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

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF
THE SARBANES-OXLEY

ACT OF 2002

I, Russell J. Howard, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge the Annual Report of Maxygen, Inc. on
Form 10-K for the annual period ended December 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 Annual Report on Form 10-K fairly presents
in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Maxygen, Inc.



By:

/s/    RUSSELL J. HOWARDName:

Russell J. HowardTitle:

Chief Executive OfficerDate:

March 11, 2009


I, Lawrence W. Briscoe, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge the Annual Report of Maxygen, Inc. on Form 10-K for the annual period ended December 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 Annual Report on Form 10-K fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Maxygen, Inc.



By:

/s/    LAWRENCE W. BRISCOEName:

Lawrence W. BriscoeTitle:

Chief Financial OfficerDate:

March 11, 2009
#### S. S. KRESGE COMPANY, SKY CITY STORES. INC., and ZAYRE OF HIGH POINT, INC. v. ROBERT D. DAVIS, Mayor of the City of High Point; PAUL CLAPP, WILLIAM BENCINI, FRED M. YODER, FRED SWARTZBERG, J. COY PUTNAM, JAMES R. SHELTON, O. ARTHUR KIRKMAN, and JOHN W. THOMAS, JR., Members of the City Council for the City of High Point, North Carolina; LAURIE PRITCHETT, Chief of Police of the City of High Point; DOUGLAS ALBRIGHT, Solicitor of the Superior Court; and ROSS STRANGE, District Court Prosecutor

No. 7018SC241

(Filed 24 June 1970)

Sundays and Holidays— High Point Sunday observance ordinance

Trial court properly sustained a demurrer to a complaint attacking the constitutionality of the High Point Sunday observance ordinance.

*596Appeal by plaintiffs from *Exum, J.,*19 December 1969. in Chambers, GuileoRD Superior Court, High Point Division.

This action was instituted on 5 December 1969 to enjoin the enforcement of Section 15-35 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of High Point, revised 1957, for the alleged reasons that the ordinance was either unconstitutional on its face or was unconstitutional because of the discriminatory manner in which it had been enforced since its adoption. A temporary restraining order was entered on 5 December 1969 enjoining the enforcement of the questioned ordinance. By judgment entered as of 19 December 1969, James G. Exum, Jr., resident superior court judge, sustained defendants’ *demurrer ore terms*on the grounds that plaintiffs’ complaint failed to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. Upon notice of appeal being given by plaintiffs, the court, in its discretion, continued the temporary restraining order in effect until plaintiffs’ appeal could be disposed of.

*Gardner & Wilson by Bossie P. Gardner for 'plaintiff appellants.** *Knox Walker for defendant appellee City of High Point.*

*Morgan, Byerly, Post & Keziah by J. V. Morgan, and Smith & Patterson by Norman B. Smith for defendant appellees.*

Mallard, C.J.

The ordinance of the City of High Point involved in this proceeding is substantially similar to the ordinance of the City of Raleigh which was upheld in the case of *Kresge Co. v. Tomlinson and Arlan’s Dept. Store v. Tomlinson,*275 N.C. 1, 165 S.E. 2d 236 (1969).

In *Kresge v. Tomlinson, supra,*Justice Bobbitt (now Chief Justice) noted that the Charlotte ordinance considered and upheld in *Clark’s Charlotte, Inc. v. Hunter,*261 N.C. 222, 134 S.E. 2d 364 (1964), and the Winston-Salem ordinance considered and upheld in *Charles Stores v. Tucker,*263 N.C. 710, 140 S.E. 2d 370 (1965), were similar to the Raleigh ordinance. The Court also noted that the Greenville ordinance considered and upheld in *Clark’s v. West,*268 N.C. 527, 151 S.E. 2d 5 (1966), is identical in all material aspects to the one considered in *Charles Stores v. Tucker, supra.*

We have carefully considered the assignment of .error, .brought forward by the plaintiff appellants- and are of the opinion and so *597hold that the judgment of the superior court sustaining the demurrer interposed by the defendants ought to be affirmed.

Affirmed.

MoRRis and Graham, JJ., concur.
### IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

2024 ND 185 Angelica Maria Cruz Martinez, Petitioner and Appellant
v. State of North Dakota, Respondent and Appellee
No. 20240064 Appeal from the District Court of Stark County, Southwest Judicial District, the Honorable James D. Gion, Judge. AFFIRMED. Per Curiam. Kiara C. Kraus-Parr, Grand Forks, ND, for petitioner and appellant. Amanda R. Engelstad, State’s Attorney, Dickinson, ND, for respondent and appellee; submitted on brief.1 Martinez v. State No. 20240064 Per Curiam. [¶1] Angelica Martinez appeals from a district court order denying her application for postconviction relief from the judgment. Martinez argues her attorney was ineffective as she failed to present mitigating evidence during her probation revocation hearing, resulting in the court resentencing her to seven years on her first probation violation. [¶2] After review of the record, the judgment of the district court is supported by findings meeting the required standard of proof. We summarily affirm the judgment under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2). [¶3] Jon J. Jensen, C.J. Daniel J. Crothers Lisa Fair McEvers Jerod E. Tufte Douglas A. Bahr
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19
- 1914

In re: MICHAEL OWEN HARRIOT, a/k/a Lanky, a/k/a Donovan Smith, a/k/a Richard Onyett, a/k/a Bernard Barber, a/k/a James D. Smith, a/k/a Michael Smith , Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus . ( 3:99

- cr
- 00341

- MBS

- 3 )

Submitted : November 19, 2019 Decided: November 21, 2019

Before WILKINSON and RICHARDSON , Circuit Judges , and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Petition denied by un published per curiam opinion

.

Michael Owen Harriot , Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Michael Harriot petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order compelling the district court to provide him a certified copy of a warrant. We conclude that Harriot is not
entitled to mandamus relief. Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used only in extra ordinary
circumstances. Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Court , 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976); United States v.
Moussaoui , 333 F.3d 509, 516

- 17 (4th Cir. 2003). Further, mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought. In re Mu rphy

- Brown, LLC , 907 F.3d 788, 795 (4th Cir. 2018)

. Mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal. In re Lockheed Martin Corp. , 503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007). The relief sought by Harriot is not available by way of mandamus , as he improperly attempts to seek appellate review of the district court’s order denying hi s motion for copies
filed in his criminal case . Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
EXHIBIT 31.3


CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER CERTIFICATION


CERTIFICATION


I, Dawne S. Hickton, certify that:


1. I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to Annual Report on Form 10-K of RTI International Metals, Inc.; and


2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report.


/s/ Dawne S. HicktonDawne S. HicktonVice Chair, President and Chief Executive Officer


Date: April 29, 2015
#### STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JAMES ROOSEVELT WADDELL

No. 7312SC563

(Filed 26 September 1973)

On *certiorari*to review the trial of the defendant at the 29 January 1973 Session of Cumberland County Superior Court before *Brewer, Judge.*

The defendant was tried upon a bill of indictment in proper form charging him in two counts with possession of (1) heroin and (2) a hypodermic needle and syringe. After a plea of not guilty, he was tried before a jury which returned a verdict of guilty on both counts. The defendant gave notice of appeal from a prison sentence; and upon failure to perfect the appeal in apt time, this Court granted a petition for certiorari to review the case.

*Attorney General Robert Morgan by Associate Attorney E. Thomas Maddox, Jr., for the State.*

*Assistant Public Defender Donald W. Grimes for defendant appellant.*

CAMPBELL, Judge.

The defendant was arrested on other charges in the City of Fayetteville and taken to the police station. While in the police station, he was searched; and in his coat pocket there was found a bottle cap with a piece of wire attached thereto. The cap appeared to be smoked on the bottom and had a white residue of powder and a wad of cotton in it. There was also found a hypodermic needle. These items were wrapped together. Upon a laboratory test, heroin was found to be present in the residue of powder in the bottle cap.

*522A review of the record in this case reveals no error in the admission of evidence, charge of the court to the jury, or the judgment imposed.

No error.

Judges Morris and Hedrick concur.
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 96-20049

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

JOSEPH ALVIN ANDERSON,

Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-90-108-S

- - - - - - - - - -

June 25, 1996

Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Joseph Alvin Anderson, #52456-079, appeals from the district

court’s order denying his motion to vacate, set aside, or correct

his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. He argues his

criminal prosecution following the administrative forfeiture of

his gun collection of 111 guns violated the Fifth Amendment

prohibition against double jeopardy. We have reviewed the record

and the briefs of the parties and perceive no reversible error. 
No.96-20049

- 2 -

Jeopardy did not attach because Anderson was not a party to the

administrative forfeiture. See United States v. Arreola-Ramos,

60 F.3d 188, 192 (5th Cir. 1995). We affirm on the basis of the

reasons stated by the district court. 

AFFIRMED.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-6097

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus MARK EDWARDS, JR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James P. Jones, Chief District Judge. (CR-00-87-JPJ; CA-03-205-7-JPJ) Submitted: May 19, 2005 Decided: May 25, 2005 Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mark Edwards, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Steven Randall Ramseyer, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Abingdon, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).PER CURIAM: Mark Edwards, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion for reconsideration of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. SeeMiller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Edwards has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and di smiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 22
- 0120 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. JACOB JON IDLAND,

Defendant and Appellant.

**GRANT** Pursuant to authority granted under Mont. R. App. P. 26(1), the Appellant is given an extension of time until August 15, 2022, to prepare, file, and serve the Appellant’s opening brief.

Electronically signed by: Bowen Greenwood Clerk of the Supreme Court July 15 2022

07/15/2022

Case Number: DA 22-0120
EXHIBIT 32.1

                              CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
              RULE 13A-14(1) OR RULE 15D-14(B) AND 18 U.S.C. SEC. 1350,
                      AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
                              SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In  connection with the quarterly report of Petrosearch Energy Corporation, (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended September 30, 2006 as filed with
the Securities Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Richard
Dole, Chief Executive officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec.
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  fairly  presents,  in all
          material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of
          the  company.


Date: November 14, 2006


By:      /s/ Richard Dole
         -----------------
         Richard Dole
         Chief Executive Officer
# White Cane Safety Day, 2005

Americans who are blind or visually impaired are valuable and contributing members of our society, and many use a white cane to help them succeed at school, home, or work. White canes give these individuals greater mobility and enable them to participate in more aspects of community life. On White Cane Safety Day, we celebrate the progress that has been made for those who are blind or visually impaired, and we reaffirm our commitment to ensuring that these citizens can live and work with greater freedom and independence.

One of our Nation's defining values is compassion, and we must make certain that all our citizens are able to harness their talents, engage in productive work, and participate fully in society. My Administration is working to fulfill this goal for individuals with disabilities through the New Freedom Initiative. This comprehensive program helps increase the development and use of assistive and universally designed technologies, expand educational and employment opportunities, and improve access into daily community life. By working to reduce barriers and change old ways of thinking, we can help ensure that our Nation's opportunities are more accessible to all.

The Congress, by joint resolution (Public Law 88-628) approved on October 6, 1964, as amended, has designated October 15 of each year as “White Cane Safety Day.”

NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, do hereby proclaim October 15, 2005, as White Cane Safety Day. I call upon public officials, business leaders, educators, librarians, and all the people of the United States to observe this day with appropriate ceremonies, activities, and programs.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this fourteenth day of October, in the year of our Lord two thousand five, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirtieth.

[FR Doc. 05-21031

Billing code 3195-01-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
SEPTEMBER 30, 1999 CONSOLIDATED CONDENSED BALANCE SHEETS, CONSOLIDATED CONDENSED
STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS FOR THE PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1999 AND NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED CONDENSED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH CONSOLIDATED CONDENSED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                         398,516
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  248,598
<ALLOWANCES>                                     9,658
<INVENTORY>                                    224,447
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               979,174
<PP&E>                                       1,600,022
<DEPRECIATION>                                 877,009
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,841,950
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          374,721
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       196,387
<OTHER-SE>                                     838,766
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,841,950
<SALES>                                      1,444,114
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,444,114
<CGS>                                          863,252
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  863,252
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               584,041
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               8,448
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,756
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (10,173)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             12,929
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    12,929
<EPS-BASIC>                                     0.07
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.06


</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.3


                            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 Amended Annual Report of Pulitzer Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 28, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Robert C. Woodworth,
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, that:


         To my knowledge, (i) the Report fully complies with the requirements of
         section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii)
         the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
         material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
         the Company.





                                           /s/ ROBERT C. WOODWORTH
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           Robert C. Woodworth
                                           President and Chief Executive Officer
                                           March 16, 2004


         A signed original 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.
EXHIBIT 32.2

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


     I, Cary M.  Grossman,  Chief  Financial  Officer  of Sand Hill IT  Security
Acquisition  Corp. (the  "Company"),  do hereby  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of
2002, that, to my knowledge:

     o    the  Quarterly  Report on Form  10-QSB of the  Company for the quarter
          ended  June 30,  2004,  as  filed  with the  Securities  and  Exchange
          Commission  (the  "Report"),  fully complies with the  requirements of
          Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

     o    the  information  contained  in the  Report  fairly  presents,  in all
          material respects,  the financial  condition and results of operations
          of the Company.

 Date: September 7, 2004


/s/ Cary M. Grossman
Cary M. Grossman
Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer)