey and onsite interviews on (1) their motivations for visiting Sherburne National Wildlife Refuge; (2) desired experiences and benefits they receive from the Refuge; (3) attitudes and perceptions; and (4) actions and objectives they prefer for Refuge. Information will be used to improve management and operation of Refuge.

*Estimated Completion time:*                         25 minutes.                    

*Estimated Annual Number of Respondents:*                         1000.                    

*Frequency:*                         Once.                    

*Estimated Annual Burden hours:*                         416 hours.                    

*Affected Public:*                         Visitors to Sherburne National Wildlife Refuge in the State of Minnesota.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

To obtain copies of the survey, contact the Bureau clearance officer, U.S. Geological Survey, 807 National Center, 12201 Sunrise Valley Drive, Reston, Virginia, 20192, telephone (703) 648-7313.

Dated: April 10, 2001.

Dennis B. Fenn,

Associate Director for Biology.

[FR Doc. 01-10292  Filed 4-25-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310-Y-M
Case 1:07-cv-04511-AKH Document 63 Filed 08/25/2008 Page 1 of 5
Case 1:07-cv-04511-AKH Document 63 Filed 08/25/2008 Page 2 of 5
Case 1:07-cv-04511-AKH Document 63 Filed 08/25/2008 Page 3 of 5
Case 1:07-cv-04511-AKH Document 63 Filed 08/25/2008 Page 4 of 5
Case 1:07-cv-04511-AKH Document 63 Filed 08/25/2008 Page 5 of 5
Case 1:07-cv-05730-BSJ Document 12-5 Filed 07/23/2007 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:07-cv-05730-BSJ Document 12-5 Filed 07/23/2007 Page 2 of 2
#### STATE OF CONNECTICUT *v.*STANLEY FOOTE

*William B. Westcott,*special public defender, in support of the petition.

Decided May 17, 2005

The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 85 Conn. App. 356 (AC 23712), is denied.

NORCOTT, J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this petition.
**BMC INDUSTRIES, INC.**

**SAVINGS AND PROFIT SHARING PLAN**

**2001 REVISION**

** **

# First Declaration of Amendment

** **

** **

Pursuant to the retained power of amendment contained in Section 11.2of the BMC Industries, Inc. Savings and Profit Sharing Plan - 2001 Revision,the undersigned hereby amends the Plan by adding a new Exhibit A thereto in theform attached hereto.

 

The foregoingamendment is effective as of December 31, 2001.

 

**IN WITNESSWHEREOF,** the undersignedhas caused this instrument to be executed this 26th day of December,2001.

 

 

                                                                                    **BMCINDUSTRIES, INC.**

** **

Attest:  /s/Jon A. Dobson                                            By:  /s/Bradley D. Carlson

            Secretary                                                         Its:  Treasurer

 

 

**BMC INDUSTRIES, INC.**

**SAVINGS AND PROFIT SHARING PLAN**

**2001 REVISION**

** **

**EXHIBIT A**

** **

# Special Provisions Applicableto

# Vision-Ease Lens Azusa, Inc.and Buckbee-Mears Cortland in 2001

** **

Pursuant to Section 14.1(f), this Exhibit A sets forth specialprovisions of the Plan applicable only to an Active Participant in the Plan whois a Qualified Employee of Vision-Eae Lens Azusa, Inc. or Buckbee-MearsCortland, a unit of BMC Industries, Inc. and classified by the ParticipatingEmployer as being on an unpaid leave of absence on December 31, 2001 (a"Vision-Ease Lens Azusa/Buckbee-Mears Cortland Participant").

 

-  Notwithstanding     Section 3.3(a)(i), a Vision-Ease Lens Azusa/Buckbee-Mears Cortland     Participant will be eligible to share in the Participating Employer's     Matching Contribution for the calendar quarter ending on December 31, 2001     pursuant to the provisions set forth in Section 3.3(a).Notwithstanding     Section 3.3(b)(i), a Vision-Ease Lens Azusa/Buckbee-Mears Cortland     Participant, will be eligible to share in the Participating Employer's     Matching Contribution (if any) for the Plan Year ending on December 31,     2001 pursuant to the provisions set forth in Section 3.3(b).Notwithstanding     Section 3.4(b)(i), a Vision-Ease Lens Azusa/Buckbee-Mears Cortland     Participant who completed at least 1000 Hours of Service during the Plan     Year ending on December 31, 2001, will be eligible to share in the Participating     Employer's Profit Sharing Contribution for the Plan Year ending on     December 31, 2001 pursuant to the provisions set forth in Section 3.4(b).
#### Delilah Y. Franqui et al., Respondents, v City of New York et al., Defendants, and New York City Housing Authority et al., Appellants.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert E. White, J.), entered on or about March 15, 1989, which, *inter alia,*denied defendant New York Telephone Company’s cross motion for summary judgment without prejudice to renewal, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, to the extent appealed from, the cross motion granted, and the complaint dismissed and severed as against it.

The infant plaintiff was injured by a wire which had been pulled from a vandalized pay phone and stretched to a nearby fence. Plaintiff’s notice witness, a relative of plaintiff through marriage, was deposed, and stated that the pay phone had been repeatedly vandalized and repaired in the past, but that when last seen by the witness prior to the day of the accident, the telephone was in good repair.

It was incumbent on the plaintiffs, in opposition to the motion, to lay bare their proofs as to constructive notice, an essential element of plaintiffs’ case. *(Gordon v American Museum of Natural History,*67 NY2d 836.) The testimony of plaintiffs’ witness did not show facts sufficient to demonstrate an issue as to constructive notice. Indeed, all that the witness established was that the phone had been repaired some time prior to the accident.

We find no justification, as did the court below, for further examination of the same notice witness. We do not, as do the plaintiffs, discern any ambiguity in her testimony. The plaintiffs have already had a full and fair opportunity to depose the witness, and have not submitted an affidavit of the witness showing that she was confused, misspoke, or was misinterpreted. No valid purpose could be served by further discovery. *(Trails W. v Wolff,*32 NY2d 207.) Concur — Kupferman, J. R, Carro, Asch, Wallach and Smith, JJ.
This opinion is subject to administrative correction before final disposition.

Before MONAHAN , DEERWESTER , and HACKEL Appellate Military Judges

_________________________ 

### UNITED STATES Appellee

v. Andre MUNOZ Private (E

- 1 ), U.S. Marine Corps Appellant
No. 20 22 00110

_________________________

Decided: 23 August 2022 Appeal from the United States Nav y - Marine Corps Trial Judiciary Military Judge : Andrea C. Goode Sentence adjudged 22 February 2022 by a special court

- martial convened at Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton , California, consisting of a military judge sitting alone. Sentence in the Entry of Judgment : confinement for 100 days and a bad

- conduct discharge

. For Appellant: Captain Thomas P

. Belsky , JAGC, USN

_________________________ This opinion does not serve as binding precedent under NMCCA Rule of Appellate Procedure 30.2 (a)

.

_________________________United States v. Munoz , NMCCA No. 20 22 00110 Opinion of the Court

2 PER CURIAM : After careful consideration of the record, submitted without assignment of error, we have determined that the findings and sentence are co rrect in law and fact and that no error materially prejudicial to A ppellant ’s substantial rights occurred. 1 T he findings and sentence are AFFIRMED

.

FOR THE COURT:

S. TAYLOR JOHNSTON Interim Clerk of Court

1 Articles 59 & 66, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. §§ 859, 866.
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6452 

To repeal provisions of the recently enacted health care reform law that 

prohibit the establishment of annual limits on health benefits. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 29, 2010 

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

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To repeal provisions of the recently enacted health care reform law that prohibit the establishment of annual limits 

on health benefits. 

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 ‘‘Second Health Insur5 ance Protects America—Can’t Repeal IT (HIPA–CRIT) 

6 Act’’. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 6452 IH

1 SEC. 2. REPEAL OF HEALTH CARE REFORM PROHIBITION 

2 ON ESTABLISHMENT OF ANNUAL LIMITS ON 

3 HEALTH BENEFITS. 

4 The provisions of the Patient Protection and Afford5 able Care Act (Public Law 111–148), insofar as such Act 

6 under section 2711(a)(1)(B) of the Public Health Service 

7 Act (42 U.S.C. 300gg–11(a)(1)(B)) prohibits a group 

8 health plan or a health insurance issuer offering group or 

9 individual health insurance coverage from establishing an10 nual limits on the dollar value of benefits for any partici11 pant or beneficiary, are hereby repealed, effective as of 

12 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
Order entered February 11 , 202 2

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05
- 21
- 00443
- CR JEREMY KANE QUASCHNICK , Appellant

V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee On Appeal from the 4 01st Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 401
- 80333
- 2019

O RDER This appeal was perfected on June 14, 2021. Appellant ’ s brief was initially due on September 18, 2021. We gra n t ed two extensions , making the brief due
November 19, 2021. That same day, appellant filed a third motion for an extension
of tim e which only recently came to the Court ’ s attention.
We GRANT the motion to the extent we ORDER appellant ’ s brief due by February 25, 2022. N o further extensions of time will be granted a bsentextenuating circumstances . If a brief is not filed b y that date, we will abate the

appeal fo r a hearing

. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 38.8(b)(3)

.

/s/ ROBERT D. BU RNS, III CHIEF JUSTICE
#### The People of the State of New York, Appellant, v Jason Fowler, Respondent.

Appeal by the People from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Hanophy, J.), dated March 9, 1988, which granted that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence is denied, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for further proceedings consistent herewith.

We disagree with the hearing court’s determination that the *866search warrant in this case was deficient because the reliability of the hearsay informant was not established. A finding of reliability may be based upon corroboration of the informant’s statement with information obtained independently during the course of a police investigation *(see, People v Johnson,*66 NY2d 398, 403; *People v Rodriguez,*52 NY2d 483, 489; *People v Elwell,*50 NY2d 231, 237). In the instant case, the record indicates that the police corroborated a significant portion of the information furnished by the informant.

Specifically, the informant told the police that he had observed several pieces of electronic equipment in the defendant’s apartment, which equipment he recognized as belonging to his employer. After receiving this information, the police verified that the employer had filed a complaint of the burglary and confirmed that the informant worked for the employer at the time the property was stolen. They also corroborated the informant’s description of the property by reviewing the list of stolen property on the police report. Finally, the police contacted the telephone company to corroborate the information they received from the informant about the location and the owner of the defendant’s apartment. Thus, there was a sufficient independent verification and separate objective checking of the informant’s account to establish his reliability *(see, People v Alaimo,*34 NY2d 187, 189; *People v Wills,*138 AD2d 651, 652; *People v Crayon,*139 AD2d 840, 842). Thompson, J. P., Lawrence, Rubin and Balletta, JJ., concur.
**Exhibit 32.2****SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION**     In connection with the Quarterly Report of enherent Corp. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Qfor the period ended March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on thedate hereof (the “Report”), I, Karl Brenza, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, adopted as pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, that:     (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and     (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.       /s/ Karl Brenza Karl Brenza
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Melvin Sonners, Appellant. Lillian Roberts, as Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.

Harvey, J.

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed July 17, 1986, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving benefits because he voluntarily left his employment without good cause.

Claimant was an officer and owner of the Express Forwarding and Storage Company (hereinafter the Company) for over 30 years when, in March 1985, he decided to sell his interest in the Company. He sold his interest to the other corporate officers for $100,000. For three months following the sale claimant remained employed by the Company at a salary of $40,000 per year. His position was then terminated and he sought unemployment insurance benefits. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board determined that claimant voluntarily left his employment without good cause. Claimant appeals.

A claimant whose loss of employment is occasioned by his or her sale of stock must demonstrate a compelling reason for the sale in order to qualify for unemployment insurance benefits *(Matter of Amato [Catherwood],*26 AD2d 599; *see, Matter of Gable [Roberts],*133 AD2d 484 [decided herewith]). Although claimant believed the Company was declining, there is no evidence that it was facing severe economic hardship. Further, claimant made a substantial profit in the sale of his interest.

Claimant contends that the sale of his stock was not the cause of his employment being terminated. In support of this contention he points to the fact that he remained employed by the Company for three months following the sale. However, the record reflects that the purchasers intended to eliminate the substantial salaries paid to claimant and another individual who sold his interest in the Company. Indeed, claimant’s *492own testimony reflects his knowledge, at the time of the sale, that his job would probably be eliminated. Hence, we conclude that substantial evidence supports the Board’s determination that claimant voluntarily left his employment without good cause.

Decision affirmed, without costs. Kane, J. P., Casey, Yesawich, Jr., Levine and Harvey, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AT OCTOBER 31, 1997 (UNAUDITED) AND THE CONSOLIDATED
STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED OCTOBER 31, 1997 (UNAUDITED)
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1997
<CASH>                                         365,000  
<SECURITIES>                                         0  
<RECEIVABLES>                               11,118,000  
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0  
<INVENTORY>                                 19,038,000  
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            30,927,000  
<PP&E>                                      52,793,000  
<DEPRECIATION>                             (28,562,000) 
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              59,114,000  
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       22,985,000  
<BONDS>                                              0  
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0  
<PREFERRED>                                 24,822,000  
<COMMON>                                        25,000  
<OTHER-SE>                                  (6,939,000) 
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                59,114,000  
<SALES>                                     93,563,000  
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            93,563,000  
<CGS>                                       29,238,000  
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               58,363,000  
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                (2,000) 
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0  
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,866,000  
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              4,098,000  
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0  
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          4,098,000  
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0  
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0  
<CHANGES>                                            0  
<NET-INCOME>                                 4,098,000  
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .76  
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0  
                                           

</TABLE>
H. R. 813 

One Hundred Eleventh Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE FIRST SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday, 

the sixth day of January, two thousand and nine 

An Act 

To designate the Federal building and United States courthouse located at 306 

East Main Street in Elizabeth City, North Carolina, as the ‘‘J. Herbert W. Small 

Federal Building and United States Courthouse’’. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION. 

The Federal building and United States courthouse located 

at 306 East Main Street in Elizabeth City, North Carolina, shall 

be known and designated as the ‘‘J. Herbert W. Small Federal 

Building and United States Courthouse’’. 

SEC. 2. REFERENCES. 

Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, 

or other record of the United States to the Federal building and 

United States courthouse referred to in section 1 shall be deemed 

to be a reference to the ‘‘J. Herbert W. Small Federal Building 

and United States Courthouse’’. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.