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








CERTIFICATION
BY 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 Annual Report of GenVec, Inc. (the “Registrant”) on Form
10-K as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the “Report”), I, Paul H. Fischer, as President and Chief Executive Officer of
the Registrant, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of
my knowledge, 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
      Registrant for the dates and periods covered by the
  Report.





This
certificate is being made for the exclusive purpose of compliance by the Chief
Executive Officer of the Company with the requirements of Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and may not be disclosed, distributed or used by
any person or for any reason other than as specifically required by
law.





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





March
      16, 2009/s/
      Paul H. Fischer, Ph.D.Paul
      H. Fischer, Ph.D.
                President
      and Chief Executive Officer
EXHIBIT 32.2

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF

THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Fortune Industries, Inc., an Indiana corporation, (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q/A for the period ending February 28, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Garth A. Allred, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify the following pursuant to Section 18, U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002:

 

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.

 

| Date:  July 7, 2008 | By: /s/ Garth A. Allred |
|---------------------|-------------------------|

Garth A. Allred, 

Chief Financial Officer
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-17-00301-CV

In the Interest of Y.R., a Child §

§

§

§ From the 323rd District Court

of Tarrant County (323-103717-16)

February 15, 2018

Opinion by Justice Kerr



### JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that

there was no error in the tria l court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of

the trial court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By _/s/ Elizabeth Ke rr__________________

Justice Elizabeth Kerr
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     This schedule  contains summary  financial  information  extracted from NDE
Environmental Corporation's financial statements as of and for the quarter ended
March 31, 1997
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1

       
<S>                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                  3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>              Dec-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                 Jan-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                   Mar-31-1997
<CASH>                          1,031,652
<SECURITIES>                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                   7,485,283
<ALLOWANCES>                      804,886
<INVENTORY>                       466,153
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                9,141,027
<PP&E>                         13,702,164
<DEPRECIATION>                  8,384,549
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                 22,155,778
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           9,301,534
<BONDS>                        12,880,416
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                   0
<PREFERRED>                         5,000
<COMMON>                            1,598
<OTHER-SE>                     (1,833,020)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>   22,155,778
<SALES>                         7,462,643
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                7,462,643
<CGS>                                   0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                   5,602,108
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                1,985,022
<LOSS-PROVISION>                   85,422
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>               (845,146)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                (1,055,055)
<INCOME-TAX>                       25,300
<INCOME-CONTINUING>            (1,080,355)
<DISCONTINUED>                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                         0   
<CHANGES>                               0   
<NET-INCOME>                   (1,080,355)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                       (0.06)
<EPS-DILUTED>                           0
        

</TABLE>
The State o



# Fourth Court of Appeals
**San Antonio, Texas**

November 2, 2015

N o. 0 4

- 15

- 00513

- CR

Edward HOUSTON

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas, Appellee

From the 227th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2014CR7827 Honorable Kevin M. O'Connell, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

On October 2, 2015, Richard B. Dulany Jr. filed a motion that included, inter alia , a request to withdraw as appellate counsel. After this court received a designation of new lead counsel from the Bexar County Public Defender’s Office, on October 8, 2015, we granted Mr. Dulany’s motion to withdraw.

On October 20, 2015, Mr. Dulany filed a motion to reconsider the order granting his
motion to withdraw. He note s that Appellant’s October 12, 2015 affidavit reques ts that Mr. Dulany continue as Appellant’s court

- appointed counsel. M r. Dulany reurged his motion for this

court to remand this matter to the trial court for it to consider his motion.

“ ‘ A defendant does not have the right to choose appointed counsel

. . . .’” Whitney v.

State , 396 S.W.3d 696, 700 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth 2013 , pet. ref’d ) (quoting Maes v. State

, 275 S.W.3d 68, 71 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio 2008, no pet.) ). The Bexar County Public Defender’s office has Appellant’s file and has indicated it wi ll pursue the appeal.

The motion for reconsideration is DENIED.

_________________________________ Patricia O. Alvarez, JusticeIN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 2nd day of November, 2015

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle Clerk of Court
Noel ESPINOZA-SANTOS, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-6889.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 1556 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 1556

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                         July 27, 2010.
    Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in order 
without intervention of any point of order to consider in the House the 
concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 301) directing the President, pursuant to 
section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution, to remove the United States Armed 
Forces from Pakistan, if called up by Representative Kucinich of Ohio or his 
designee. The concurrent resolution shall be considered as read. The concurrent 
resolution shall be debatable for one hour, with 30 minutes controlled by 
Representative Kucinich of Ohio or his designee and 30 minutes equally divided 
and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
Foreign Affairs. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
concurrent resolution to final adoption without intervening motion.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
Dalia CORRALES, Personal Representative of the Estate of Fabian Corrales, et al., petitioners, v. Clark David IMPASTATO.

No. 16-430.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 5, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
Jerry HARCUM, petitioner, v. MARYLAND.

No. 15-9365.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 31, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland denied.
Exhibit 4.19



LOGO

23 August, 2017

Ms Kate
Hill

Sabio Solutions Pty Limited

ABN 65 612 360 862

XXXX

Dear Kate,

RE: Extension of Appointment

I refer to the
Letter of Appointment signed between you and the Company, dated 6 September 2016 (the Appointment Letter), and to the contract extension dated 6 March 2017 (the Extension Letter).

In accordance with our recent discussions, I am pleased to confirm a transition of your engagement to an open-ended term. The notice period specified in
Clause 9 of the Appointment Letter shall be extended to 60 days. This transition will be effective immediately upon the completion of the period set out in the Extension Letter.

In all other respects, the ongoing engagement will be on the same terms as described in the original Appointment Letter, and subsequently modified in the
Extension Letter. It is Novogens expectation that compensation will be reviewed around December 2017 and annually thereafter, in line with the companys standard performance review cycle.

In accordance with Section 2 of the Appointment Letter, please return a signed copy of this letter as written agreement of extension of your appointment.

On behalf of the Board and Management, I would like to thank you for your ongoing commitment to excellence at Novogen and congratulate you on your
outstanding performance.

Yours faithfully,

Iain Ross

Chairman

Novogen Limited ABN 37 063 259 754

PO Box 2333 Hornsby Westfield 1635 NSW Australia

Suite 502,
Level 5, 20 George Street, Hornsby, NSW 2077 Australia

T +61 2 9476 0344 F +61 2 9476 0388

www.novogen.com



---

LOGO



By signing this letter, you agree to the extension of your appointment,



|                                 
|---------------------------------
|                                 
|Kate Hill                        
|Director, Sabio Solutions Pty Ltd

Novogen Limited ABN 37 063 259 754

PO Box 2333 Hornsby Westfield 1635 NSW Australia

Suite 502,
Level 5, 20 George Street, Hornsby, NSW 2077 Australia

T +61 2 9476 0344 F +61 2 9476 0388

www.novogen.com
Exhibit 32
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (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 Partnership.
 /s/ Steven J. MalcolmSteven J. MalcolmChief Executive OfficerOctober 29, 2009/s/ Donald R. ChappelDonald R. ChappelChief Financial OfficerOctober 29, 2009
Barry RANDOLPH, et ux., petitioners, v. SOLUTIA INC.

No. 16-5337.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 12, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Florida denied.
# C_2009180EN.01003401.xml

| 1.8.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 180/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.8.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 180/34

---

Action brought on 28 May 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands

(Case C-192/09)

2009/C 180/58

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: L. Balta and H. te Winkel, Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Kingdom of the Netherlands

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2006/24/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the retention of data generated or processed in connection with the provision of publicly available electronic communications services or of public communications networks and amending Directive 2002/58/EC, (2) or in any event by not communicating such measures to the Commission, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 15 of that directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2006/24/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the retention of data generated or processed in connection with the provision of publicly available electronic communications services or of public communications networks and amending Directive 2002/58/EC, (2) or in any event by not communicating such measures to the Commission, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 15 of that directive;

1

2

| — | order the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period prescribed for transposing the directive into national law expired on 15 September 2007.

---

(1)  OJ 2006 L 105, p. 54.

1

(2)  OJ 2002 L 201, p. 37.

2

---
**Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 1 October 2009 – Commission v Czech Republic**

**(Case C-100/09)**

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 2007/14/EC – Detailed rules for the implementation of certain provisions of Directive 2004/109/EC – Failure to transpose within the prescribed period

1.                     *Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Examination of the merits by the Court – Situation to be taken into consideration
– Situation on expiry of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion (Art. 226 EC) (see para. 8)*

2.                     *Member States – Obligations – Implementation of directives – Failure to fulfil obligations – National system pleaded as justification
– Not permissible (Art. 226 EC) (see para. 9)*

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, all the provisions necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2007/14/EC of 8 March 2007 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of certain provisions of Directive 2004/109/EC on the harmonisation of transparency requirements in relation to information about issuers whose securities are admitted to trading on a regulated market (OJ 2007 L 69, p. 27). |

**Operative part**

The Court:

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1. | | Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2007/14/EC of 8 March 2007 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of certain provisions of Directive 2004/109/EC on the harmonisation of transparency requirements in relation to information about issuers whose securities are admitted to trading on a regulated market, the Czech Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 24 of that directive; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders the Czech Republic to pay the costs. |
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Leon Bernard SPIKES, Sr., Defendant-Appellant.

No. 09-15565

Non-Argument Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

June 17, 2010.

Michelle Schieber, Macon, GA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Rick D. Collum, The Collum Law Firm, P.C., Moultrie, GA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before EDMONDSON, BARKETT and FAY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Rick D. Collum, appointed counsel for Leon Bernard Spikes, Sr., in this direct criminal appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the appellant and filed a brief pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguably meritorious issues, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and Spikes’s conviction and sentence are AFFIRMED.
II-01189

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Winifred De Palma <wdepalma@earthlink.net>

Wednesday, December 1, 2010 6:01 PM

dfadefinitions <dfadefinitions@CFTC.gov>

Re: No loopholes in Dodd-Frank

1) Securities and Exchange Commission/Commodities Futures Trading Commission, Re: Commercial Risk (CFTC RIN

3235-AK65, SEC File Number $7-12-10)

Dear Commissioners Shapiro and Gensler: Don’t let the American Bankers Association (ABA) redefine important terms like

"commercial risk" to keep banks that engage in risky derivatives trading from complying with transparency and business

conduct requirements. Commercial risk should not be expanded to include financial risk. Accepting the ABA argument

would open the door for exemptions for risky hedge funds and insurance companies.

2) Commodities Futures Trading Commission, Re: Position Limits (RIN 3038-AD 17 )

Dear Commissioner Gensler: The CFTC needs to set strong position limits to crack down on the energy and food commodity

speculation that serves no productive purpose. I urge the Commission to define limits that will address not only manipulation,

but also excessive speculation, which will require a stricter approach.

3) U.S. Department of the Treasury, Re: FX Swaps (75 FR 66426 Document Number 2010-27274)

Dear Secretary Geithner: Just say "no" to foreign exchange traders who want to exempt foreign currency derivatives from the

clearing and transparency requirements of the

Dodd-Frank Act. $4 trillion dollars a day is traded in these highly-leveraged swaps and this number may increase to over $10

trillion in a decade. As the head of the Financial

Stability Oversight Board your job is to decrease risk in the system, not encourage off-book trading and opaque markets.

Winifred De Palma

628 E. 31st Street

Baltimore, MD 21218
Exhibit 99.1


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


     In connection  with the Quarterly  Report of ChrisKen  Growth & Income L.P.
II, a Delaware  limited  partnership  (the  "Company"),  on Form  10-QSB for the
period  ending  March  31,  2003,  as filed  with the  Securities  and  Exchange
Commission  on the  date  hereof  (the  "Report"),  I,  John F.  Kennedy,  Chief
Executive Officer of ChrisKen Income  Properties,  Inc. II, the managing general
partner 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
and based on my review of the Report:

     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.




                              By:      /S/JOHN F. KENNEDY
                                       ----------------------------------
                              John F.Kennedy
                              Chief Executive Officer
                              ChrisKen Income Properties, Inc. II ,
                                  Managing General Partner
                              ChrisKen Growth & Income L.P. II

                              May 14, 2003

A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided  to  ChrisKen  Growth & Income L.P. II and will be retained by ChrisKen
Growth & Income L.P. II and furnished to the Securities and Exchange  Commission
or its staff upon request.
IV 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 1617 

Supporting the goals and purpose of Gold Star Mothers Day, which is observed on the last Sunday in September of each year in remembrance 

of the supreme sacrifice made by mothers who lose a son or daughter 

serving in the Armed Forces. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 14, 2010 

Mr. ROSKAM (for himself, Ms. BERKLEY, Mr. BISHOP of Georgia, Mr. CAO, 

Mr. CARNEY, Mr. COURTNEY, Mr. CUELLAR, Mr. GINGREY of Georgia, 

Mr. LOBIONDO, Mr. MORAN of Kansas, Mr. MORAN of Virginia, Mr. 

OBERSTAR, Mr. RANGEL, Ms. RICHARDSON, Mrs. MCMORRIS RODGERS, 

Mr. ROE of Tennessee, Mr. SCHOCK, and Mr. WALDEN) submitted the 

following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight 

and Government Reform 

RESOLUTION 

Supporting the goals and purpose of Gold Star Mothers 

Day, which is observed on the last Sunday in September 

of each year in remembrance of the supreme sacrifice 

made by mothers who lose a son or daughter serving 

in the Armed Forces. 

Whereas the American Gold Star Mothers have suffered the 

supreme sacrifice of motherhood by losing a son or 

daughter who served in the Armed Forces, and thus perpetuate the memory of all whose lives are sacrificed in 

war; 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 1617 IH 

Whereas the American Gold Star Mothers assist veterans of 

the Armed Forces and their dependents in the presentation of claims to the Department of Veterans Affairs 

and aid members of the Armed Forces who served and 

died or were wounded or incapacitated during hostilities; 

Whereas the services rendered to the United States by the 

mothers of America have strengthened and inspired 

Americans throughout the history of the United States; 

Whereas Americans honor themselves and the mothers of 

America when they revere and emphasize the role of the 

home and the family as the true foundations of the 

United States; 

Whereas by doing so much for the home, the American mother is a source of moral and spiritual guidance for the 

people of the United States and thus acts as a positive 

force to promote good government and peace among all 

mankind; and 

Whereas the last Sunday in September of each year is observed as Gold Star Mothers Day: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

2 (1) supports the goals and purpose of Gold Star 

3 Mothers Day, which is observed in remembrance of 

4 the supreme sacrifice made by mothers who lose a 

5 son or daughter serving in the Armed Forces; and 

6 (2) urges the President to issue a proclamation 

7 calling upon the people of the United States to ob8 serve Gold Star Mothers Day with appropriate cere9 monies and activities. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 18

- 3290

_____________________________
B RIAN J. N EWMAN , Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Alachua County

. Mark W. Moseley , Judge

. June 11, 2019

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

. R AY , B ILBREY , and J AY , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Brian J. Newman, pro se
, Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Anne C. Conley, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee
, for Appellee.