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

      In connection with the accompanying Annual Report of GreenMan
Technologies, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ended September
30, 2006 (the "Report"), I, Lyle Jensen, President and Chief Executive Officer
of the Company, hereby certify that, to my knowledge:

      (1)   The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
            15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or
            78o(d)); and

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


Date: December 14, 2006

/s/  Lyle Jensen
----------------
     Lyle Jensen
     President and Chief Executive Officer
#### In re: Scott R. SMITH, Debtor. Scott R. Smith, Appellant, v. Entrepreneur Media, Inc., Appellee.

No. 10-60009.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 19, 2011.*

Filed Jan. 10, 2012.

Scott Smith, Sacramento, CA, pro se.

Mark Finkelstein, Jones Day, Irvine, CA, for Appellee.

Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Scott R. Smith, a Chapter 7 debtor, appeals pro se from the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s (“BAP”) judgment affirming the bankruptcy court’s judgment determining that Smith’s debt to Entrepreneur Media, Inc. (“EMI”) is nondis-chargeable in bankruptcy under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review de novo the bankruptcy court’s conclusions of law and for clear error its findings of fact. *Petralia v. Jercich (In re Jercich),*238 F.3d 1202, 1204-05 (9th Cir.2001). We affirm.

The bankruptcy court properly determined that the debt in question resulted from a willful and malicious injury and therefore was not subject to discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6). *See Papadakis v. Zelis (In re Zelis),*66 F.3d 205, 208-09 (9th Cir.1995) (setting forth elements of § 523(a)(6), and affirming bankruptcy court’s determination that debtor’s conduct resulting in state court’s award of sanctions was willful and malicious and therefore sanctions were nondischargeable). Contrary to Smith’s contentions, the bankruptcy court did not err in giving preclu-sive effect to the district court’s decision determining that Smith infringed on EMI’s trademark and awarding EMI attorney’s fees. *See Clark v. Bear Stearns & Co.,*966 F.2d 1318, 1320 (9th Cir.1992) (setting forth elements of issue preclusion under federal law); *see also Earthquake Sound Corp. v. Bumper Indus.,*352 F.3d 1210, 1216 (9th Cir.2003) (court may award attorney’s fees only in exceptional trademark cases where defendant acted maliciously, fraudulently, deliberately, or willfully).

We do not consider Smith’s contentions concerning the bankruptcy court’s failure to sanction EMI sua sponte because Smith lacks standing, as he was not “directly and adversely affected pecuniarily” by the deci*708sion and hence does not qualify as a “person aggrieved.” *Duckor Spradling & Metzger v. Baum Trust (In re P.R.T.C., Inc.),*177 F.3d 774, 777 (9th Cir.1999) (discussing additional prudential standing requirement in bankruptcy cases); *see also*Fed. R. Bankr.P. 9011(c)(2) (providing for payment of sanctions to party only on party’s motion).

Smith’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**Exhibit
      23**




**CONSENT
      OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**





We
      have
      issued our report dated January 13, 2006 accompanying the consolidated financial
      statements included in the Annual Report of First Community Corporation on
      Form
      10-K for the year ended December 31, 2005. We hereby consent to the
      incorporation by reference of said report in the Registration Statements of
      First Community Corporation on Form S-8 (File No. 333-119630 )
      and on
      Form S-8 (File No. 333-90603 ).





/s/
      Clifton D. Bodiford, CPA


Clifton
      D. Bodiford, CPA





Columbia,
      South Carolina


March
      15,
      2006














68
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 1127 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 1127

   Expressing concern regarding the suicide plane attack on Internal 
              Revenue Service employees in Austin, Texas.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 2, 2010

    Mr. Doggett (for himself, Mr. Clyburn, Mr. Rangel, Mr. Lewis of 
   Georgia, Mr. McDermott, Mr. Neal of Massachusetts, Mr. Towns, Mr. 
Blumenauer, Mr. Kind, Mr. Pascrell, Mr. Davis of Illinois, Ms. Linda T. 
Sanchez of California, Mr. Lynch, Mr. Serrano, Mr. Gonzalez, Mr. Walz, 
    Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas, Mr. Cuellar, and Mr. Ortiz) 
submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee 
                           on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
   Expressing concern regarding the suicide plane attack on Internal 
              Revenue Service employees in Austin, Texas.

Whereas all Federal employees, and those from the Internal Revenue Service in 
        particular, have experienced a terrible tragedy in the suicide plane 
        attack on February 18, 2010;
Whereas Vernon Hunter, who lost his life in the terror attack, had 48 years of 
        public service, including 20 years of serving in the United States Army 
        and 2 tours in Vietnam;
Whereas Federal, State, and local officials have cooperated to respond promptly 
        and professionally to the attack and provide assistance to Internal 
        Revenue Service victims and families affected by the crash; and
Whereas Federal employees, from the Armed Forces to the Internal Revenue 
        Service, serve their Nation with honor and commitment, and perform 
        public service that benefits the entire Nation: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
            (1) strongly condemns the terror attack perpetrated 
        deliberately against Federal employees of the Internal Revenue 
        Service in Austin, Texas;
            (2) honors Vernon Hunter, a victim of the crash, Shane 
        Hill, who suffered severe injuries, and all those who were 
        injured for their service to our Nation;
            (3) commends Internal Revenue Service employees for their 
        dedication and public service;
            (4) recognizes the heroic actions of the first responders, 
        emergency services personnel, Internal Revenue Service 
        employees, and citizens on the ground in Austin such as Robin 
        De Haven whose actions minimized the loss of life; and
            (5) rejects any statement or act that deliberately fans the 
        flames of hatred or expresses sympathy for those who would 
        attack public servants serving our Nation.
                                 <all>
```
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Uriel PEREZ PEREZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 08-50025.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 26, 2008.*

Filed Sept. 9, 2008.

Christopher P. Tenorio, Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Jennifer L. Coon, Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.

*608Before: SCHROEDER, KLEINFELD, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this ease suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. *608R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Uriel Perez Perez appeals from the revocation of his supervised release and the 11-month sentence imposed upon revocation. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C § 1291, and we affirm the district court.

Perez Perez’s contention that the supervised release regime is unconstitutional, and that *United States v. Huerta-Pimen-tal,*445 F.3d 1220 (9th Cir.2006), has been undermined by *Cunningham v. California,*549 U.S. 270, 127 S.Ct. 856, 166 L.Ed.2d 856 (2007), is foreclosed by *United States v. Santana,*526 F.3d 1257, 1262 (9th Cir. 2008).

Perez Perez contends that the district court failed to consider the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. §§ 3553(a) and 3583(e), and failed to explain why those factors justified the sentence it imposed. We conclude that the district court did not commit procedural error in regard to Perez-Perez’s within-Guidelines range sentence. *See United States v. Carty,*520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc).

Perez Perez also challenges the district court’s imposition of a supervised release condition requiring him to participate in mental health treatment. We conclude, however, that the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing such a condition in light of Perez Perez’s history of instability, and his violent, combative behavior towards police officers during a recent arrest. *See United States v. Lopez,*258 F.3d 1053, 1057 (9th Cir.2001).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 113 (Tuesday, June 12, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 31682]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-14783]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Library of Medicine; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Library of Medicine Special Emphasis 
Panel Special Emphasis Panel (Telephone Conference X) June 18, 2001.
    Date: June 18, 2001.
    Time: 3:00 PM to 4:00 PM.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Library of Medicine, Division of Extramural 
Programs, 6705 Rockledge Drive Suite 301, Bethesda, MD 20892, 
(Telephone Conference Call).
    Contact Person: Merlyn M Rodrigues, MD, Phd, MEDICAL Officers/
SRA, National Library of Medicine, Extramural Programs, 6705 
Rockledge Drive, Suite 301, Bethesda, MD 20894.
    This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the 
meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and 
funding cycle.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.879, 
Medical Library Association, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: June 4, 2001.
LaVerne Y. Stringfield,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 01-14783 Filed 6-11-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
#### Scott E. STEARNS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Phillip FLORES; et al., Defendants—Appellees.

No. 07-16719.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 19, 2011.*

Filed Jan. 10, 2012.

Scott E. Stearns, San Bernardino, CA, *681pro se.

Constance L. Picciano, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General, California Department of Justice, Sacramento, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *681*See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM ***

Scott E. Stearns, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment and judgment following a jury verdict in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that defendants violated his constitutional rights by validating him as an associate of a gang and failing to protect him from an assault by the gang. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo summary judgment. *Bruce v. Ylst,*351 F.3d 1283, 1287 (9th Cir.2003). We review for manifest error a district court’s findings concerning juror impartiality. *Skilling v. United States,*— U.S. -, -, 130 S.Ct. 2896, 2923, 177 L.Ed.2d 619 (2010). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Stearns’s due process claim because there was “some evidence” to validate Stearns as a gang associate. *See Bruce,*351 F.3d at 1287-88 (affirming summary judgment on due process claim where “‘some evidence’” supported the gang validation, and explaining that the “ ‘some evidence’ ” standard is met where “ ‘there is any evidence in the record that could support the conclusion’ ’’(citation omitted)).

We are not persuaded by Stearns’s challenges to the jurors who were seated at trial on his failure-to-protect claim because the record shows at most that several jurors had acquaintances or relatives in law enforcement, and those jurors stated that they could be impartial. *See Skilling,*130 S.Ct. at 2924 (the district court did not commit manifest error by finding that juror who stated that she thought she could be impartial was fit for trial); *Tinsley v. Borg,*895 F.2d 520, 529 (9th Cir.1990) (jurors are not presumed to be biased solely because they are in law enforcement or related to someone in law enforcement).

Stearns’s remaining contentions, including those concerning discovery, are unpersuasive.

Stearns’s “Motion for Review En Banc on Original Petition Filed,” filed on December 15, 2011, is denied.

AFFIRMED.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Exhibit 32





Certification of Principal Executive and Financial Officer


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 International Surf Resorts, Inc. a Nevada corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Eduardo Biancardi, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certifies to the best of his knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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.





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





/s/ Eduardo BiancardiEduardo Biancardi

Chief Executive Officer,

Chief Financial Officer

August 11, 2010
EXHIBIT
31.1
 
 **CERTIFICATIONS
PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**
 
 CERTIFICATION
  I, Thomas
J. Drury, Jr., President and Chief Executive Officer of Voxware, Inc., certify
that:
 
 1. I have
reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of Voxware, Inc.
 
 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 registrant as of, and for, the
periods presented in this report;
 
 4. The
registrant's other certifying officer 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 registrant 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 registrant, 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) Paragraph
omitted in accordance with SEC transition instructions contained in SEC Release
34-47986
 
 c) Evaluated the
effectiveness of the registrant'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
 
 d) Disclosed in
this report any change in the registrant's internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (the
registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and
 
 5. The
registrant's other certifying officer 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 registrant's board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
 
 a) All
significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to
adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and
report financial information; and
 
 b) Any fraud,
whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a
significant role in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.
  Dated: September 26,
      2005
    
    /s/ Thomas J. Drury,
      Jr.Thomas J. Drury, Jr.President
      and Chief Executive Officer
      (Principal Executive
Officer)
U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549
 FORM 40-F
 Check One
 o
    
    Registration Statement Pursuant to Section 12 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934
 þ
    
    Annual Report Pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934
 For the fiscal year ended August 31, 2009
    
    Commission File Number: 001-14684
 Shaw
Communications
Inc.
  N/A
 Alberta, Canada
 4841
 N/A
 Suite 900,
630 
3 rd Avenue S.W., Calgary, Alberta, Canada T2P 4L4
(403) 750-4500
 CT
Corporation System, 111 Eighth Avenue,
13 th Floor, New York, NY 10011 (212) 894-8940
  Title of each class
    
    Name of each exchange on which registeredClass B Non-VotingParticipating Shares
    
    New York Stock Exchange
  None
  6.10% Senior Notes due 2012
7.5% Senior Notes due 2013
6.15% Senior Notes due 2016
5.70% Senior Notes due 2017
6.50% Senior Notes due 2014
5.65% Senior Notes due 2019
6.75% Senior Notes due 2039




---



##### 



2  þ     Annual information form
    
    þ     Audited annual financial statements
  Class A Participating Shares 
    
    22,520,064   issued and outstandingClass B Non-Voting Participating Shares 
    
    407,717,782   issued and outstanding
 Exchange Act).
 Yes   o
    
    No   þ
  Yes   þ
    
    No   o
  Yes   o
    
    No   o
   DISCLOSURE CONTROLS AND PROCEDURES
  
 MANAGEMENTS ANNUAL REPORT ON INTERNAL CONTROLS




---



##### 



3 AUDITOR ATTESTATION
  
 CHANGES IN INTERNAL CONTROL OVER FINANCIAL REPORTING
  
 IDENTIFICATION OF THE AUDIT COMMITTEE
  
 AUDIT COMMITTEE FINANCIAL EXPERT
  
 PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTANT FEES AND SERVICES
 Sarbanes-Oxley Act
 Type of Service
    
    Fiscal 2009
    
    
    Fiscal 2008Audit Fees
    
    $
    2,026,295
    
    
    $
    1,888,875Audit-related Fees
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Tax Fees
    
    
    21,010
    
    
    
    83,004All Other Fees
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Total
    
    $
    2,047,305
    
    
    $
    1,971,879




---



##### 



4  de minimus
 
 CODE OF ETHICS
 www.shaw.ca
 
 OFF-BALANCE SHEET ARRANGEMENTS
  
 TABULAR DISCLOSURE OF CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS
  
 UNDERTAKING AND CONSENT TO SERVICE OF PROCESS




---



##### 



5 SIGNATURES
  SHAW COMMUNICATIONS INC.By:
    /s/  Steve WilsonSteve Wilson,Senior Vice President and Chief
Financial Officer




---



##### 



EXHIBITS
  Exhibit Number
    
    Document1.
    
    Annual Report for the fiscal year ended August 31, 2009.2.
    
    Annual Information Form for the fiscal year ended August 31, 2009.3.
    
    Consent of Ernst & Young LLP.4.
    
    Certifications of the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 dated November 30, 2009.5.
    
    Certifications of the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 dated November 30, 2009.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-8007

TERRY J. BENDER,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

ANNE CARTER, Warden,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern 

District of West Virginia, at Wheeling. Frederick P. Stamp, 

Jr., Senior District Judge. (5:12-cv-00165-FPS-JES)

Submitted: March 27, 2014 Decided: April 1, 2014

Before MOTZ, Circuit Judge, and HAMILTON and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Terry J. Bender, Appellant Pro Se. Helen Campbell Altmeyer, 

Jarod James Douglas, Assistant United States Attorneys, 

Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Terry J. Bender, a federal prisoner, appeals the 

district court’s orders adopting the magistrate judge’s report 

and recommendation, denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 

(2012) petition and denying his motion to alter or amend the 

judgment. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible 

error. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma 

pauperis, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district 

court. See Bender v. Carter, No. 5:12-cv-00165-FPS-JES (N.D.W. 

Va. Apr. 30, 2013; Oct. 15, 2013). We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

presented in the materials before this court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
ICE ENDEX DERIVATIVES

1

29 June 2016

EXHIBIT I – ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND DOCUMENTATION

Any additional information or documentation necessary to demonstrate that the 

requirements for registration applicable to the foreign board of trade set forth in 

Commission regulation 48.7 are satisfied.

The Exchange believes that all the information necessary to demonstrate that the 

requirements for registration applicable to the foreign board of trade set forth in Commission 

regulation 48.7 are satisfied is set out in the covering letter, Form FBOT and Exhibits A-H

and stands ready to respond to any queries or information requests the Commission may 

have.

Additional information is enclosed under Annex I-1, the designation of an agent of service 

for process as required under 48.7.5(ii) 17 CFR 48.