alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION OFCHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

**PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C.SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANTTO**

**SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I, Arthur W. Zafiropoulo,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:

 

•                       theQuarterly Report of Ultratech, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period endedApril 3, 2004 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

•                       theinformation contained in such Quarterly Report fairly presents in all materialrespects the financial condition and results of operations of Ultratech, Inc.

 

 
|   | By:    | /s/ Arthur  W. Zafiropoulo* |
|--------|--------|-----------------------------|
|   | Name:  | Arthur  Zafiropoulo         |
|   | Title: | Chief  Executive Officer    |

 

----

*A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Ultratech, Inc.and will be retained by Ultratech, Inc. and furnished to the Securities andExchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

1

----
Samuel V. MARTINEZ, petitioner, v. Travis TRANI, Warden, et al.

No. 18-8428.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 22, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied.
H. R. 1219

One Hundred Sixth Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE FIRST SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,

the sixth day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-nine

An Act

To amend the Miller Act, relating to payment protections for persons providing

labor and materials for Federal construction projects.

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 ‘‘Construction Industry Payment

Protection Act of 1999’’.

SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS TO THE MILLER ACT.

(a) ENHANCEMENT OF PAYMENT BOND PROTECTION.—Subsection

(a)(2) of the first section of the Miller Act (40 U.S.C. 270a(a)(2))

is amended by striking the second, third, and fourth sentences

and inserting in lieu thereof the following: ‘‘The amount of the

payment bond shall be equal to the total amount payable by the

terms of the contract unless the contracting officer awarding the

contract makes a written determination supported by specific

findings that a payment bond in that amount is impractical, in

which case the amount of the payment bond shall be set by the

contracting officer. In no case shall the amount of the payment

bond be less than the amount of the performance bond.’’.

(b) MODERNIZATION OF DELIVERY OF NOTICE.—Section 2(a) of

the Miller Act (40 U.S.C. 270b(a)) is amended in the last sentence

by striking ‘‘mailing the same by registered mail, postage prepaid,

in an envelope addressed’’ and inserting ‘‘any means which provides

written, third-party verification of delivery.’’.

(c) NONWAIVER OF RIGHTS.—The second section of the Miller

Act (40 U.S.C. 270b) is amended by adding at the end the following

new subsection:

‘‘(c) Any waiver of the right to sue on the payment bond required

by this Act shall be void unless it is in writing, signed by the

person whose right is waived, and executed after such person has

first furnished labor or material for use in the performance of

the contract.’’.

SEC. 3. IMPLEMENTATION THROUGH THE GOVERNMENT-WIDE

PROCUREMENT REGULATIONS.

(a) PROPOSED REGULATIONS.—Proposed revisions to the Government-wide Federal Acquisition Regulation to implement the amendments made by this Act shall be published not later than 120

days after the date of the enactment of this Act and provide not

less than 60 days for public comment.
H. R. 1219—2

(b) FINAL REGULATIONS.—Final regulations shall be published

not less than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this

Act and shall be effective on the date that is 30 days after the

date of publication.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
Gino CARLUCCI, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-8534.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 29, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
HTC CORPORATION, petitioner, v. 3G LICENSING, S.A., et al.

No. 18-849.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 25, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied.
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 13-10061

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 1:11-cr-00410-RWS-RGV-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee

 Cross Appellant,

 

versus

HELEN E. HAMPTON, 

 Defendant - Appellant

 Cross Appellee.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Georgia

________________________

(February 3, 2014)

Case: 13-10061 Date Filed: 02/03/2014 Page: 1 of 2 
2

Before TJOFLAT, WILSON and RIPPLE,* Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:

Appellant Helen Hampton was convicted for violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1709, 

theft of mail matter by a Postal Service employee; 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(1),

attempting to conceal documents or other objects with the intent to impair their

availability for use in an official proceeding; and 18 U.S.C. § 1519, knowingly 

altering or destroying a record, document, or other tangible object with intent to

impede the investigation of a United States agency. She appeals her conviction 

and raises the following issues: (1) the District Court abused its discretion in its 

jury charge regarding the elements of 18 U.S.C. § 1512; (2) the United States

failed to provide sufficient evidence to support Hampton’s conviction under each 

of the three statutes; and (3) the District Court erred in denying Hampton’s motion 

to suppress evidence and statements gathered by Office of Inspector General 

agents on the night of November 30, 2010. After entertaining oral argument and 

considering the parties’ briefs, we find no merit in the appeal and therefore her 

convictions are affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

 

* Honorable Kenneth F. Ripple, United States Circuit Judge for the Seventh Circuit, sitting by 

designation.

Case: 13-10061 Date Filed: 02/03/2014 Page: 2 of 2
**Exhibit 23.1**

**CONSENT OFINDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference inthe Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-129058, 333-126360,333-111841, 333-111830, 333-38896, 333-61284, 333-61278, 333-72704, and333-89396) of ValueClick, Inc. of our report dated February 28, 2007 relatingto the financial statements, financial statement schedule, management’sassessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reportingand the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, whichappears in this Form 10-K.

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Los Angeles, CaliforniaFebruary 28, 2007

----
# CE2004065EN.01009301.xml

| 13.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 65/93 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 65/93

---

(2004/C 65 E/105)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1809/03

by Anna Karamanou (PSE) to the Council

(2 June 2003)

Subject:   Iraq — serious danger to civilians from unexploded landmines and looting activities

Subject:

According to Human Rights Watch, following the end of the recent war in Iraq, civilian casualty figures have shot up compared with the number of casualties during the war itself, principally because of the large quantities of unexploded ordnance — landmines, grenades and other explosive devices — left behind in residential areas following the sudden collapse of the Iraqi military command and control structure and the resulting flight of military personnel who abandoned their equipment. Many of the victims are children who suffer serious injury from playing with explosive devices. At the same time looting is continuing, while snipers, conjectured to be Baath Party members, seeking to destabilise the country, are injuring and killing many innocent civilians. In addition, countless documents are being destroyed in Iraq. According to Amnesty International, British troops were involved in the mass destruction of electricity supply company documents in Basra.

At the same time, American armed monitoring forces in Iraq are ignoring appeals for mine clearance and more patrols. Appeals by international human rights organisations for at least some level of policing have also been disregarded.

What measures will the Council take in an effort to ensure that the occupying and monitoring forces in Iraq comply with international agreements and effectively protect the Iraqi civil populace from the above dangers which are threatening not only their individual lives and welfare but also the very structure of the State?

Reply

(17 November 2003)

(17 November 2003)

The Council agrees with the Honourable Parliamentarian that the issue of unexploded landmines and other ammunition is a serious danger to the population. It is well aware of the security situation in Iraq, which causes severe difficulties to both the population of Iraq and to the occupying forces in the country, who have the responsibility at this point of time of securing the country and protecting the population. The European Council in Thessaloniki welcomed the improving humanitarian situation but expressed concerns by the continuing challenge to provide security to the civilian population.

The Council has, however, no reason to doubt that the occupying forces comply with international agreements and obligations relating to the protection of the Iraqi people.

---
Terry HAYNIE, petitioner, v. UNITED AIR LINES, INC.

No. 18-1204.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 15, 2019.

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

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1242

For the relief of Mary Yaros.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 23, 1999

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

Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

For the relief of Mary Yaros.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS FOR MARY

4 YAROS.

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding subsections (a)

6 and (b) of section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality

7 Act, Mary Yaros shall be eligible for issuance of an immi8 grant visa or for adjustment of status to that of an alien

9 lawfully admitted for permanent residence upon filing an

10 application for issuance of an immigrant visa under sec11 tion 204 of such Act or for adjustment of status to lawful

12 permanent resident.
2

•HR 1242 IH

1 (b) ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS.—If Mary Yaros enters

2 the United States before the filing deadline specified in

3 subsection (c), she shall be considered to have entered and

4 remained lawfully and shall, if otherwise eligible, be eligi5 ble for adjustment of status under section 245 of the Im6 migration and Nationality Act as of the date of the enact7 ment of this Act.

8 (c) DEADLINE FOR APPLICATION AND PAYMENT OF

9 FEES.—Subsections (a) and (b) shall apply only if the ap10 plication for issuance of an immigrant visa or the applica11 tion for adjustment of status is filed with appropriate fees

12 within 2 years after the date of the enactment of this Act.

13 (d) REDUCTION OF IMMIGRANT VISA NUMBER.—

14 Upon the granting of an immigrant visa or permanent res15 idence to Mary Yaros, the Secretary of State shall instruct

16 the proper officer to reduce by 1, during the current or

17 next following fiscal year, the total number of immigrant

18 visas that are made available to natives of the country of

19 the alien’s birth under section 203(a) of the Immigration

20 and Nationality Act or, if applicable, the total number of

21 immigrant visas that are made available to natives of the

22 country of the alien’s birth under section 202(e) of such

23 Act.

24 (e) DENIAL OF PREFERENTIAL IMMIGRATION

25 TREATMENT FOR CERTAIN RELATIVES.—The natural
3

•HR 1242 IH

1 parents, brothers, and sisters of Mary Yaros shall not, by

2 virtue of such relationship, be accorded any right, privi3 lege, or status under the Immigration and Nationality Act.

Æ
Gregory D. KILPATRICK, petitioner, v. Mary Ellen ELIA, Commissioner, Office of Professional Discipline, Board of Regents, Education.

No. 18-5907.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 13, 2019.

Petition for rehearing denied.
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1615 Introduced in House (IH)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1615

To amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to extend the designation of a 
 portion of the Lamprey River in New Hampshire as a recreational river 
                to include an additional river segment.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 28, 1999

  Mr. Sununu introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                         Committee on Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to extend the designation of a 
 portion of the Lamprey River in New Hampshire as a recreational river 
                to include an additional river segment.

    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 ``Lamprey Wild and Scenic River 
Extension Act''.

SEC. 2. LAMPREY RECREATIONAL RIVER, NEW HAMPSHIRE.

    (a) Additional Segment.--The paragraph entitled ``Lamprey River, 
New Hampshire'' in section 3(a) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (16 
U.S.C. 1274(a)) is amended--
            (1) by striking ``11.5-mile segment extending from the 
        southern Lee town line'' and inserting ``23.5-mile segment 
        extending from the Bunker Pond Dam in Epping''; and
            (2) by striking ``towns of'' and inserting ``towns of 
        Epping,''.
    (b) Management.--Section 405 of division I of the Omnibus Parks and 
Public Lands Management Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-333; 110 Stat. 
4149; 16 U.S.C. 1274 note) is amended--
            (1) in subsection (b)(2), by inserting ``Epping,'' before 
        ``Durham''; and
            (2) by striking subsection (c).
                                 <all>
```
1 The Honorable D. Brook Bartlett, Chief Judge, United States District Court

for the Western District of Missouri.



## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 98-3579

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Western District of Missouri. Gerald D. Scurlock, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: April 7, 1999 Filed: April 13, 1999

___________ Before BEAM, LOKEN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Gerald D. Scurlock pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The district court 1 sentenced Mr. Scurlock to 27 months imprisonment and three years supervised release. On appeal, counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the district courtimposed too harsh a sentence. We note Mr. Scurlock’s sentence falls at the bottomof the Guidelines range to which the parties stipulated in their plea agreement,-2-

see United States v. Nguyen , 46 F.3d 781, 783 (8th Cir. 1995) (defendant who expl icitly and voluntarily exposes self to specific sentence may not challenge his sentence on appeal), and in any event, the argument lacks merit, see Neal v. Grammer , 975 F.2d 463, 465 (8th Cir. 1992).
In accordance with Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), we have reviewed the record for any nonfrivolous issues and have found none. Accordingly, we affirm. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
[Cite as State v. Hartness, 2023-Ohio-3400.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO

WARREN COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO,

Appellee,

 - vs -

DERRICK MICHAEL HARTNESS,

Appellant.

:

:

:

:

:

:

CASE NO. CA2023-06-046

D E C I S I O N

 9/25/2023

APPEAL FROM WARREN COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS

Case No. 23CR40270

David P. Fornshell, Warren County Prosecuting Attorney, and Kirsten A. Brandt, Assistant 

Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.

James F. Maus, for appellant.

Per Curiam.

{¶1} This cause came on to be considered upon a notice of appeal filed by 

appellant, Derrick Michael Hartness, the transcript of the docket and journal entries, the 

transcript of proceedings and original papers from the Warren County Court of Common 

Pleas, and upon the brief filed by appellant's counsel.

{¶2} Appellant's counsel has filed a brief with this court pursuant to Anders v. 

California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396 (1967), which (1) indicates that a careful review of 
Warren CA2023-06-046

- 2 -

the record from the proceedings below fails to disclose any errors by the trial court 

prejudicial to the rights of appellant upon which an assignment of error may be predicated; 

(2) lists one potential error "that might arguably support the appeal," Anders, at 744, 87 

S.Ct. at 1400; (3) requests that this court review the record independently to determine 

whether the proceedings are free from prejudicial error and without infringement of 

appellant's constitutional rights; (4) requests permission to withdraw as counsel for 

appellant on the basis that the appeal is wholly frivolous; and (5) certifies that a copy of both 

the brief and motion to withdraw have been served upon appellant.

{¶3} Having allowed appellant sufficient time to respond, and no response having 

been received, we have accordingly examined the record and find no error prejudicial to 

appellant's rights in the proceedings in the trial court. The motion of counsel for appellant 

requesting to withdraw as counsel is granted, and this appeal is dismissed for the reason 

that it is wholly frivolous.

HENDRICKSON, P.J., PIPER and M. POWELL, JJ., concur.
[Cite as State v. Hartness, 2023-Ohio-3400.]
Dennis RILEY, petitioner, v. OHIO.

No. 18-5.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Ohio, Washington County denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                           6,395
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               122,522
<PP&E>                                      10,462,889
<DEPRECIATION>                                  52,937
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              10,628,069
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        8,093,534
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                        5,474,797
<PREFERRED>                                  4,143,734
<COMMON>                                    19,224,118
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                10,628,069
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  533,785
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              (21,696)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             130,579
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (557,689)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (557,689)
<DISCONTINUED>                               (142,480)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (700,169)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.12)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.12)
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.1


                          SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATIONS

                  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 Form  10-KSB/A of DOMAIN  REGISTRATION, CORP. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB/A for the period ended December 31, 2002 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Amy
Hadley,  President and Director 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 based on 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 operations of the Company.


Date: January 9, 2004


/s/ AMY HADLEY
______________________________________
Amy Hadley
President and Director




A SIGNED  ORIGINAL OF THIS WRITTEN  STATEMENT  REQUIRED BY SECTION 906, OR OTHER
DOCUMENT AUTHENTICATING, ACKNOWLEDGING, OR OTHERWISE ADOPTING THE SIGNATURE THAT
APPEARS IN TYPED FORM WITHIN THE  ELECTRONIC  VERSION OF THIS WRITTEN  STATEMENT
REQUIRED BY SECTION 906, HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO DOMAIN REGISTRATION CORP. AND WILL
BE RETAINED BY DOMAIN  REGISTRATION  CORP.  AND FURNISHED TO THE  SECURITIES AND
EXCHANGE COMMISSION OR ITS STAFF UPON REQUEST.
In Re Jimmie DIXON, petitioner.

No. 18-8730.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 29, 2019.

Petition for writ of habeas corpus denied.
Casey Brandon SIBLEY, petitioner, v. ARIZONA.

No. 18-1001.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 18, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division One denied.
EXHIBIT 10.12  CASH COMPENSATION ARRANGEMENTS WITH NON EMPLOYEE DIRECTORS  Annual
Retainer*:  Board
  Members
  
  $
  25,000Chairman
  of the Board (additional)
  
  $
  15,000Audit
  Committee Chairperson (additional)
  
  $
  7,500Compensation
  Committee Chairperson (additional)
  
  $
  5,000Corporate
  Governance and Nominating Committee Chairperson (additional)
  
  $
  5,000  
 *  Paid quarterly in
arrears.  Meeting
Fees:  Board
  of DirectorsAnnual
  offsite regular meeting
  
  $
  2,500Regular
  meeting
  
  $
  1,000Special
  (telephonic)
  
  $
  500Audit
  CommitteeRegular
  meeting
  
  $
  2,500Special
  (in person)
  
  $
  1,000Special
  (telephonic)
  
  $
  750Compensation
  CommitteeRegular
  meeting
  
  $
  2,000Special
  
  $
  750Corporate
  Governance and Nominating CommitteeRegular
  meeting
  
  $
  2,000Special
  
  $
  750
Robert Edward BUTLER, petitioner, v. Howard W. CLARKE, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections.

No. 18-8201.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 15, 2019.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis* denied, and petition for writ of certiorari dismissed. See Rule 39.8.
Alfonso THOMPSON, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-9507.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2018.

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