alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT 32.1

                  Certification of the Chief Executive Officer
                      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 of Monadnock Bancorp, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2008 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
William M. Pierce, Jr., President and 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 and in connection with this quarterly report
on Form 10-Q that:

      1.    The Report fully complies with the requirements of sections 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 company's financial condition and results of
            operations.

Date: August 8, 2008                   /s/ William M. Pierce, Jr.
                                       --------------------------
                                       William M. Pierce, Jr.
                                       President and Chief Executive Officer

                                      26
**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 of StrikeForce Technologies, Inc. (the
      "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2006, as filed
      with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
      I, Mark L. Kay, acting in the capacity as the Chief Executive Officer of the
      Company, certify to the best of my knowledge, 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, except the financial statements are in the
      process of being reviewed by our Independent Registered Public Accounting firm;
      and





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





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      StrikeForce Technologies, Inc. and will be retained by StrikeForce Technologies,
      Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
      request.




*/s/
      Mark L. Kay*





*Mark
      L. Kay*


*Chief
      Executive Officer*




*November
      20, 2006*
INTERSAL, INC. v. HAMILTON, et al.

115PA18-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

February 8, 2019

David H. Harris, Jr., Attorney at Law, Durham, for Intersal, Inc.

Brian Rabinovitz, Special Deputy Attorney General, Olga Vysotskaya de Brito, Special Deputy Attorney General, Amar Majmundar, Senior Deputy Attorney General, Charles G. Whitehead, Special Deputy Attorney General, Matthew W. Sawchak, Solicitor General, for North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources, et al.

Jeffrey A. Doyle, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, Joshua D. Neighbors, Attorney at Law, for Friends of Queen Anne's Revenge (Non-Profit Corporation)

The following order has been entered on the Motion for Extension of Time to File Reply Brief filed on the 7th of February 2019 by Plaintiff:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 8th of February 2019."

Plaintiff shall have up to and including the 25th day of February 2019 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court.
# Official Journal L 30/4 Fe

| | ISSN 1725-2555 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 30 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 514 February 2008 |

ISSN 1725-2555

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 30

English edition

Legislation

Volume 514 February 2008

---

| Contents | | I   Acts adopted under the EC Treaty/Euratom Treaty whose publication is obligatory | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | REGULATIONS |
| | * | Council Regulation (EC) No 71/2007 of 20 December 2007 setting up the Clean Sky Joint Undertaking
   (1) | 1 |
| | * | Council Regulation (EC) No 72/2008 of 20 December 2007 setting up the ENIAC Joint Undertaking | 21 |
| | * | Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2008 of 20 December 2007 setting up the Joint Undertaking for the implementation of the Joint Technology Initiative on Innovative Medicines
   (1) | 38 |
| | * | Council Regulation (EC) No 74/2008 of 20 December 2007 on the establishment of the ‘ARTEMIS Joint Undertaking’ to implement a Joint Technology Initiative in Embedded Computing Systems | 52 |

Contents

I   Acts adopted under the EC Treaty/Euratom Treaty whose publication is obligatory

page

REGULATIONS

*

Council Regulation (EC) No 71/2007 of 20 December 2007 setting up the Clean Sky Joint Undertaking
   (1)

1

*

Council Regulation (EC) No 72/2008 of 20 December 2007 setting up the ENIAC Joint Undertaking

21

*

Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2008 of 20 December 2007 setting up the Joint Undertaking for the implementation of the Joint Technology Initiative on Innovative Medicines
   (1)

38

*

Council Regulation (EC) No 74/2008 of 20 December 2007 on the establishment of the ‘ARTEMIS Joint Undertaking’ to implement a Joint Technology Initiative in Embedded Computing Systems

52

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 38290

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

MICHAEL L. JOCKUMSEN,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2012 Unpublished Opinion No. 315

Filed: January 11, 2012

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED 

OPINION AND SHALL NOT 

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Sixth Judicial District, State of Idaho, 

Bannock County. Hon. Stephen S. Dunn, District Judge. 

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of eight years, with a minimum 

period of confinement of three years, for attempted strangulation, affirmed.

Molly J. Huskey, State Appellate Public Defender; Sarah E. Tompkins, Deputy 

Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. 

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Jason M. Gray, Deputy Attorney 

General, Boise, for respondent. 

________________________________________________

Before GRATTON, Chief Judge; LANSING, Judge;

and MELANSON, Judge

PER CURIAM

Michael L. Jockumsen pled guilty to attempted strangulation. Idaho Code § 18-923(1). 

Following appeal and remand for resentencing, the district court imposed a unified term of eight 

years, with a minimum period of confinement of three years. Jockumsen appeals asserting that 

the district court abused its discretion by imposing an excessive sentence.

Sentencing is a matter for the trial court’s discretion. Both our standard of review and the 

factors to be considered in evaluating the reasonableness of the sentence are well established and 

need not be repeated here. See State v. Hernandez, 121 Idaho 114, 117-18, 822 P.2d 1011, 1014-

15 (Ct. App. 1991); State v. Lopez, 106 Idaho 447, 449-51, 680 P.2d 869, 871-73 (Ct. App. 

1984); State v. Toohill, 103 Idaho 565, 568, 650 P.2d 707, 710 (Ct. App. 1982). When reviewing 
2

the length of a sentence, we consider the defendant’s entire sentence. State v. Oliver, 144 Idaho 

722, 726, 170 P.3d 387, 391 (2007). Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record 

in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion.

Therefore, Jockumsen’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.
2-3-15

Mr. Stephen Richardson

#1795088

Wayne Scott Unit

6999 Retrieve Rd.

Angleton, Texas 77515

COURT OF APPEALS

Fourth Court of Appeals District

Attn: Carmen De Leon

CaQena-Reeves Justice Center

300 Dolorosa, Suite 3200

San Antonio. Texas 78205-3037

Court of Appeals No. 04-12-00379-CR

Trial Court Case No. 2010-CR-10629

Styfcg: Richardson

v.

State

Dear Clerk,

could you please tell me how much will it cost me to yet volume's (S)

five through (9) nine?. If need be my family and will try to purchase

one volume at a time. Also if possible would like to yet a copy of my

judgment sentencing paper's.

Any and all help you can provide me with will be yreatly appreciated.

Sincerly

Mr. StepKen Richardson #1795088

CO

en

i/>/-e
EXHIBIT 32.2
  
    (1)
    
    the report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ending June 30, 2009
(the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 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 as of the dates and for
the periods presented in the Report.
 /s/ SIMON A. BORROWS

Simon A. BorrowsCo-Chief Executive Officer
It Le our 0 inion that uralsr the fkotrr etstsd 

the cm&title ia.entl 8lad to halt oo&te Iron t&o county 

tbr thst portion or~time the drfm?~~t aatually asrusd ia 

jail. Far sample, ff the derendant'e flnn aa4 caste 

ClCtOUllt~ to #met% end he BorVOd tlo dGy# Gnd the ounstable*e fees amounted to @.tJO, the mnatabls muld ba 

entftlad to raedmi fxom the couunty the mm of SO o*nte 

(8 hi8 helf oosta under Artlels lOZ5, V. A. F. C. Pa 

raleaeo hiw fm the ';bymst ot the halam br his rh 

and imft8..
2000 OK JUD ETH 9.

#### JUDICIAL ETHICS OPINION 2000-9.

No. 2000-9.

Oklahoma Judicial Ethics Advisory Panel.

Nov. 14, 2000.

T0 QUESTION 1: May a judge accept appointment as a chairman or member of a board of an organization whose mission is to investigate incidents of child abuse and, where appropriate, aid in prosecution?

T1 SPECIFIC FACTS: The organization involved is a non-profit agency. The chairman of the organization would have the duty of presiding at meetings, signing checks, contracts, etc., on behalf of the organization. The position would not involve solicitation of funds. The organization is involved in the reporting, investigation and prosecution of child abuse and, among other things, coordinating various agencies including the sheriff's office, police departments, and district attorney's office. The employees of the organization seldom testify in Court (perhaps two times a year) and at times juveniles who have been counseled by the organization appear on the judge's juvenile docket.

12 WE ANSWER: - NO.

T8 Canon 4A: "Extra-Judicial Activities in General. A judge should conduct all of the judge's extra-judicial activities so that they do not:

> (1) cast reasonable doubt on the judge's capacity to act impartially as a judge...."

T4 Canon 4C(B)(a): - "A judge should not serve as an officer, director, trustee or nonlegal advisor if it is likely that the organization:

> i. will be engaged in proceedings that would ordinarily come before the judge, or

> will be engaged frequently in adversary proceedings in the court of which the judge is a member...."

T5 The organization described is an organization where ordinarily a judge may serve *267as an officer, director, trustee or non-legal advisor since it is devoted to the improvement of the law and the administration of justice. However, under the clear wording of its mission, it is an organization that will frequently be engaged in proceedings that would ordinarily come before the judge or will be engaged frequently in adversary proceedings in the court of which the judge is a member.

T6 Canon 4C(3) is silent as to whether a judge may be a member of such an organization. Because this organization is involved in investigating and prosecuting child abuse and neglect, we believe such membership by a judge would violate the spirit of Canon 4.

T7 Robert L. Bailey, Chairman.

T 8 Robert A. Layden, Vice-Chairman.

T9 Milton C. Craig, Secretary.
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 466 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to prohibit discrimination and acts 

of reprisal against persons who receive treatment for illnesses, injuries, 

and disabilities incurred in or aggravated by service in the uniformed 

services. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 13, 2009 

Mr. DOGGETT (for himself, Mr. BISHOP of New York, Mr. EDWARDS of 

Texas, Mr. FILNER, Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas, Mr. 

MCGOVERN, and Mr. ORTIZ) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to prohibit discrimination and acts of reprisal against persons who receive 

treatment for illnesses, injuries, and disabilities incurred 

in or aggravated by service in the uniformed services. 

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 ‘‘Wounded Veteran Job 

5 Security Act’’. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
2 

•HR 466 IH

1 SEC. 2. DISCRIMINATION AGAINST PERSONS WHO RECEIVE 

2 TREATMENT FOR ILLNESSES, INJURIES, AND 

3 DISABILITIES INCURRED IN OR AGGRAVATED 

4 BY SERVICE IN THE UNIFORMED SERVICES 

5 AND ACTS OF REPRISAL PROHIBITED. 

6 (a) PROHIBITION OF DISCRIMINATION AND ACTS OF

7 REPRISAL.—Section 4311 of title 38, United States Code, 

8 is amended— 

9 (1) in subsection (a)— 

10 (A) by inserting after ‘‘uniformed service’’ 

11 the following: ‘‘, or who has an illness, injury, 

12 or disability determined by the Secretary of 

13 Veterans Affairs to have been incurred in or ag14 gravated by such service,’’; and 

15 (B) by striking ‘‘or obligation’’ and insert16 ing ‘‘obligation, or receipt of treatment for that 

17 illness, injury, or disability’’; and 

18 (2) in subsection (c)— 

19 (A) by striking ‘‘or obligation for service’’ 

20 the first time it appears and inserting ‘‘obliga21 tion for service, or receipt of treatment for an 

22 illness, injury, or disability incurred in or ag23 gravated by service’’; and 

24 (B) by striking ‘‘or obligation for service’’ 

25 the second time it appears and inserting ‘‘obli26 gation for service, or receipt of treatment’’. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
3 

•HR 466 IH

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

2 subsection (a) shall apply with respect to treatment re3 ceived on or after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 15-850V Filed: November 18, 2015 Unpublished

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * JENNIFER HENDRICKS, *

* Petitioner, * Ruling on Entitlement; Concession; * Influenza (“Flu”) Vaccine; Shoulder * Injury Related to Vaccine

SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Admi nistration (“SIRVA”); Special AND HUMAN SERVICES, * Processing Unit (“SPU”)

* Respondent. *

*

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Curtis R. Webb, counsel for petitioner. Lisa Ann Watts, U.S. Department of Ju stice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT 1

Dorsey , Chief Special Master:

On August 10, 2015, petitioner filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensat ion Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.

, 2 [the “Vaccine Act”]. Petitioner alleges that as a result of a triv alent influenza (“flu”) vaccine she received on October 15, 2014, petitioner developed a shoulder injury related to vaccination (SIRVA). Petition at 1. This case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit (SPU) of the Office of Special Masters.

On November 18, 2015, respondent filed t he Rule 4(c) report in conceding that petitioner is entitled to com pensation in this case. Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report at 1. Specifically, respondent states that “petitioner’s SIRVA was more likely than not caused by the October 15, 2014, flu vaccination,” and that “petitioner has satisfied all legal prerequisites for compensation under the Act.” Id. at 5.

1 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reaso ned explanation for the action in this case, the undersigned intends to post it on the United States Cour t of Federal Claims' website, in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-3 47, § 205, 116 Stat. 2899, 2913 (codified as amended at 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2006)). In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to redact medical or other inform ation, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, t he undersigned agrees that the identified material fits within this definition, the undersigned will redact such material from public access.

2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for ease of citation, all “§” references to the Vaccine Ac t will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa (2012).2 In view of respondent’s concession and the evidence before me, the undersigned finds that petitioner is entitled to compensation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Nora Beth Dorsey Nora Beth Dorsey Chief Special Master
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

HERBERT BROWN,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 482 MAL 2021

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 12th day of January, 2022

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
NORTH CAROLINA FARM BUREAU MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, INC. and North Carolina Insurance Underwriting Association v. Ronnie D. LILLEY, Sr.

No. 51P18

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 14, 2018

John M. Kirby, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, for Lilley, Ronnie D. (Sr.)

Matthew J. Gray, Attorney at Law, Angela Farag Craddock, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, Robert D. Whitney, Attorney at Law, for North Carolina Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company, Inc., et al.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 20th of February 2018 by Defendant 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 14th of August 2018."
Edward F. WILKIE and Debra T. Wilkie, Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF BOILING SPRING LAKES, Defendant.

No. COA16-652-2

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: December 18, 2018

AFFIRMED IN PART. REMANDED IN PART.
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

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

 

 

                In connection with the QuarterlyReport of AventineRenewable Energy Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Qfor the period ending September 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Ronald H. Miller, Chief Executive Officer ofAventine RenewableEnergy Holdings, Inc., certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best ofmy knowledge and belief:

 

(1)          The Report fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934; and

 

(2)          The information contained inthe Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial conditionand results of operations of the Company.

 

                A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Aventine Renewable Energy Holdings, Inc. and willbe retained by AventineRenewable Energy Holdings, Inc. and furnished to theSecurities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

 
|   | /s/ Ronald H. Miller    |   |
|--------|-------------------------|--------|
|   | Ronald H. Miller        |   |
|   | Chief Executive Officer |   |
|   | November 7, 2007        |   |

 

 

39

----
FIRST AMENDMENT TO
                      DIRECTRIX, INC. STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN
                              FOR OUTSIDE DIRECTORS

         1.  DEFINED TERMS.  All defined terms used herein shall  have the  same
meaning as in the Directrix,  Inc.  Stock Incentive Plan  for  Outside Directors
("Plan").

         2. INCREASE IN NUMBER OF SHARES SUBJECT TO THE PLAN. The first sentence
of  Section 3 of the Plan shall be  modified  to  increase  the number of shares
subject  to the Plan  from  20,000 to  150,000.  After  modification,  the first
sentence of Section 3(a) shall read as follows:

         "3.      Stock Subject to the Plan

                  Options  shall be  granted  under  the  Plan with respect to a
                  number of shares of  Company  Stock as set forth in  Section 6
that in the aggregate does not exceed 150,000 shares."

         3.  INITIAL  GRANT;  INCREASE IN FORMULA  GRANT OF  OPTIONS.  The first
sentence of Section 6 of the Plan shall be  modified  to increase  the number of
shares of Company  Stock in the  Option  granted to each  director  eligible  to
participate  in the Plan from 1,250  shares of  Company  Stock per year to 5,000
shares of Company Stock per year and to provide for an initial grant options for
20,000  shares of Company  Stock.  After  modification,  the first  sentence  of
Section 6 shall read as follows:

         "6.      Initial Grant; Formula Grant of Options

                  The  Company  shall  make an  initial  grant of  Options  with
                  respect  to 20,000  shares of Company  Stock when the  Company
                  makes its initial  grant to employees to each director who is,
                  on such date, eligible to participate in the Plan. On the last
                  trading day of each fiscal year of the Company,  each director
                  who is, on such date,  eligible  to  participate  in the Plan,
                  shall be granted  an Option  with  respect to 5,000  shares of
                  Company Stock."

         4.  NO FURTHER MODIFICATION.  Except as  otherwise modified herein, the
terms and provisions of the Plan shall continue in full force and effect.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, August 28, 2014. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, August 28, 2014 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A14D0473. CHRISTINE B. MAY v. MORGAN COUNTY. Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby DENIED.
LC NUMBERS: 2012CA145
EXHIBIT 99.1

                                SCHEDULE II

                                theglobe.com
                     VALUATION AND QUALIFYING ACCOUNTS
                      ALLOWANCE FOR DOUBTFUL ACCOUNTS


                     BALANCE      ADDITIONS                 BALANCE
                   AT BEGINNING   CHARGED TO                 AT END
YEAR ENDED           OF PERIOD     EXPENSE    DEDUCTIONS    OF PERIOD
-----------------   ----------   ----------   ----------   ----------

December 31, 1997   $       --   $   12,000   $       --   $   12,000
December 31, 1998   $   12,000   $  387,878   $   99,742   $  300,136
December 31, 1999   $  300,136   $1,881,473   $  773,517   $1,408,092