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

                                  CERTIFICATION

     I, Peter Wardle, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Protosource Corporation;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements
made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not
misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business
issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible
for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined
in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and
have:

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that
material information relating to the small business issuer , including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer's disclosure
controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures , as of the end of the
period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

c) disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business
issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's fourth fiscal
quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is
likely to materially affect, the small business issuer's internal control over
financial reporting; and

5. The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed,
based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial
reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the small
business issuer's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):

a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls
which could adversely affect the small business issuer's ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the small
business issuer's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the small business issuers internal
control over financial reporting..

March 30, 2005

/s/ PETER WARDLE
----------------
Peter Wardle
Chief Executive Officer
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 99-4267

DAVID A. RAMEY, JR.,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke.

Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge.

(CR-95-126)

Submitted: October 8, 1999

Decided: November 4, 1999

Before WIDENER, MURNAGHAN, and WILKINS, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

John H. Kennett, Jr., Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellant. Robert P.

Crouch, Jr., United States Attorney, Anthony P. Giorno, Assistant

United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________
OPINION

PER CURIAM:

David A. Ramey, Jr., appeals his conviction for two counts of distribution of cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C.§ 841(a)(1) (1994).

On appeal, Ramey contends that the twenty-two month delay between

the date the indictment was returned and his arrest violated his Sixth

Amendment right to a speedy trial. Ramey also contends that the

eighteen month delay between the date of the two incidents of drug

distribution and the return of the indictment prejudiced his defense.

Finding no reversible error, we affirm.

We find there was no Sixth Amendment violation. The delay

between the date the indictment was returned and Ramey's arrest was

long enough to trigger the speedy trial analysis set forth in Barker v.

Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 530 (1972). See Doggett v. United States, 505

U.S. 647, 651-52 (1992). While it appears that the Government did

not aggressively seek Ramey's arrest after he moved to Pennsylvania,

there was no evidence or suggestion that the Government was in possession of information as to Ramey's whereabouts that it disregarded.

On the other hand, by waiting several months after learning at the

indictment to assert his Sixth Amendment right, Ramey was himself

dilatory. Finally, Ramey failed to show how he was prejudiced by the

delay. See Barker, 407 U.S. at 530. This factor was highly significant

because none of the remaining factors weighed strongly against the

Government. Accordingly, we find no infringement of Ramey's right

to a speedy trial.

We also find that the delay between the distribution incidents and

the return of the indictment did not violate Ramey's right to due process. Ramey's failure to show how he was actually prejudiced by the

delay was singularly dispositive of this claim. See Jones v. Angelone,

94 F.3d 900, 905-06 (4th Cir. 1996).

Accordingly, we affirm the district court's judgment of conviction.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid in the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

 2
#### In re: Jerry Franklin MEADOWS, Sr.; Theresa Tucker Meadows, Debtors. DaimlerChrysler Financial Services Americas, LLC, Creditor— Appellant, v. Jerry Franklin Meadows, Sr.; Theresa Tucker Meadows, Debtors— Appellees. National Association of Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys, Amicus Supporting Appellees.

No. 07-1968.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Aug. 28, 2008.

Decided: Sept. 11, 2008.

Stephen P. Hale, Jacob C. Zweig, Hale, Dewey & Knight, PLLC, Memphis, Tennessee; M. Richard Epps, Sara A. John, M. Richard Epps, PC, Virginia Beach, Virginia; Steven L. Higgs, Steven L. Higgs, PC, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellant. David Cox, Cox Law Group, PLLC, Lynchburg, Virginia, for Appellees. Brett Weiss, Tara Twomey, National Association of Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys, 01-ney, Maryland, for Amicus Supporting Ap-pellees.

Before MICHAEL, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Vacated and remanded by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

DaimlerChrysler Financial Services Americas, LLC, appeals directly from the bankruptcy court’s order overruling its objection to the Chapter 13 plan filed by the debtors, Jerry Franklin Meadows, Sr., and Theresa Tucker Meadows. The bankruptcy court held that the bankruptcy code, as amended by the Bankruptcy Abuse Pre*257vention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 (“BAPCPA”), permits the debtor to surrender undersecured collateral in full satisfaction of a secured claim. In light of our decision in *Tidewater Fin. Co. v. Ken-ney (In re Kenney,)*531 F.3d 312 (4th Cir.2008), we vacate the bankruptcy-court’s orders and remand for further proceedings consistent with *Kenney.*

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*VACATED AND REMANDED.*
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 1219 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 1219

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                         July 19, 2010.
Whereas millions of American children and youth represent the hopes and future 
        of the United States;
Whereas numerous individuals, children's organizations, and youth-serving 
        organizations that work with children and youth collaborate to provide 
        invaluable services to enrich and better the lives of the young;
Whereas heightening awareness of, and increasing support for, organizations that 
        provide access to healthcare, social services, education, the arts, 
        sports, and other services will assist in the development of character 
        and the future success of youth in the United States;
Whereas September is a time when parents, families, teachers, school 
        administrators, and communities in general increase their focus on 
        children and youth nationwide as the school year begins;
Whereas September is a time for the people of the United States as a whole to 
        highlight and be mindful of the needs of children and youth;
Whereas the House of Representatives unanimously passed H. Res. 1296 in 2008 and 
        H. Res. 438 in 2009 to support the designation of September as 
        ``National Child Awareness Month'';
Whereas private corporations and businesses have joined with hundreds of 
        national and local charitable organizations throughout the United States 
        in support of a month-long focus on children and youth; and
Whereas designating September as National Child Awareness Month would recognize 
        that a long-term commitment to children and youth is in the public 
        interest, and will encourage widespread support for the charities and 
        organizations that seek to provide a better future for the children and 
        youth of the United States: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
            (1) supports the designation of a National Child Awareness Month to 
        promote awareness of children's charities and youth-serving 
        organizations across the United States;
            (2) recognizes the efforts of children's charities and youth-serving 
        organizations on behalf of children and youth as a critical contribution 
        to the future of the United States; and
            (3) encourages the President to issue a proclamation to emphasize 
        the importance of National Child Awareness Month.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
#### Nadejda MAKAROWSKI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Mary Christina MORRISON; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 08-55848.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Sept. 8, 2008.*

Filed Sept. 15, 2008.

Nadejda Makarowski, Stanton, CA, pro se.

Before: PREGERSON, McKEOWN and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

A review of the record, appellant’s opening brief, and appellant’s response to the *710order to show cause indicates that the questions raised in this appeal are so insubstantial as not to require further argument. *See United States v. Hooton,*693 F.2d 857, 858 (9th Cir.1982) (per curiam) (stating standard). Accordingly, we summarily affirm the district court’s May 20, 2008 order dismissing this case for lack of jurisdiction.

All other pending motions are denied.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provid*710ed by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T UN I T E D S T AT E S OF AME R I C A, P l ai nt i ff

- A pp el l ee , v. NI T A A L MUE T E P AD DI T P AL MA, D e f

e n d an t - A p p e llan t. N o. 10- 50120 D. C . No . 2 : 0 8 - c r - 0 1 4 8 6 - R GK ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e C e n tr a l D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia R . G aryK l aus ne r , D i s tr i c tJudge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d Jul y17, 2012 ** B e f o r e : S C H R O E D E R , T H O M A S , an dS I L V E R M A N , C ir c u it Ju d g e s . N i t aA l m ue t e P a ddi tP a l m aappe a l s f r om he rj ury - tr i a l c onvi c t i on and 42- m onth s e nt e nc e f

ortw o c ount s of

i l l e ga l r e m une r a t i ons , i n vi ol a t i on of 42 U . S . C . § 1320a - 7b( b) ( 1) ( A ) . P ur s uantt o A n de r s v . Ca lifo rn ia , 386 U . S . 738 (196 7), P al m a’ s c ou nselhas f i l ed a bri ef

st at i ng there ar e no g roun ds for r el i ef , 

# FI LED JU L 19 2012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS10- 50120 2 a l o n g w i th amo t i o n t o w i th d r aw a s c o u n s e l o f r e c o r d . W e h a v e p r o v i d e dPa l ma w i th the op po rtun i ty t o fi l e apro se s up pl em ent albri ef . N o p ro se supp l em ent al br i e f orans w e r i ng br i e f

ha s be e n f

i l e d. O uri nde pe nde ntr e vi e w of the r e c or d pur s uantt o P e n s o n v . O h io , 4 8 8 U . S. 7 5 , 8 0 - 8 1 ( 1 9 8 8 ) , d is c lo s e s n o a r g u ab le g r o u n d s f o rr e lie f o n d ir e c t ap p e a l. C o u n sel ’ s m o t i o n t o w i th d raw i s G R A N T E D . AF F I RME D.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, 
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, Robert Skelly, the Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer of Harborside Ventures, Inc., hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to his knowledge, the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB/A of Harborside Ventures, Inc., for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2007, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the information contained in the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB/A fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Harborside Ventures, Inc.

Date:    January 18, 2008.

|"Robert Skelly"                                                                                                       
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Robert Skelly
President, Principal Executive Officer, Principal
Financial Officer, Secretary, Treasurer and a director

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

__________
```

[Federal Register: March 11, 1997 (Volume 62, Number 47)]
[Notices]
[Page 11160]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr11mr97-57]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------


COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting

AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING: Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

TIME AND DATE: 2:00 p.m., Monday, March 17, 1997.

PLACE: 1155 21st St., NW., Washington, DC 9 Fl. Conference Room.

STATUS: Closed.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Adjudicatory Matters.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Jean A. Webb, 202-418-5100.
Jean A. Webb,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 97-6188 Filed 3-7-97; 11:03 am]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-M
```

----

**======== RETURN TO    INDEX ========**

----
#### Abe WILLIAMS, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. M.L. KNOWLES, Warden; et al., Respondents-Appellees.

No. 06-16912.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Sept. 13, 2010.*

Filed Oct. 13, 2010.

Abe Williams, Jr., Mule Creek State Prison, lone, CA, for Petitioner-Appellant.

Mary J. Graves, Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, Scott C. Mather, Esq., Office of the California Attorney General, San Francisco, CA, for Respondents-Appellees.

*286Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Abe Williams, Jr. appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253,1 and we affirm.

Williams contends that the Board’s 1999 decision to deny him parole was not supported by “some evidence” and therefore violated his due process rights. The state court did not unreasonably conclude that some evidence supports the Board’s decision. *See*28 U.S.C. § 2254(d); *see also Hayward v. Marshall,*603 F.3d 546, 562-63 (9th Cir.2010) (en banc).

Williams also contends that the Board’s decision was based on a “no parole” policy and that he was entitled to parole, even though he had been found unsuitable, based on various provisions of the California Penal Code. The California court’s rejection of these claims was not contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established Supreme Court law, and was not an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence. *See*28 U.S.C. § 2254(d); *see also Irons v. Carey,*505 F.3d 846, 851 & n.3 (9th Cir.2007) (suitability for parole determination under California Penal Code section 3041(b) must precede the setting of a parole release date under California Penal Code section 3041(a)).

We deny Williams’ motion for removal of the stay of proceedings as moot.

AFFIRMED.

**

**This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

1

. We expand the certificate of appealability, on our own motion, to include the issue of whether the 1999 decision of the California Board of Prison Terms ("Board”) to deny parole violated due process. We decline to expand the certificate of appealability to include any other issues raised by Williams.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 1284 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 1284

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                          May 12, 2010.
Whereas, since the birth of flight, aviation has had a tremendous impact on the 
        imagination, innovation, and economy of the United States;
Whereas many of the Nation's heroes have been pilots, including the Wright 
        brothers, Charles Lindbergh, Amelia Earhart, Charles ``Chuck'' Yeager, 
        the Nation's astronauts and military aviators, and the flight crew of US 
        Airways Flight 1549, among others;
Whereas every one of these individuals had to learn to fly before they could 
        achieve their greatness;
Whereas there are approximately 600,000 pilots and approximately 230,000 
        commercial and general aviation airplanes in the United States;
Whereas flight brings joy, inspiration, and a sense of accomplishment to those 
        who fly for recreation, pleasure, and work;
Whereas flight allows the movement of people and commodities across the Nation 
        and around the world quickly and efficiently; and
Whereas the third Saturday in May is an appropriate day to observe International 
        Learn to Fly Day: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
            (1) supports the goals and ideals of National Learn to Fly Day; and
            (2) recognizes the contributions of flight instructors, flight 
        schools, aviation groups, and industry in promoting and teaching the 
        Nation's next generation of pilots.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

MAY 21, 2007

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

Honorable J. Owen Forrester, United States District Judge for the Northern District of *

Georgia, sitting by designation. 

 [DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 06-14309

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 06-00025 CR-1-KD-B

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

versus 

FEDERICO FLORES-ESPINOSA, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Alabama

_________________________

(May 21, 2007)

Before EDMONDSON, Chief Judge, HULL, Circuit Judge, and FORRESTER,*

District Judge.

PER CURIAM:

After review and oral argument, we find no reversible error in the district
2

court’s order of April 20, 2006, which denied defendant Federico FloresEspinosa’s motion to suppress. Accordingly, we affirm Flores-Espinosa’s

conviction.

AFFIRMED.
Order entered October {)3 , 2012 

In The 

QCourt of ~eal~ 

jfiftb 1Di~trirt of 'Utexa~ at maUa~ 

No. 05-12-00493-CR 

ISRAEL CORONEL, Appellant 

v. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee 

On Appeal from the 283rd Judicial District Court 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. F09-60181-T 

ORDER 

The Court ORDERS the trial court to conduct a hearing to determine why appellant's 

brief has not been filed. In this regard, the trial court shall make appropriate findings and 

recommendations and determine whether appellant desires to prosecute the appeal, whether 

appellant is indigent, or if not indigent, whether retained counsel has abandoned the appeal. See 

TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(b). If the trial court cannot obtain appellant's presence at the hearing, the 

trial court shall conduct the hearing in appellant's absence. See Meza v. State, 742 S.W.2d 708 

(Tex. App.-Corpus Christi 1987, no pet.) (per curiam). If appellant is in4igent, the trial court is 

ORDERED to take such measures as may be necessary to assure effective representation, which 

may include appointment of new counsel. 
We ORDER the trial court to transmit a record of the proceedings, which shall include 

written findings and recommendations, to this Court within TIDRTY DAYS of the date of this 

order. 

This appeal is ABA TED to allow the trial court to comply with the above order. The 

appeal shall be reinstated thirty days from the date of this order or when the findings are 

received, whichever is earlier. 

uu~~ 

DAVID L. BRIDGES 

JUSTICE