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











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





I, Linda
Putback-Bean, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of
Pediatric Prosthetics, Inc. on Form 10-QSB/A for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2008 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Form
10-QSB/A fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and
results of operations of Pediatric Prosthetics, Inc.





By:/s/ Linda
Putback-Bean


Linda
Putback-Bean


Chief
Executive Officer


(Principal
Executive Officer)





June 23,
2008
In the MATTER OF: G.M.

No. COA17-174

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: September 5, 2017

AFFIRMED.
## Exhibit 3.1(b)

# CERTIFICATE
OF AMENDMENT
OF CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION

# OF

# NEWSTATE
HOLDINGS, INC.

This
is to certify that the Certificate of Incorporation of NEWSTATE HOLDINGS, INC.,
a corporation organized and existing under and by virtue of the General
Corporation Law of the State of Delaware, is hereby amended as follows:

FIRST:  The name of the Corporation is NewState Holdings, Inc.
(hereinafter referred to as the "Corporation").

SECOND:  That the Board
of  Directors of the  Corporation  by unanimous  written  consent  dated as of March 1, 2001,
adopted resolutions to amend the original certificate as follows:

| | RESOLVED,
that the Certificate of Incorporation of this Corporation be amended by deleting
Section 4.1 thereof and by substituting in lieu of said Section 4.1 the
following new Section 4.1:
| | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| | "4.1  Authorized  Stock and Classes of Stock.  The  Corporation  shall have the  authority to issue
                           20,000,000 shares of Common Stock, $0.01 par value."
| | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

THIRD:   That the number of shares of stock of the Corporation  outstanding and entitled to vote on an amendment to the
Certificate  of  Incorporation  is  11,508,684;  that the said change and amendment have been consented to in writing and approved by a
majority  vote of the  stockholders  holding at least a majority of each class of stock  outstanding  and  entitled to vote  thereon in
accordance with the provisions of Section 228 of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware.

FOURTH:  The  Corporation has provided all  stockholders  entitled to vote thereon with written notice of said change
and amendment to the  Certificate  of  Incorporation  in  accordance  with Section 228 of the General  Corporation  Law of the State of
Delaware.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned  authorized officer has caused this Certificate to be executed on this 8th day of
May, 2001.

ERNEST B. KIM
                                          
                                   Ernest B. Kim,
                                          
                                   Chairman of the Board, President and
                                          
                                      Chief Executive Officer
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT**

In connection withthe Quarterly Report of ADESA, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Qfor the period ended March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, David G. Gartzke,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 (18USC 1350), that:

(1)   The Reportfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)   The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultof operations of the Company.
| /s/  DAVID G.  GARTZKE |   |
|----------------------------------|--------|

**David G. Gartzke*Chief Executive Officer*May 10, 2006**

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

----
#### Tony SMITH et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 75-1609.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Feb. 6, 1978.

Before COLEMAN, GODBOLD and HILL, Circuit Judges.

BY THE COURT:

In light of the United States Supreme Court’s judgment entered on December 5, 1977, - U.S. -, 98 S.Ct. 600, 54 L.Ed.2d 473 [vacating 543 F.2d 1155], the petition of taxpayers for the award of attorneys’ fees is DENIED, and this cause is hereby REMANDED to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi with directions to enter judgment for the United States.
# Official Journal C 31A/28 J

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 31A |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5928 January 2016 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 31A

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5928 January 2016

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | V   Announcements |
| | ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES |
| | European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) |
| 2016/C 031A/1 | Reserve lists — Open competition EPSO/AST-SC/03/15 | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

V   Announcements

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES

European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO)

2016/C 031A/1

Reserve lists — Open competition EPSO/AST-SC/03/15

1

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
EX 10.1 Letter Agreement 07-25-14




	
		
	
	AVIAT NETWORKS
WWW.AVIATNETWORKS.COM






July 25, 2014
Charles D. Kissner
c/o Aviat Networks, Inc.
5200 Great America Parkway
Santa Clara, CA 95054


Dear Chuck, 
As we have discussed, and pursuant to the actions of the board of directors, this letter memorializes the terms and compensation for your service as the Executive Chairman of Aviat Networks.
As compensation for your service as Executive Chairman, you will receive the following compensation (with the compensation inclusive of all of your director compensation):
		
	•
	$130,000 in cash payable quarterly in arrears,


		
	•
	$60,000 in equity compensation split between stock options and restricted stock units on the same terms other directors, and


		
	•
	for your service as Executive Chairman, an additional $110,000 in stock options to vest quarterly over the first year from the date of grant.  The number of stock options to be granted will be based on the fair value of the grant determined under the same principles used by the Company for financial reporting.   In addition, in the event of a change in control or your removal from the board of directors other than voluntarily or for cause prior to vesting, these stock options will fully vest on the date such event.


To accept the Company’s offer, please sign and date this letter in the space provided below.  This letter may not be modified or amended except by a written agreement signed by you and by the Chief Executive Officer of the Company, pursuant to authority specifically delegated by the board of directors.
Regards,
	
			
	/s/ Michael Pangia
	 
	 

	Michael Pangia
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 

	President and CEO of Aviat Networks

	 
	 
	 

	/s/ Charles D. Kissner
	 
	July 25, 2014

	Charles D. Kissner
	 
	Date
# C_2008051EN.01003803.xml

| 23.2.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 51/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.2.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51/38

---

Order of the President of the Eighth Chamber of the Court of 27 November 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Hungary

(Case C-30/07) (1)

1

(2008/C 51/65)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Language of the case: Hungarian

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

---

(1)  OJ C 69, 24.3.2007.

1

---
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-QSB of Maximum
Awards, Inc. (the "Company") for the for the quarterly period ended June 30,
2006 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I,
Maxwell Thomas, Chief Executive Officer and Chief 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, 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 consolidated financial condition of the Company as of the dates
presented and consolidated results of operations of the Company for the periods
presented.

Dated: August 17, 2006


By: /s/ Maxwell Thomas
    ---------------------------
    Chief Executive Officer and
    Chief Financial Officer



This certification has been furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.





                                       27
# C_2011340EN.01003201.xml

| 19.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 340/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 340/32

---

Order of the General Court of 19 September 2011 — Lithuania v Commission

(Case T-368/07) (1)

1

2011/C 340/63

Language of the case: Lithuanian

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

---

(1)  C 283, 24.11.2007.

1

---
1 In The 

### Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________ N O . 09
- 20
- 00 100
- CV

__________________

IN THE INTEREST OF T.R.H. JR.

__________________________________________________________________ On Appeal from the 7 5 th District Court Liberty County, Texas Trial Cause No. C V0901264

__________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION The appellant, Desire é Heller, filed a notice of appeal from the trial court’s
temporary order , which the trial court signed on February 12, 2020. We questioned our jurisdiction over the appeal and instructed the appellant to respond by identifying
the statute or rule that she was relying upon to authorize an appeal from a n interlocutory order . In the same letter, we warned the parties the Court would dismiss the appeal unless we could determine that jurisdiction existed over Heller’s appeal.2 Heller responded by f i ling an amended notice of appeal . In her amended notice, she stated she wants to appeal from an order the trial court signed on March 12, 2020 . In that order, the trial court denied Heller’s motion to enforce her right to have visitation with the child who is the subject of the proceedings. After filing the amended notice, Heller filed a response to this Court’s earlier request , claiming she was appealing f rom the order the trial court signed in March and not from the one the trial court signed in February Generally, courts of appeal have jurisdiction to review final judgments and interlocutory orders that the Legislature made appealable by statute. See Lehmann v.
Har

- Con Corp. , 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). Heller’s response fails to establish she is seeking to appeal from an order that she has the right to appeal

. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a) For these reasons, we dismiss Heller’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(f).
APPEAL DISMISSE D.

PER CURIAM

Submitted on April 15, 2020 Opinion Delivered April 16, 2020
Before Kreger, Horton , and John son, JJ.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION v. Joseph P. RIDDLE, III, and wife, Trina T. Riddle

No. 191P17

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 17, 2017

Mr. Lonnie M. Player, Jr., Attorney at Law, Ms. Jennifer L. Malone, Attorney at Law, Fayetteville, for Riddle, Joseph P. (III), et al.

Ms. Elizabeth N. Strickland, Assistant Attorney General, Mr. Alvin William Keller, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Mr. Shawn Robert Evans, Attorney at Law, for Department of Transportation.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 13th of June 2017 by Defendants in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 17th of August 2017."
United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

S.H., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Bellmawr, NJ, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 15-1693 

Issued: April 1, 2016 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Thomas R. Uliase, Esq., for the appellant 

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

ORDER REMANDING CASE 

Before: 

CHRISTOPHER J. GODFREY, Chief Judge 

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge 

COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge 

On August 5, 2015 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely application for review of a 

May 4, 2015 nonmerit decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP), 

which denied reconsideration. 

OWCP accepted that appellant sustained a syncopal episode on December 13, 2012 while 

in the performance of duty. On February 4, 2014 appellant, through counsel, requested 

reconsideration and an expansion of her accepted conditions to include cervical radiculopathy. 

By decision dated July 31, 2014, OWCP denied appellant’s claim. On September 23, 2014 

OWCP received appellant’s reconsideration request dated September 18, 2014 and on May 4, 

2015 denied the reconsideration request without reviewing the merits of her claim. 

The Board finds that appellant is entitled to a merit review of her case. When a 

reconsideration decision is delayed beyond 90 days, and the delay jeopardizes the claimant’s 

right to review of the merits of the case by the Board, OWCP should conduct a merit review.1

 

Appellant had 180 days, or until January 27, 2015, to appeal OWCP’s July 31, 2014 merit 

                                                             1 See S.P., Docket No. 14-1309 (issued October 21, 2009); Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, 

Reconsiderations, Chapter 2.1602.7.a (October 2011). 
2

decision to the Board.2 OWCP received her reconsideration request within 54 days on 

September 23, 2014, but did not issue its denial until May 4, 2015, well after her right to appeal 

the merit decision to the Board had expired. Thus, its delay jeopardized appellant’s right to 

appeal the merits of her case. 

Accordingly, the Board will reverse OWCP’s May 4, 2015 decision and remand the case 

for a merit review and an appropriate final decision on appellant’s claim for compensation.3 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the May 4, 2015 decision of the Office of Workers’ 

Compensation Programs is reversed and the case remanded for further action. 

Issued: April 1, 2016 

Washington, DC 

 

 Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

                                                             2

 20 C.F.R. § 501.3(e). 

3 See Joseph L. Cabral, 44 ECAB 152 (1992) (remanding the case for a merit decision where OWCP delayed 

more than 10 months in denying reconsideration).
FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

No. 05-30303 Plaintiff-Appellee,

D.C. No.

v.  CR-04-00127-RCT

DAVID ROLAND HINKSON,

ORDER Defendant-Appellant. 

Filed October 20, 2008

ORDER

KOZINSKI, Chief Judge: 

Upon the vote of a majority of nonrecused active judges, it

is ordered that this case be reheard en banc pursuant to Circuit

Rule 35-3. The three-judge panel opinion shall not be cited as

precedent by or to any court of the Ninth Circuit. 

Judges Silverman and Tallman did not participate in the

deliberations or vote in this case.

14875
PRINTED FOR

ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE—U.S. COURTS

BY THOMSON REUTERS/WEST—SAN FRANCISCO

The summary, which does not constitute a part of the opinion of the court, is copyrighted

© 2008 Thomson Reuters/West.
# C_2009019EN.01002603.xml

| 24.1.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 19/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.1.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 19/26

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 2 December 2008 — Ford Motor v OHIM (FUN)

(Case T-67/07) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark FUN - Absolute grounds for refusal - Lack of descriptive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

(2009/C 19/49)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Ford Motor Co. (Dearborn, Michigan, United States) (represented by: R. Ingerl, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Poch, Agent)

Defendant:

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 December 2006 (Case R 1135/2006-2), concerning an application for registration of the Community word mark FUN.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 20 December 2006 (Case R 1135/2006 2); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 20 December 2006 (Case R 1135/2006 2);

| 2. | Orders OHIM to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders OHIM to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 95, 28.4.2007.

1

---
SIXTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

Case No. 6D2023-0872

Lower Tribunal No. CF02-05635A-XX

_____________________________

JAMES LAMAR GRIFFIN,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Polk County.

Melissa Gravitt, Judge.

August 20, 2024

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

STARGEL, NARDELLA and SMITH, JJ., concur.

Rachael E. Reese, of O’Brien Hatfield Reese, P.A., Tampa, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Cerese Crawford Taylor, 

Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING 

AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>               9



<CIK>                   0000920986   
<NAME>                  TeleBanc Financial Corp
<MULTIPLIER>            1000
       
<S>                                <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                      12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                  DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                     JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                       DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                             0
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>             0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                   0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                   0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>        0
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>             0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>               0
<LOANS>                            0
<ALLOWANCE>                        0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                     0
<DEPOSITS>                         0
<SHORT-TERM>                       0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                0
<LONG-TERM>                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>              0
<PREFERRED>                        0
<COMMON>                           0
<OTHER-SE>                         0
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>     0
<INTEREST-LOAN>                    0
<INTEREST-INVEST>                  0
<INTEREST-OTHER>                   0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                   0
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                 0
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>              0
<LOAN-LOSSES>                      0
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                 0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                    0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                    0
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                    0
<CHANGES>                          0
<NET-INCOME>                       0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                   1.25
<EPS-DILUTED>                   1.16
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                     0
<LOANS-NON>                        0
<LOANS-PAST>                       0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                   0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                    0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                   0
<CHARGE-OFFS>                      0
<RECOVERIES>                       0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                  0
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>               0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>            0
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4192 Received in Senate (RDS)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4192

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 29, 2014

                                Received

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To amend the Act entitled ``An Act to regulate the height of buildings 
 in the District of Columbia'' to clarify the rules of the District of 
Columbia regarding human occupancy of penthouses above the top story of 
            the building upon which the penthouse is placed.

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

SECTION 1. CLARIFICATION OF RULES APPLYING TO HUMAN OCCUPANCY OF 
              PENTHOUSES IN DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA BUILDINGS.

    (a) Permitting Human Occupancy of Penthouses Within Certain Height 
Limit.--The eighth paragraph of section 5 of the Act entitled ``An Act 
to regulate the height of buildings in the District of Columbia'', 
approved June 1, 1910 (sec. 6-601.05(h), D.C. Official Code) is 
amended--
            (1) by striking ``penthouses over elevator shafts,'' and 
        inserting ``penthouses,''; and
            (2) by striking ``and no floor or compartment thereof shall 
        be constructed or used for human occupancy above the top story 
        of the building upon which such structures are placed'' and 
        inserting ``and, except in the case of a penthouse which is 
        erected to a height of one story of 20 feet or less above the 
        level of the roof, no floor or compartment thereof shall be 
        constructed or used for human occupancy above the top story of 
        the building upon which such structures are placed''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.

            Passed the House of Representatives April 28, 2014.

            Attest:

                                                 KAREN L. HAAS,

                                                                 Clerk.
```