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



PRISM TECHNOLOGIES GROUP, INC.

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 Annual Report of Prism Technologies Group, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2015 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Hussein A. Enan, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



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



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



|/s/ HUSSEIN A. ENAN                                                       | 
|------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 
|Hussein A. Enan                                                           | 
|Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer
Dated: November 7, 2016 | 





In connection with the Annual Report of Prism Technologies Group, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2015 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Steven J. Yasuda, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



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



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



|/s/ STEVEN J. YASUDA                                                         | 
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 
|Steven J. Yasuda                                                             | 
|Chief Financial Officer and Chief Accounting Officer
Dated: November 7, 2016 |
Millie OGDEN, petitioner, v. Grant KWOK, et al.

No. 17-137.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
Pedro NORIEGA, Jr., et al., petitioners, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-1502.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
Randy BELTRAMEA, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-9432.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
EX-10.1






EXHIBIT 10.1




CASTLE BRANDS INC.

122 East 42nd Street

Suite 4700

New York, NY 10168




June 6, 2018



Mr. Mark Andrews



Dear Mark:



This letter agreement constitutes an amendment to the Third Amended and Restated Employment
Agreement dated as of February 26, 2010, as previously amended (the “Agreement”), between Castle
Brands Inc. (the “Company”) and Mark Andrews (the “Executive”). The Company and the Executive wish
to amend the Agreement as set forth below. Unless otherwise defined herein, capitalized terms used
herein shall have the meanings ascribed thereto in the Agreement.



A. Section 3 of the Agreement is amended, effective as of May 1, 2018, by deleting the date
“May 1, 2018” and inserting in its place the date “May 1, 2020”.



B. This letter agreement constitutes an amendment to and a modification of the Agreement and
shall for all purposes be considered a part of the Agreement. Except as amended hereby, the
Agreement is confirmed and ratified in all respects and shall remain in full force and effect.



Please indicate your agreement with the foregoing by countersigning two copies of this letter
agreement in the space provided below and returning one of such copies to us.



Very truly yours,



CASTLE BRANDS INC.



	 	 	 
	By:
	 	/s/ Alfred J. Small

	 	 	 

	 	 	Alfred J. Small

Chief Financial Officer







1




The foregoing letter agreement is consented and agreed to as of the date first above written.



	 	 	 
	By:
	 	/s/ Mark Andrews

	 	 	 

	 	 	Mark Andrews








2
#### JOHNSON v. BROTHERHOOD OF RAILROAD TRAINMEN et al.

No. 8680.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

Argued Jan. 32, 1045.

Decided Feb. 5, 1945.

Joseph S. Conwell, Jr., of Philadelphia, Pa. (Pepper, Bodine, Stokes & Schoch, of Philadelphia, Pa., on the brief), for appellants.

Harry R. Kozart, of Philadelphia, Pa. (William Charles Brown, of Philadelphia, Pa., on the brief), for appellee.

Before GOODRICH and McALLISTER, Circuit Judges, and GIBSON, District Judge.

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff in this case recovered a judgment for malicious prosecution in the District Court and the defendant appealed. The problem is purely one of Pennsylvania law and was so recognized by the District Judge. There was evidence that the criminal prosecution of which complaint is made was instituted in an effort to collect a debt. Under those circumstances the rule in Pennsylvania is that the burden of proving probable cause shifts' to the defendant. Curley v. Automobile Finance Co., 343 Pa. 280, 23 A.2d 48, 139 A.L.R. 1082. The defendants admit this is to be the law, but affirm in this Court that they met the burden and are entitled to judgment. With this proposition in mind the Court has examined the testimony and are unable to agree that the appellants’ case is such that on the facts we can say that the judgment below was wrong. It is therefore affirmed.
Marisol GARCIA, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-5053.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
SUTURE EXPRESS, INC., petitioner, v. OWENS & MINOR DISTRIBUTION, INC., et al.

No. 16-1487.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

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

Justice GORSUCH took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
H. Res. 234 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

March 24, 2009. 

Whereas the Vietnam War was fought in Vietnam from 1961 

to 1975, and involved North Vietnam and the Viet Cong 

in conflict with United States Armed Forces and South 

Vietnam; 

Whereas the United States became involved in Vietnam because policy-makers in the United States believed that if 

South Vietnam fell to a Communist government then 

Communism would spread throughout the rest of Southeast Asia; 

Whereas members of the United States Armed Forces began 

serving in an advisory role to the South Vietnamese in 

1961; 

Whereas as a result of the Gulf of Tonkin incidents on August 2 and 4, 1964, Congress overwhelmingly passed the 

Gulf of Tonkin Resolution (Public Law 88–408), on August 7, 1964, which effectively handed over war-making 

powers to President Johnson until such time as ‘‘peace 

and security’’ had returned to Vietnam; 

Whereas, in 1965, United States Armed Forces ground combat units arrived in Vietnam; 
2 

•HRES 234 EH 

Whereas, by the end of 1965, there were 80,000 United 

States troops in Vietnam, and by 1969 a peak of approximately 543,000 troops was reached; 

Whereas, on January 27, 1973, the Treaty of Paris was 

signed, which required the release of all United States 

prisoners-of-war held in North Vietnam and the withdrawal of all United States Armed Forces from South 

Vietnam; 

Whereas, on March 30, 1973, the United States Armed 

Forces completed the withdrawal of combat troops from 

Vietnam; 

Whereas more than 58,000 members of the United States 

Armed Forces lost their lives in Vietnam and more than 

300,000 members of the Armed Forces were wounded; 

Whereas, in 1982, the Vietnam Veterans Memorial was dedicated in the District of Columbia to commemorate those 

members of the United States Armed Forces who died or 

were declared missing-in-action in Vietnam; 

Whereas the Vietnam War was an extremely divisive issue 

among the people of the United States; 

Whereas members of the United States Armed Forces who 

served bravely and faithfully for the United States during 

the Vietnam War were caught upon their return home in 

the crossfire of public debate about the involvement of 

the United States in the Vietnam War; 

Whereas the establishment of a ‘‘Welcome Home Vietnam 

Veterans Day’’ would be an appropriate way to honor 

those members of the United States Armed Forces who 

served in Vietnam during the Vietnam War; and 
3 

•HRES 234 EH 

Whereas March 30, 2009, would be an appropriate day to establish as ‘‘Welcome Home Vietnam Veterans Day’’: 

Now, therefore, be it 

Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

(1) honors and recognizes the contributions of veterans of the Armed Forces who served in Vietnam; and 

(2) encourages the people of the United States to 

observe ‘‘Welcome Home Vietnam Veterans Day’’ with 

appropriate ceremonies and activities that promote 

awareness of the contributions of veterans who served in 

Vietnam and the importance of helping Vietnam era veterans re-adjust to civilian life. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
Thelma Ann WATKINS, petitioner, v. UNIVERSITY OF MEMPHIS CAMPUS POLICE SERVICES.

No. 16-9267.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

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

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3943 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3943

    To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow accelerated 
    depreciation of certain qualified film and television and live 
                 theatrical productions in Puerto Rico.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 24, 2019

Miss Gonzalez-Colon of Puerto Rico introduced the following bill; which 
            was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow accelerated 
    depreciation of certain qualified film and television and live 
                 theatrical productions in Puerto Rico.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Puerto Rico Film, Television, and 
Theatre Production Act of 2019''.

SEC. 2. ACCELERATED DEPRECIATION FOR CERTAIN QUALIFIED FILM AND 
              TELEVISION AND LIVE THEATRICAL PRODUCTIONS IN PUERTO 
              RICO.

    (a) In General.--Section 181(d)(3)(A) of the Internal Revenue Code 
of 1986 is amended by inserting ``(including Puerto Rico)'' after 
``United States''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall take 
effect as if included in section 13201 of Public Law 115-97.
    (c) Cross Reference.--For application of accelerated depreciation 
to qualified film or television productions and qualified live 
theatrical productions (as defined in section 181 of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986, as amended by this section), see section 
168(k)(2)(A) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
                                 <all>
```
Steven M. CRUTCHFIELD, petitioner, v. WILLIAMSON COUNTY PUBLIC DEFENDER'S OFFICE.

No. 17-5337.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Illinois denied.
# C_2011232EN.01000802.xml

| 6.8.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 232/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.8.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 232/8

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 16 June 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Højesteret (Denmark)) — Unomedical A/S v Skatteministeriet

(Case C-152/10) (1)

(Common Customs Tariff - Tariff classification - Combined Nomenclature - Plastic dialysis drainage bags intended exclusively for use with dialysers (artificial kidneys) - Plastic urine drainage bags intended exclusively for use with catheters - Headings 9018 and 3926 - ‘Parts’ and ‘accessories’ - Other articles of plastics)

(2011/C 232/13)

Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Højesteret

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Unomedical A/S

Defendant: Skatteministeriet

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Højesteret — Interpretation of Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 1987 L 256, p. 1) Plastic drainage bags intended exclusively for use with a dialyser — Classification under subheading 9018 90 30 or subheading 3926 90 99 — Plastic drainage bags intended exclusively for use with a catheter — Classification under subheading 9018 39 00 or subheading 3926 90 99 — Definition of ‘Part and/or accessory’

Operative part of the judgment

The Combined Nomenclature, set out in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, in the versions applicable to the dispute in the main proceedings, must be interpreted as meaning that a dialysis drainage bag, manufactured from plastic, which is specially designed for, and can be used only with, a dialyser (artificial kidney), had, between May 2001 and December 2003, to be classified under subheading 3926 90 99 of the Combined Nomenclature as ‘plastics and articles thereof’ and that a urine drainage bag, manufactured from plastic, which is specially designed for, and therefore can be used only in connection with, a catheter had, during the same period, to be classified under subheading 3926 90 99 of the Combined Nomenclature as ‘plastics and articles thereof’.

---

(1)  OJ C 148, 5.6.2010.

---
CHARLES E. WASHINGTON

,

Petitioner,

v.

JULIE L. JONES, Secretary

,

Respondent.

___________________________/ IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION T HEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 15

- 4372

Opinion filed October 14, 2015.

Petition for Writ of H abeas C orpus

-- Original Jurisdiction

.

Charles E. Washington, pro se , Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee ; Kenneth S. Steely, General Counsel,

Department of Corrections, Tallahassee , for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

DISMISSED. See Baker v. State , 878 So. 2d 1236 (Fla. 2004).

BENTON, OSTERHAUS, and BILBREY, JJ., CONCUR.
Untitled Document





 






 Exhibit
10.57








 

1








 











 

2








 











 

3








 











 

4








 











 

5








 











 

6








 











 

7








 











 

8








 











 

9








 











 

10








 











 

11








 











 

12








 











 

13








 











 

14








 











 

15








 











 

16








 











 

17
Theodore COBBS, petitioner, v. Leroy CARTLEDGE, Warden.

No. 16-9667.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
Andrew B. AAMES, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES, et al.

No. 17-1139.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 16, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eight Circuit denied.
FIFTH AMENDMENT
                                ---------------

       THIS FIFTH AMENDMENT,  made as of this 19th day of September, 1997 by and
between  CONVERSE  INC., a corporation  organized and existing under the laws of
the State of  Delaware,  having its  principal  place of business at One Fordham
Road,  North Reading,  Massachusetts  01864  (hereinafter  called  "Converse" or
"Licensor");

                                      AND

ACTIVE APPAREL GROUP, INC., a corporation  organized and existing under the laws
of the  State of New  York,  having  its  principal  place of  business  at 1350
Broadway, Suite 2300, New York, New York, 10018 (hereinafter called "Licensee").


                                   WITNESSETH

       WHEREAS,  the Licensor and the Licensee entered into a Trademark  License
Agreement  dated May 20,  1994,  as amended  on  October 3, 1995,  June 1, 1996,
January 7, 1997 and January 22, 1997,  with respect to the license of certain of
the Licensor's trademarks in the United States (the "Agreement"); and

       WHEREAS, Converse and Licensee desire to further amend the Agreement.

       NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows:

       1. Paragraph 5.1(b) shall be revised to read as follows:

          "(b) The  Licensee  will pay to Licensor a guaranteed  minimum  annual
license fee  commencing  May 20, 1994,  regardless  of its Net Sales of Finished
Articles sold under this Agreement for each  Accounting Year commencing with the
year 1994 (the "Guaranteed Minimum Fee"), in the amount set forth herein:


          ACCOUNTING YEAR                     GUARANTEED MINIMUM LICENSE FEE
          ---------------                     ------------------------------

1   May 20, 1994 to September 30, 1996                 $280,000.00
2   October 1, 1996 to September 30, 1997              $280,000.00
3   October 1, 1997 to September 30, 1998              $210,000.00"

       2. As amdned hereby, the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.

       IN WITNESS WHEREOF,  the parties have executed this Fifth Amendment as of
the date first above written.

WITNESS:                                     CONVERSE INC.

/s/ illegible                                /s/ illegible
------------------------------------         By---------------------------------


WITNESS:                                     ACTIVE APPAREL GROUP, INC.

/s/ illegible                                /s/ Gordon Horowitz, President
------------------------------------         By---------------------------------
#### L. M. REED, Receiver of Bethlehem National Bank of Bethlehem, Pa., v. Abe MINDLIN, Appellant.

No. 8686.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

Argued Feb. 15, 1945.

Decided Feb. 16, 1945.

Russell C. Mauch, of Bethlehem, Pa. (Mauch & Goodman, of Bethlehem, Pa., on the brief), for appellant.

H. P. McFadden, of Bethlehem, Pa., for appellee.

Before PARKER, MARIS, and GOODRICH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

The judgment of the District Court is affirmed for the reasons stated in the opinion of Judge Kalodner, 53 F.Supp. 313.
Exhibit 32-1



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

          In connection with the report of Rezconnect Technologies, Inc. (the
          "Company) on form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2004 filed
          herewith (the "Report") I, Michael Y. Brent, Chief Executive Officer,
          of the Company, certify, that to the best of my knowledge:

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

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

          This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of
          the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent
          required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the
          Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of
          1934, as amended.

          Dated: as of September 30, 2004

          /s/ Michael Y. Brent
         -----------------------------------------------------------------------
          Michael Y. Brent, Chief Executive Officer
----

            COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1999/2004

of 22 November 2004         

establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 3223/94 of 21 December 1994 on detailed rules for the application of the import arrangements for fruit and vegetables (1), and in particular Article 4(1) thereof,

Whereas:

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The standard import values referred to in Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 3223/94 shall be fixed as indicated in the Annex hereto.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 23 November 2004.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 22 November 2004.

For the Commission

J. M. SILVA RODRÍGUEZ            

Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development

----

(1)OJ L 337, 24.12.1994, p. 66. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1947/2002 (OJ L 299, 1.11.2002, p. 17).

----

ANNEX

to Commission Regulation of 22 November 2004 establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

----

(1)  Country nomenclature as fixed by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2081/2003 (OJ L 313, 28.11.2003, p. 11). Code ‘            999            ’ stands for ‘of other origin’.

----
EXHIBIT 32.2

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

         In connection with the Annual Report of IA Global, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-K/A for the year ended March 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Mark Scott, Chief
Operating and Financial 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, 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, as amended; and

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

         This certificate is being made for the exclusive purpose of compliance
by the Chief Executive and Financial and Accounting 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.

                                        /s/ Mark Scott
                                        Mark Scott
                                        Chief Operating and Financial Officer
                                        December 23, 2008
# C_2011211EN.01002105.xml

| 16.7.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 211/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.7.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 211/21

---

Order of the President of the Fifth Chamber of the Court of 12 April 2011 — European Commission v Kingdom of Sweden

(Case C-374/10) (1)

1

2011/C 211/43

Language of the case: Swedish

The President of the Fifth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 246, 11.9.2010.

1

---