alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32

               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-K of Baltic
International USA, Inc. (the "Company") for the period ended December 31, 2016
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, David A. Grossman, Chief Executive Officer and Chief
Financial Officer (Principal Executive Officer and Principal Accounting
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, 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.

Date:  April 17, 2017

                              /s/ David A. Grossman
                              -------------------------------------------------
                              David A. Grossman
                              Chief Executive Officer and
                                Chief Financial Officer
Raimondo Pettit GroupCPAs + Business and Financial Consultants21515 Hawthorne Blvd.Suite 1250Torrance, California 90503www.rpgcpa.comT   310.540.5990F   310.543.3088Torrance  +  Irvine











CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM











The Board of Directors and Stockholders


Hi-Shear Technology Corporation











We hereby consent to the inclusion in the Form 10-K of Hi-Shear Technology Corporation our report dated August 3, 2009 with respect to our audit of the financial statements as of May 31, 2009 and 2008, and for each of the two years then ended.








Raimondo Pettit Group


/s/ Raimondo Pettit Group








Torrance, California


August 3, 2009
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 182 Introduced in House (IH)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 182

To clarify that retirement income from pension plans of the government 
  of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico shall be exempt from nonresident 
          taxation in the same manner as State pension plans.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 6, 1999

 Mr. McCollum introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                         Committee on Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To clarify that retirement income from pension plans of the government 
  of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico shall be exempt from nonresident 
          taxation in the same manner as State pension plans.

    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 Rican Source Tax Fairness 
Act.''

SEC. 2. CLARIFICATION OF TREATMENT OF PENSION PLANS OF PUERTO RICO AS 
              GOVERNMENTAL PLANS FOR PURPOSES OF LIMITATION ON STATE 
              INCOME TAXATION OF PENSION INCOME.

    (a) In General.--Subparagraph (G) of section 114(b)(1) of title 4, 
United States Code (relating to limitation on State income taxation of 
certain pension income), is amended by striking ``of such Code'' and 
inserting ``of such Code, determined by treating the Commonwealth of 
Puerto Rico as a State''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
apply to amounts received after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
Leslie CHIN, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-6591.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 10, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
EXHIBIT 32-A

FARO Technologies, Inc.

Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002

Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, the undersigned President and Chief Executive Officer and Director of FARO Technologies, Inc., (the Company) hereby certify, based on my knowledge, that the Annual Report on Form 10-K, for the year ended
December 31, 2007 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company.



|                      
|----------------------
|/s/    JAY W.
FREELAND
|Jay W. Freeland       
|March 10, 2008
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MARSHALL DIVISION

Autoscribe Corporation

Plaintiff,

v.

Fortis Payment Systems, LLC

Defendant. 

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

Case No.: 2:23-cv-00364

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR LEAVE 

TO CONDUCT EXPEDITED VENUE DISCOVERY 

Before the Court is Plaintiff Autoscribe’s (“Plaintiff”) Unopposed Motion for Leave to 

Conduct Expedited Venue Discovery (the “Discovery Motion”). (Dkt. No. __). In the Discovery 

Motion, Plaintiff seeks leave to conduct limited, expedited venue discovery to resolve the parties’

dispute as to whether venue in this District is appropriate as disputed by Defendant Fortis Payment 

Systems, LLC’s (“Fortis” or “Defendant”) Motion to Transfer to the Eastern District of Michigan. 

See Dkt. No. 17 (the “Venue Motion”). (Dkt. No. 17). The Plaintiff represents that the parties have 

conferred, and Fortis does not oppose; further, the parties have agreed upon much of the scope of 

venue discovery subject to the Court’s approval.

Having considered the Discovery Motion, and noting its unopposed nature, the Court finds 

that it should be and hereby is GRANTED. It is therefore ORDERED that the parties may conduct 

limited, expedited venue discovery and submit briefing on the Venue Motion in accordance with 

the following:

1. Venue related discovery shall be completed within sixty (60) days of the issuance of an Order 

permitting venue-related discovery;

Case 2:23-cv-00364-JRG Document 18-1 Filed 12/15/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 137
2

2. Venue related discovery shall be limited to the issues raised in Fortis’s Venue Motion (Dkt. 

No. 17) and exhibits/declaration, Fortis and its affiliates’ contacts with and within Texas, 

information regarding Fortis’s direction and control of physical locations in this Forum, 

Fortis’s direction and control of any corporate entity, subsidiary, or employee operating in this 

Forum, the identities of Fortis affiliates which are involved in the activities Autoscribe has 

accused;

3. Autoscribe may serve no more than (8) interrogatories and ten (10) document requests to Fortis 

by December 22, 2023;

4. Fortis shall respond to Autoscribe’s discovery requests and produce responsive documents, if 

any, by January 23, 2023;

5. Autoscribe may conduct a 30(b)(6) deposition of Fortis limited to seven (7) hours total on the 

record on or before February 14, 2023;

6. Autoscribe’s Response to the Venue Motion (Dkt. No. 17) shall be filed by March 4, 2024;

7. Fortis may file a Reply on or before March 18, 2024; and

8. The foregoing discovery shall not count toward the discovery limits set forth in the Court’s 

standing Discovery Order.

Case 2:23-cv-00364-JRG Document 18-1 Filed 12/15/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 138
Steven BLAKENEY, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-8970.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

BEAUMONT DIVISION

BRIAN MELONSON §

VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:23cv197

ZENA STEPHENS, ET AL. §

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff Brian Melonson, an inmate confined at the Jefferson County Correctional Facility,

proceeding pro se, brought the above-styled lawsuit.

The above-styled action was referred to the undersigned magistrate judge pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 636 and the Local Rules for the Assignment of Duties to the United States Magistrate Judge

for findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations for the disposition of the case.

Discussion

At the time this action was filed, plaintiff was a prisoner confined at the Jefferson County

Correctional Facility located in Beaumont, Texas. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) authorizes the district court to dismiss an action for failure to prosecute

or for failure to comply with any court order. Larson v. Scott, 157 F.3d 1030, 1031 (5th Cir. 1998). 

“This authority [under Rule 41(b)] flows from the court’s inherent power to control its docket and

prevent undue delays in the disposition of pending cases.” Boudwin v. Graystone Ins. Co., 756 F.2d

399, 401 (5th Cir. 1985) (citing Link v. Wabash, R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629 (1962). 

When preparing to collect the remainder of the filing fee, court staff discovered plaintiff is

no longer an inmate confined at the facility. See https://co.jefferson.tx.us/Sheriff/content/documents/

inmate/CURRENTINMATES.PDF. Plaintiff has failed to notify the court of an address at which

he may be contacted. In fact, plaintiff has not contacted the court in more than four months. 

Accordingly, plaintiff has failed to diligently prosecute this case. Therefore, this case should be

dismissed for want of prosecution pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b).

Case 1:23-cv-00197-MJT-ZJH Document 6 Filed 02/07/24 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 18
Recommendation

This case should be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b).

Objections

Within fourteen days after being served with a copy of the magistrate judge’s report, any

party may serve and file written objections to the findings of facts, conclusions of law and

recommendations of the magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C).

Failure to file written objections to the proposed findings of facts, conclusions of law and

recommendations contained within this report within fourteen days after service shall bar an

aggrieved party from the entitlement of de novo review by the district court of the proposed findings,

conclusions and recommendations and from appellate review of factual findings and legal

conclusions accepted by the district court except on grounds of plain error. Douglass v. United

Services Automobile Association, 79 F.3d 1415, 1417 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc); 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1); FED. R. CIV. P. 72.

_________________________

Zack Hawthorn

United States Magistrate Judge SIGNED this 7th day of February, 2024.

Case 1:23-cv-00197-MJT-ZJH Document 6 Filed 02/07/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 19
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 98-1013

___________

Nora Grajeda Estrada, *

 *

Petitioner, *

 *

v. * Petition for Review of an

 * Order of the Immigration

District Director, U.S. Department of * and Naturalization Service.

Justice Immigration & Naturalization *

Service, * [UNPUBLISHED]

 *

Respondent. *

___________

 Submitted: May 21, 1998

 Filed: May 29, 1998

___________

Before McMILLIAN, LOKEN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Nora Estrada, a native of Guatemala, petitions for review of a final decision of

the Immigration and Naturalization Service after the Board of Immigration Appeals

(BIA) dismissed as untimely her appeal from a decision of the Immigration Judge.

Estrada does not argue that her appeal to the BIA was timely, and the BIA cannot waive

the appeal deadline as Estrada suggests. See Atiqullah v. Immigration & Naturalization

Serv., 39 F.3d 896, 898 (8th Cir. 1994) (per curiam) (time limit for filing
-2-

notice of appeal to BIA is mandatory and jurisdictional). Accordingly, we deny

Estrada&s petition. 

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
<PAGE>

                                  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 Annual Report of Agree Realty Corporation (the "Company")
on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Richard Agree,
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 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 fairy presents, in all
            material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
            of the Company.

/s/ Richard Agree
---------------------------
Richard Agree
Chief Executive Officer

March 11, 2005
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2117 Introduced in House (IH)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2117

   To require any amounts appropriated for Members' Representational 
 Allowances for the House of Representatives for a session of Congress 
 that remain after all payments are made from such Allowances for the 
session to be deposited in the Treasury and used for deficit reduction 
                     or to reduce the Federal debt.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              June 9, 1999

  Mr. Stupak introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
Committee on House Administration, and in addition to the Committee on 
 Rules, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in 
   each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the 
                jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To require any amounts appropriated for Members' Representational 
 Allowances for the House of Representatives for a session of Congress 
 that remain after all payments are made from such Allowances for the 
session to be deposited in the Treasury and used for deficit reduction 
                     or to reduce the Federal debt.

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

SECTION 1. REQUIRING AMOUNTS REMAINING IN MEMBERS' REPRESENTATIONAL 
              ALLOWANCES TO BE USED FOR DEFICIT REDUCTION OR TO REDUCE 
              THE FEDERAL DEBT.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of law or any rule or other 
authority, any amounts appropriated for Members' Representational 
Allowances for the House of Representatives for a session of Congress 
or other period which remain after all payments are made under such 
Allowances for the session or period shall be deposited in the Treasury 
and used for deficit reduction, (or, if there is no Federal budget 
deficit after all such payments have been made, for reducing the 
Federal debt, in such manner as the Secretary of the Treasury considers 
appropriate).

SEC. 2. REPORT ON AMOUNT DEPOSITED.

    The Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives 
shall include in its report accompanying the annual appropriations bill 
for the legislative branch for a fiscal year a statement of the amount 
deposited under section 1 for the preceding calendar year with respect 
to each Member of the House of Representatives and the total deposited 
with respect to all Members.

SEC. 3. DEFINITION.

    In this Act, the term ``Member of the House of Representatives'' 
means a Representative in, or a Delegate or Resident Commissioner to, 
the Congress.
                                 <all>
```
AMENDMENT NO. 1
                                       TO
                              EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


           This  Amendment,  dated as of  November  1, 1995,  to the  Employment
Agreement,  dated as of December 1, 1993 (the  "Agreement"),  between Interstate
National  Dealer   Services,   Inc.  (the  "Company"  and  Cindy  H.  Luby  (the
"Executive").

           WHEREAS,  the Company and the Executive are parties to the Agreement,
providing  for  the   employment  by  the  Company  of  the  Executive  and  for
compensation and benefits to be provided to the Executive; and

           WHEREAS,  the parties  hereto desire to amend the Agreement to employ
the  Executive in a new capacity  and to increase the  compensation  paid to the
Executive.

           NOW,  THEREFORE,  the  parties  hereto  agree that the  Agreement  is
amended as follows:

                4.    Section 1 of the Agreement is hereby amended
in its entirety to read as follows:

                Employment, Services. The Company agrees to employ the Executive
           as President and Chief  Operating  Officer of the Company  subject to
           the  supervision  of and reporting  only to the Board of Directors of
           the  Company  and the  Chairman  and Chief  Executive  Officer of the
           Company, with such executive duties and responsibilities  assigned to
           her consistent with her position.  The Executive  hereby accepts such
           employment  and  agrees  to  devote  her best  talents,  efforts  and
           abilities on a full-time basis to the performance of such services.

                5.    Section 2(a) is hereby amended to increase
the Executive's annual salary from $72,000 to $100,000.

                6. Except as specifically  amended  hereby,  the Agreement shall
remain in full force and  effect and is hereby  ratified  and  confirmed  in all
respects.

                7. This  Agreement may be executed in one or more  counterparts,
each of  which  shall  be  deemed  to be an  original  and all of  which,  taken
together, shall constitute a single agreement.

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


                                    INTERSTATE NATIONAL
                                    DEALER SERVICES, INC.

                                    By: __________________



                                    ----------------------
                                    Cindy H. Luby




Confirmed:

---------------------
A Director of
Interstate National
Dealer Services, Inc.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         MAY-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                              AUG-31-1997
<CASH>                                         24,689
<SECURITIES>                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   2,300
<ALLOWANCES>                                        0
<INVENTORY>                                    18,027
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               83,943
<PP&E>                                      1,165,495
<DEPRECIATION>                                      0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              1,922,979
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       2,299,933
<BONDS>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                    2,283,310
<OTHER-SE>                                 (3,205,090)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                1,922,979
<SALES>                                       863,065
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              863,065
<CGS>                                         278,995
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 278,995
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              773,890
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             33,225
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (223,045)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (223,045)
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (223,045)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.08)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.08)
        


</TABLE>
Raminder KAUR, Petitioner, v. MARYLAND.

No. 19M99

Supreme Court of the United States.

Feb. 24, 2020

Motion for leave to file a petition for writ of certiorari with the supplemental appendix under seal granted.
Exhibit 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED

PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference into the Companys previously filed Registration Statements (Nos. 333-136586, 333-140413 and
333-147075) of our report dated August 27, 2009 with respect to the consolidated financial statements of API Nanotronics Corp. included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K), for the years ended May 31, 2009 and 2008 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.



|                         
|-------------------------
|/s/ WithumSmith+Brown, PC
|New Brunswick, New Jersey
|                         
|August 27, 2009
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
      THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION DERIVED FROM THE
COMPANY'S FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND THE NOTES THERETO INCLUDED IN THE COMPANY'S
FORM 10-K FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1999, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY
BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                    1,000

<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                           3,619
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   19,460
<ALLOWANCES>                                       458
<INVENTORY>                                      8,079
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                35,358
<PP&E>                                         224,773
<DEPRECIATION>                                  40,462
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 462,332
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           40,210
<BONDS>                                        309,164
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           30,589
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           196
<OTHER-SE>                                      82,173
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   462,332
<SALES>                                        231,723
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               231,723
<CGS>                                          139,386
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  207,650
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  (21)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              30,409
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (6,315)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (6,315)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (6,315)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.53)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.53)


</TABLE>