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



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL 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 Annual Report of ZiLOG, Inc. on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), James Thorburn, as Chief
Executive Officer of ZiLOG, certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to his knowledge that 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 ZiLOG, Inc.



Date: March 29, 2005By:

/s/    JAMES THORBURNJames Thorburn Chairman and Chief Executive
Officer




This
certification accompanies the Report pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by ZiLOG, Inc. for purposes of § 18 of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.



In connection with the
Annual Report of ZiLOG, Inc. on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), Perry J. Grace, as Chief Financial Officer of ZiLOG, certifies,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to his knowledge that 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 ZiLOG, Inc.



Date: March 29, 2005By:

/s/    PERRY J. GRACEPerry J. Grace Chief Financial
Officer




This
certification accompanies the Report pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by ZiLOG, Inc. for purposes of § 18 of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
Exhibit 99.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350.

                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Investment Properties Associates (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2002 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Robert Hecht, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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 operations of the
Company.

/s/ Robert Hecht
------------------------------------
Robert Hecht

Chief Financial Officer

May 14, 2003


                                       12
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16

- 60676 Summary Calendar

DALJIT SINGH ,
Petitioner

v.

JEFF ERSON B. SESSIONS, III, U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL , Respondent

Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A200 944 798

Before BENAVIDES, SOUTHWICK, and COSTA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Daljit Singh, a native and citizen of India who entered the United States without admission or parole , petitions for review of the order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal of the denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Conv ention Against Torture (CAT). With respect to his asylum and withholding

- of

- removal claims, Singh challenges the immigration judge’s

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED September 29, 2017 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 16-60676 Document: 00514176359 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/29/2017N o. 16

- 60676

2 finding that his testimony was not credible, but he fails to show that it is plain from the totality of the circumstances that “no reasonable fact

- finder could make such an adverse credibility ruling.” Wang v. Holder , 569 F.3d 531, 538 (5th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). T he BIA found it unnecessary to review the merits of his claims apart from the adverse credibility finding , which was fatal to the claims. Likewise, we conclude that the denial of relief turned on the assessment of Singh’s credibility

. See Chun
v. INS , 40 F.3d 76, 78

- 79 (5th Cir. 1994). In addition, Singh challenges the adver se credibility determination in the context of his CAT claim. Again, he has not shown that “any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see Zhang v. Gonzales , 432 F.3d 339, 344

- 45 (5th Cir. 2005). PETITION DENIED. Case: 16-60676 Document: 00514176359 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/29/2017
**Exhibit 31.1**

**SARBANES-OXLEY SECTION 302(a)CERTIFICATION**

I,Stephen Russo, certify that:

1.                     I have reviewedthis quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Mrs. Fields Famous Brands, LLC;

2.                     Based on myknowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.                     Based on myknowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

4.                     The registrant’sother certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

a)              Designed suchdisclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

b)             Evaluated theeffectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

c)              Disclosed in thisreport any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reportingthat occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

5.                     The registrant’sother certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions):

a)                    All significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and

b)                   Any fraud, whetheror not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
|        | Date: November 10, 2006               |   |
|--------|---------------------------------------|--------|
|   | /s/ Stephen Russo                     |   |
|   | Stephen Russo                         |
|   | President and Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
In The 

Court of Appeals 

Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

Nos. 07-18-00206-CV 

 07-18-00297-CV 

IN THE INTEREST OF P.L.G. AND H.M.G., CHILDREN 

 

 

On Appeal from the 100th District Court 

Childress County, Texas 

Trial Court No. 10,713, Honorable Stuart Messer, Presiding 

 

August 1, 2018 

 

ORDER OF SEVERANCE 

 

Before CAMPBELL and PIRTLE and PARKER, JJ. 

The parents of P.L.G. and H.M.G. each timely filed notices of appeal from the trial 

court’s order terminating their parental rights. The children’s mother, T.G., has filed a 

brief on the merits. The children’s father, D.Z.G., was appointed an attorney who has 

filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. 

Ed. 2d 493 (1967).

Because the nature of our review of Anders cases is substantially different than 

the nature of our review of a brief on the merits, we believe that it is appropriate to sever 

the appeals. Thus, by order of this Court, D.Z.G.’s appeal is severed into cause number 
2

07-18-00297-CV. To effectuate this severance, D.Z.G.’s brief and all related filings as 

well as a copy of the appellate record will be refiled in cause number 07-18-00297-CV by 

the Clerk of this Court.

Per Curiam
##### 



Exhibit 10.11
 NEW CENTURY FINANCIAL CORPORATION
2004 PERFORMANCE INCENTIVE PLAN
DIRECTOR RESTRICTED STOCK AWARD AGREEMENT
 THIS DIRECTOR RESTRICTED STOCK AWARD AGREEMENT Award Agreement  Award Date Corporation  Director
 W I T N E S S E T H
 WHEREAS Plan Award
 NOW THEREFORE
 1. Defined Terms
 2. Grant  Restricted Stock
 3. Vesting
 4. Continuance of Services




---



##### 



5. Dividend and Voting Rights
 6. Restrictions on Transfer
 7. Stock Issuance
 Book Entry Form
 Certificates to be Held by Corporation; Legend
 The ownership of this certificate and the shares of stock evidenced hereby and any
interest therein are subject to substantial restrictions on transfer under an
Agreement entered into between the registered owner and New Century Financial
Corporation. A copy of such Agreement is on file in the office of the Secretary of
New Century Financial Corporation.
 Delivery of Certificates Upon Vesting




---



##### 



Stock Power; Power of Attorney
 8. Effect of Termination of Directors Services .
 General
 Death, Disability or Retirement Disability Retirement
 Severance Date




---



##### 



9. Adjustments Upon Specified Events Restricted Property
 10. Tax Withholding
 11. Notices
 12. Plan




---



##### 



after
 13. Entire Agreement
 14. Counterparts
 15. Section Headings
 16. Governing Law
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF
 NEW CENTURY FINANCIAL
CORPORATION, a Maryland corporation
    
    
    
    DIRECTORBy:Name:
    
    Brad MorriceTitle:
    
    Vice Chairman, President and
Chief Operating Officer
<PAGE>

                                                                  EXHIBIT 10.215

                                   DEMAND NOTE

$1,055,000.00                                                 New York, New York
                                                              February 13, 2002


FOR VALUE RECEIVED, the undersigned, Wilshire Technologies, Inc. a California
corporation (hereinafter referred to as "Borrower"), hereby unconditionally
PROMISES TO PAY to the order to TRILON DOMINION PARTNERS, LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company ("Lender"), at 245 Park Avenue, 28th Floor, New York,
NY 10167, or at such other place as the holder of this Demand Note may designate
from time to time in writing, in lawful money of the United States of America
and in immediately available funds, the principal amount of One Million Fifty
Five Thousand and 00/100, DOLLARS ($1,055,000), together with interest on the
unpaid principal amount of this Demand Note outstanding from time to time from
the date hereof, at a rate per annum equal to the Prime rate of interest plus
3.0%, or the highest rate permitted by law, whichever shall be less.

        The principal amount of the indebtedness evidenced hereby shall be
payable on demand. Interest thereon shall be paid when principal is paid from
the date hereof until such principal amount is paid in full at such interest
rate as specified above. Following failure to pay on demand, Borrower agrees to
pay interest on any overdue payment of principal at a rate per annum equal to
the stated interest rate plus 5%, or the highest rate permitted by law,
whichever shall be less. All interest calculations shall be computed on the
basis of a 360 day year.

        Demand, presentment, protest and notice of nonpayment and protest are
hereby waived by Borrower.

        Borrower shall have no right to make any off-set against or deduct from
any payment due under this Demand Note.

        Principal and interest may be prepaid at any time without penalty.

        This Demand Note may not be changed orally, but only by an agreement in
writing and signed by the party against whom enforcement of such change is
sought.

        All covenants of Borrower in this Demand Note and all rights of the
holder under this Demand Note shall bind Borrower and its successors and
assigns, and all such covenants and rights shall inure to the benefit of the
holder of this Demand Note and its successors and assigns.

        This Demand Note has been delivered and accepted at New York, New York
and shall be interpreted, governed by, and construed in accordance with, the
laws of the State of New York.


                                        Wilshire Technologies, Inc.



                                        By: /s/ KATHLEEN E. TERRY
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           Name: Kathleen E. Terry
                                           Title:Chief Financial Officer
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF

PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

(SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002)

In connection with the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K of
Maxwell Technologies, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2005, I, Tim T. Hart, Chief Financial Officer of Maxwell Technologies, Inc., hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

(1) such Annual Report on Form 10-K of Maxwell Technologies,
Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2005, 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 such Annual Report on Form 10-K of Maxwell Technologies, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2005,
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Maxwell Technologies, Inc. at the dates indicated.

This certification has not been, and shall not be deemed, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.



|               |  |  |  |                                                                                            
|-------------- |  |  |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|               |  | 
|March 15, 2006 |  |  |  | /s/    TIM T. HART                                                                         
|               |  |  |  | Tim T. Hart                                                                                
|               |  |  |  | Vice President, Finance, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer)

A signed copy of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Maxwell Technologies,
Inc. and will be retained by Maxwell Technologies, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Frances H. SABATKA; and Gilbert H. Sabatka, in his capacity as Conservator, Defendants.

Civ. A. No. 86-4288-S.

United States District Court, D. Kansas.

June 9, 1989.

Benjamin L. Burgess, Jr., U.S. Atty., Wichita, Kan., and Alleen S. Castellani, Asst. U.S. Atty., Topeka, Kan., for plaintiff.

David L. Stutzman, Arthur, Green, Arthur, Conderman & Stutzman, Manhattan, Kan., for defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

SAFFELS, District Judge.

This matter is before the court on defendant’s motion for summary judgment. In this case, plaintiff seeks recovery on a loan involving the Small Business Administration, on which Feeders Supply & Equipment Company allegedly defaulted. Plaintiff claims that defendant Frances H. Sa-batka was the guarantor of this loan. In the present motion, defendant seeks summary judgment on the grounds that the guaranty agreement which Mrs. Sabatka executed lacked consideration and therefore is not enforceable.

The following facts have been established for the purposes of this motion. On May 12,1981, Feeders Supply & Equipment Company received a loan, as evidenced by a promissory note executed on that date. The note was signed on behalf of the debt- or corporation by Edward D. Sabatka, defendant’s son. The promissory note of May 12, 1981, required that the note be secured by two guarantors. Originally, the note was guaranteed personally by Edward D. Sabatka, the president of Feeders Supply & Equipment Company and Carl W. Peters, the corporation’s secretary. In December of 1981, Edward Sabatka purchased Mr. Peters’ stock interest in the corporation and the State Bank of Atwood agreed to release Mr. Peters from his personal guaranty upon the substitution of Mrs. Sabatka for Mr. Peters as a co-guarantor. At the time that Mrs. Sabatka executed her personal guaranty, the loan to Feeders Supply was not in default.

On September 22,1985, the loan to Feeders Supply & Equipment Company was declared in default. The United States brought this current action to recover on *321the personal guaranty for the Feeders Supply note.

In this motion, defendant argues that the personal guaranty which she executed is unenforceable for lack of consideration. A guaranty agreement, like any other contract, should be supported by consideration. Consideration is not required to pass from the creditor to the guarantor. “A benefit to the principal debtor or a detriment to the creditor is sufficient.” *Furst v. Dewitt,*145 Kan. 300, 305, 65 P.2d 567 (1937). In the present case, the creditor gave up its legal right to seek reimbursement from Mr. Peters, if the debtor were to default, in exchange for accepting the guaranty of Mrs. Sabatka. Therefore, the creditor suffered a detriment in this later guaranty agreement. The court finds this release of a previous guarantor is sufficient consideration for the guaranty agreement with defendant Frances Sabatka.

IT IS BY THE COURT THEREFORE ORDERED that defendants’ motion for summary judgment is denied.
United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

C.T., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE, JOINT 

BASE ANDREWS AIR FORCE BASE, MD,

Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 23-0127

Issued: November 21, 2022

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

Before:

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JAMES D. McGINLEY, Alternate Judge

On November 2, 2022 appellant filed an appeal from a March 8, 2022 merit decision of 

the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). The Clerk of the Appellate Boards

assigned Docket No. 23-0127.

The Board has duly considered the matter and notes that the Board has jurisdiction to 

review final adverse decisions of OWCP issued under the Federal Employees’ Compensation 

Act.1 For final adverse decisions of OWCP issued on or after November 19, 2008, the Board’s 

review authority is limited to appeals which are filed within 180 days from the date of issuance 

of OWCP’s decision.2

The 180th day following the March 8, 2022 decision was September 4, 2022. As 

appellant did not file an appeal with the Board until November 2, 2022, more than 180 days after 

the March 8, 2022 OWCP decision, the Board finds that the appeal docketed as No. 23-0127 is 

untimely filed. The Board is without jurisdiction to review the appeal. Appellant has not 

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.; 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3(a).

2

20 C.F.R. § 501.3(e).
2

explained his failure to timely file an appeal with supporting documentation sufficient to 

establish compelling circumstances. Because there is no final adverse decision issued by OWCP 

within 180 days of the filing of the instant appeal, the Board concludes that the appeal docketed 

as No. 23-0127, must be dismissed.3 Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the appeal docketed as No. 23-0127 is dismissed.

Issued: November 21, 2022

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

James D. McGinley, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

3 The Board’s decisions and orders are “final upon the expiration of 30 days from the date of their issuance.” Id.

at § 501.6(d).
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5341 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

100 Orndorf Drive in Brighton, Michigan, as the ‘‘Joyce Rogers Post 

Office Building’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 19, 2010 

Mr. DINGELL (for himself, Mr. STUPAK, Mr. HOEKSTRA, Mr. EHLERS, Mr. 

CAMP, Mr. KILDEE, Mr. UPTON, Mr. SCHAUER, Mr. PETERS, Mrs. MILLER of Michigan, Mr. MCCOTTER, Mr. LEVIN, Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan, and Mr. CONYERS) introduced the following bill; which was referred 

to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 100 Orndorf Drive in Brighton, Michigan, 

as the ‘‘Joyce Rogers Post Office Building’’. 

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

3 SECTION 1. JOYCE ROGERS POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

4 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

5 Postal Service located at 100 Orndorf Drive in Brighton, 

6 Michigan, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Joyce 

7 Rogers Post Office Building’’. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5341 IH

1 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg2 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

3 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

4 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Joyce Rogers Post 

5 Office Building’’. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS