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

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 on Form 10-Q of Bedford Property Investors, Inc. (the Company) for the quarter ended June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Peter B. Bedford, Chief Executive 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 (Section 906), 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 Company.





Date:  August 9, 2004

/s/ Peter B. Bedford

Peter B. Bedford

Chief Executive Officer





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 the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
IIB

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1663

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

OCTOBER 6, 1999

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services

AN ACT

To recognize National Medal of Honor sites in California,

Indiana, and South Carolina.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

HR 1663 RFS

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘National Medal of

3 Honor Memorial Act’’.

4 SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

5 Congress makes the following findings:

6 (1) The Medal of Honor is the highest military

7 decoration which the Nation bestows.

8 (2) The Medal of Honor is the only military

9 decoration given in the name of Congress, and there10 fore on behalf of the people of the United States.

11 (3) The Congressional Medal of Honor Society

12 was established by an Act of Congress in 1958, and

13 continues to protect, uphold, and preserve the dig14 nity, honor, and name of the Medal of Honor and

15 of the individual recipients of the Medal of Honor.

16 (4) The Congressional Medal of Honor Society

17 is composed solely of recipients of the Medal of

18 Honor.

19 SEC. 3. NATIONAL MEDAL OF HONOR SITES.

20 (a) RECOGNITION.—The following sites to honor re21 cipients of the Medal of Honor are hereby recognized as

22 National Medal of Honor sites:

23 (1) RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA.—The memorial

24 under construction at the Riverside National Ceme25 tery in Riverside, California, to be dedicated on No26 vember 5, 1999.
3

HR 1663 RFS

1 (2) INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA.—The memorial at

2 the White River State Park in Indianapolis, Indiana,

3 dedicated on May 28, 1999.

4 (3) MOUNT PLEASANT, SOUTH CAROLINA.—The

5 Congressional Medal of Honor Museum at Patriots

6 Point in Mount Pleasant, South Carolina, currently

7 situated on the ex-U.S.S. Yorktown (CV–6).

8 (b) INTERPRETATION.—This section shall not be con9 strued to require or permit Federal funds (other than any

10 provided for as of the date of the enactment of this Act)

11 to be expended for any purpose related to the sites recog12 nized in subsection (a).

Passed the House of Representatives October 5,

1999.

Attest: JEFF TRANDAHL,

Clerk.
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

____________________________________

)

HASSAN BIN ATTASH )

)

Petitioner, )

) Civil Action No. 05-1592 (RCL)

v. )

)

BARACK OBAMA, et al. )

)

Respondents. )

____________________________________)

ORDER

Presently before the Court is Respondents’ Motion for Extension of Time to Produce

Discovery. Having considered the parties’ briefs, it is hereby

ORDERED that Respondents’ Motion for Extension of Time to Produce Discovery is

GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Indefinite extensions of time (with status reports) are

not granted by this Court. It is further

ORDERED that Respondents have until August 3, 2009, to produce all of the

approximately 230 responsive documents that Respondents have located in the consolidated

assemblages of the files of JIG and OARDEC and have already submitted for clearance. 

Production of these documents shall proceed on a rolling basis. It is further

ORDERED that Respondents shall complete a review of the 2,500 Task Force documents

located in the Petitioner-specific subfolder by August 3, 2009. It is further

ORDERED that Respondents have until August 10, 2009, to implement a more robust

search capability for the Task Force database. Respondents shall provide Petitioner with status
2

reports on July 27 and August 3 detailing progress made toward completing this work. It is

further

ORDERED that Respondents shall complete targeted searches for responsive Task Force

information by August 17, 2009, with all responsive material submitted to the clearance team on

that date.

SO ORDERED.

Signed by Chief Judge Royce C. Lamberth on July 24, 2009.
**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 China World Trade Corporation (the
“Company”) on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Bernard
Chan, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that,
based on my knowledge:
 
 (2)
    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.
 
 
 April 14,
2005
 
 CHINA
WORLD TRADE CORPORATION
 
 
 
 By:  /s/
Bernard Chan
 Bernard
Chan, Chief Financial Officer
Joel Darnell PATTON, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-7449.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 24, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
Roberto Enrique MAURICIO-BENITEZ, petitioner, v. William P. BARR, Attorney General.

No. 18-1055.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 24, 2019.

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



Exhibit 10.25



Amendment # 1 to
UPLAND SOFTWARE, INC.


EXECUTIVE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


This Amendment #1 to the Executive Employment Agreement by and between Upland Software, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”) and John T. McDonald (“Executive”) dated March 28, 2017 (“Original Agreement”), is entered into as of March 13, 2019.


RECITALS


WHEREAS, the Company and Executive desire to amend Paragraph 3(b) of the Original Agreement as of the Effective Date.
AMENDMENT


Paragraph 3(b) is hereby deleted and replaced in its entirety with the following:


“3(b) Target Bonus. During the Employment Term, Executive will be eligible to receive an annual bonus of up to 200% of Executive’s Base Salary, less applicable withholdings, upon achievement of performance objectives to be determined by the Board in its sole discretion, 25% of which shall be based upon achievement of EBITDA targets and 75% of which shall be based upon the achievement of acquisitions targets (the “Target Bonus”).  Any Bonus will be earned only if the Company achieves the annual performance objectives during the designated time period and Executive is continuously employed by the Company on the dated that such performance objectives are achieved.  The Company shall pay such Bonus at the same time as bonuses are normally paid to senior management, unless the Board approves an exception for payment of a particular bonus on a case by case basis, but in any event, any earned Bonus shall be paid no later than two months and 15 days after the end of the Company’s taxable year in which such Bonus was earned.”


Except as specified in this Amendment #1, all terms and conditions of the Original Agreement shall continue in full force and effect and otherwise remain unchanged.


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the parties has executed this Amendment # 1 to the Agreement, in the case of the Company by their duly authorized officers, as of the day and year first above written.


“COMPANY”
Upland Software, Inc.




By:  /s/ Kin Gill            
Name: Kin Gill
Title:  SVP, General Counsel and Secretary
Address:    401 Congress Ave., Ste. 1850
Austin, TX 78701


“EXECUTIVE”


/s/ John T. McDonald        
John T. McDonald
Address:    5406 Maryanna Dr. 
Austin, TX 78746
Farris G. MORRIS, petitioner, v. TENNESSEE.

No. 18-8844.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 24, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
Dale Allen HAMER, petitioner, v. Lorie DAVIS, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division.

No. 18-7932.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 15, 2019.

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

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1791

To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide penalties for harming

animals used in Federal law enforcement.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 13, 1999

Mr. WELLER (for himself, Mr. ROTHMAN, and Mr. CHABOT) introduced the

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide penalties

for harming animals used in Federal law enforcement.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Federal Law Enforce5 ment Animal Protection Act of 1999’’.

6 SEC. 2. HARMING ANIMALS USED IN LAW ENFORCEMENT.

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 65 of title 18, United

8 States Code, is amended by adding at the end the fol9 lowing:
2

•HR 1791 IH

1 ‘‘§ 1368. Harming animals used in law enforcement

2 ‘‘(a) Whoever willfully harms any police animal, or

3 attempts to conspires to do so, shall be fined under this

4 title and imprisoned not more than one year. If the offense

5 disables or disfigures the animal, or causes the death of

6 the animal, the maximum term of imprisonment shall be

7 10 years.

8 ‘‘(b) In this section, the term ‘police animal’ means

9 a dog or horse employed by a Federal agency (whether

10 in the executive, legislative, or judicial branch) for the

11 principal purpose of aiding in the detection of criminal ac12 tivity, enforcement of laws, or apprehension of criminal

13 offenders’’.

14 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections

15 at the beginning of chapter 65 of title 18, United States

16 Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new

17 item:

‘‘1368. Harming animals used in law enforcement.’’.

Æ
|   | **Exhibit A**            |
|--------|--------------------------|
|   |                     |
|   | **Schedule of Advances** |
|   |                     |   |
|   |  

**Date**         | **Amount of**

**Advance** |
|   | October 7, 2005          | $   400,000.00 |
|   | November 4, 2005         | 700,000.00 |
|   | January 24, 2006         | 250,000.00 |
|   | February 2, 2006         | 625,000.00 |
|   | February 8, 2006         | 750,000.00 |
|   | February 22, 2006        | 865,000.00 |
|   | March 8, 2006            | 1,015,000.00 |
|   | March 22, 2006           | 766,834.56 |
|   | March 23, 2006           | 123,165.44 |
|   | April 12, 2006           | 415,000.00 |
|   | May 4, 2006              | 940,000.00 |
|   | May 23, 2006             | 835,000.00 |
|   | June 21,2006             | 655,000.00 |
|   | July 3, 2006             | 660,000.00 |
|   | July 26, 2006            | 600,000.00 |
|   | August 14, 2006          | 675,000.00 |
|   | August 28, 2006          | 530,000.00 |
|   |                     |  

Total

$8,870,000.00

 

 

 

 

 

 

/s/ HMJ

 

(Exhibit A as amended effective August 28, 2006)

(Initials)

 

 

 

  |
Nicholas EDWARDS, petitioner, v. PENNSYLVANIA.

No. 18-5565.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia Office denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                           2,670
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    7,829
<ALLOWANCES>                                        40
<INVENTORY>                                     14,376
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                26,184
<PP&E>                                          13,287
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,702
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  38,518
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            5,768
<BONDS>                                          6,925
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            59
<OTHER-SE>                                      24,087
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    38,518
<SALES>                                         94,958
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                94,958
<CGS>                                           82,183
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   82,183
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 237
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  8,468
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,434
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              5,034
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     5,034
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .99
        

</TABLE>
| **Nationslink Funding Corp 1999-LTL-1****Aggregate Statement of Principal and Interest Distributions to****Certificateholders****for January 1, 2004 to December 31, 2004****Ending Principal****Class****Principal****Interest****Balance**RI 0.00 0.000.00A-1 2,465,941.28 19,035.97 0.00 A-2 18,712,960.79 12,789,126.69 175,150,039.21 A-3 0.009,046,788.84 127,347,816.00 B 0.001,862,911.44 25,855,814.00 C 0.001,548,677.04 20,930,897.00 D 0.001,985,357.16 30,780,731.00 E 0.00554,053.20 11,081,063.00 F 0.00184,684.32 3,693,687.00 G 0.00177,959.52 3,648,245.89 RII 0.000.00 0.00 X 0.001,945,481.66 0.00 |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
Anthony Bernard HARRIS, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-6936.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 1, 2019.

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

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1866

To provide a process for the public to appeal certain decisions made by

the National Park Service and by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 19, 1999

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

Committee on Resources

A BILL

To provide a process for the public to appeal certain decisions made by the National Park Service and by the

United States Fish and Wildlife Service.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Public Appeals Parity

5 Act’’.

6 SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

7 The Congress finds the following:

8 (1) The American public has an inalienable and

9 legitimate interest in Federal lands and decisions
2

•HR 1866 IH

1 made by Federal agencies in regard to the manage2 ment of such lands.

3 (2) Decisionmaking by appropriate officials is

4 an important and necessary function for Federal

5 land management agencies.

6 (3) Two primary Federal land management

7 agencies, the United States Forest Service and the

8 Bureau of Land Management, currently have an in9 ternal administrative process whereby the public can

10 appeal certain land management decisions made by

11 these agencies pursuant to the National Environ12 mental Policy Act of 1969.

13 (4) A similar administrative appeal process

14 whereby the public can appeal certain land manage15 ment decisions made by the National Park Service

16 and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service is

17 proper and equitable.

18 SEC. 3. ESTABLISHMENT OF APPEAL PROCESS.

19 (a) REGULATIONS REQUIRED.—The Secretary of the

20 Interior shall establish by regulation procedures for an ad21 ministrative appeals process for decisions made pursuant

22 to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 by the

23 National Park Service or the United States Fish and

24 Wildlife Service.
3

•HR 1866 IH

1 (b) CONTENT OF REGULATIONS.—Regulations devel2 oped by the Secretary pursuant to this section shall, at

3 a minimum, include the following:

4 (1) The type of agency decisions that may be

5 appealed.

6 (2) Who may appeal such agency decisions.

7 (3) The responsibilities of the parties in an ap8 peal.

9 (4) Procedures that apply to appealing the deci10 sion. Such procedures shall afford the public an op11 portunity to appeal the decision prior to the imple12 mentation of that decision.

13 (5) A process whereby the public is given timely

14 notification of a decision which the public has a

15 right to appeal.

16 SEC. 4. EFFECT ON OTHER LAWS.

17 Nothing in this Act shall be construed to limit, re18 place, or interfere with other opportunities for public com19 ment on, or participation in, or influence on agency deci20 sionmaking pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act

21 or any other law or policy which provides for such opportu22 nities.

Æ
106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 1787

AN ACT

To reauthorize the participation of the Bureau of

Reclamation in the Deschutes Resources Conservancy, and for other purposes.

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 1787

AN ACT

To reauthorize the participation of the Bureau of Reclamation in the Deschutes Resources Conservancy, and for

other purposes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 1787 EH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Deschutes Resources

3 Conservancy Reauthorization Act of 2000’’.

4 SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF PARTICIPATION OF BUREAU OF

5 RECLAMATION IN DESCHUTES RESOURCES

6 CONSERVANCY.

7 Section 301 of the Oregon Resource Conservation Act

8 of 1996 (division B of Public Law 104–208; 110 Stat.

9 3009–534) is amended—

10 (1) in subsection (b)(3), by inserting before the

11 period at the end the following: ‘‘, and up to a total

12 amount of $2,000,000 during each of fiscal years

13 2002 through 2006’’; and

14 (2) in subsection (h), by inserting before the pe15 riod at the end the following: ‘‘and $2,000,000 for

16 each of fiscal years 2002 through 2006’’.

Passed the House of Representatives July 10, 2000.

Attest:

Clerk.
Randal FLOYD, petitioner, v. Michael JOHNSON, et al.

No. 18-8555.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 28, 2019.

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

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

June 27, 2006

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 05-16430

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 05-00066-CR-4

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

versus 

GEORGE L. CRAY, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Georgia

_________________________

(June 27, 2006)

Before ANDERSON, BIRCH and BARKETT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

George L. Cray appeals his 125-month sentence for distribution of cocaine
2

base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1),(b)(1)(B). Cray argues that, pursuant to

United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 765, 160 L.Ed.2d 621

(2005), the district court erred by sentencing him based upon drug weights from

transactions that were part of dismissed counts in the indictment. 

We review the drug quantity attributable to a defendant found by the district

court for clear error. United States v. Zapata, 139 F.3d 1355, 1357 (11th Cir.

1998). “When a defendant objects to a factual finding that is used in calculating

his guideline sentence, such as drug amount, the government bears the burden of

establishing the disputed fact by a preponderance of the evidence.” United States

v. Rodriguez, 398 F.3d 1291, 1296 (11th. Cir.), cert. denied, 125 S.Ct.

2935 (2005). 

The Supreme Court, in Booker, concluded that the Sentencing Guidelines

violate the Sixth Amendment right to a trial by jury to the extent that they permit a

judge, under a mandatory system, to increase a defendant’s sentence based on facts

that were neither found by a jury, nor admitted by the defendant. Booker, 543 U.S.

at 244, 125 S.Ct. at 756. We have found, post-Booker, no constitutional defect

with the sentencing judge finding the amount of drugs, even though it increased the

length of the sentence. See Rodriguez, 398 F.3d at 1300. (holding, “[the] reason

we know that the use of extra-verdict enhancements in a non-mandatory guidelines
3

system is not unconstitutional is that. . . [Booker] specifically provides for

extra-verdict enhancements in all future sentencing. . . . The same extra-verdict

enhancement provisions apply after Booker as before.” ). 

Upon review of the record and consideration of the parties’ briefs, we

discern no reversible error. Because there was sufficient reliable evidence for the

district court to find that Cray was responsible for 205 grams of cocaine, and we

repeatedly have held that extra-verdict enhancements are proper in an advisory

system after Booker, the district court did not clearly err in using that drug amount

to determine Cray’s base offense level.

AFFIRMED.