alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
****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-Q of Katy Industries, Inc. (the Company) for the period ending September 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, C. Michael Jacobi, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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/ C. Michael JacobiC. Michael JacobiChief Executive OfficerNovember 10, 2004
 
 A signed original of this written statement or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement has been provided to Katy Industries, Inc. and will be retained by Katy Industries, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
   
 44
DEUTSCH ATKINS, P.C.

25 Main Street, Suite 104

Hackensack, New Jersey 07601

(201) 498-0900 

Attorneys for Defendants

Michael Antonoff and Dynamic Air Conditioning Co., Inc.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

EDWARD THOMPSON,

 Plaintiff,

vs.

MICHAEL ANTONOFF, DYNAMIC AIR

CONDITIONING CO., INC.; and XYZ

CORPORATIONS, 1-10,

 Defendants. 

Civil Action No.: 07-CV-3008 (PKC)

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE

The court is advised that Andrew M. Moskowitz, Esq. of the law firm Deutsch Atkins, P.C.

hereby enters his appearance as counsel for Defendants Michael Antonoff and Dynamic Air

Conditioning Co., Inc.

Deutsch Atkins, P.C.

Attorneys for Defendants, Michael Antonoff

and Dynamic Air Conditioning Co., Inc.

 /s/ Andrew M. Moskowitz

Andrew M. Moskowitz 

Dated: December 13, 2007

Case 1:07-cv-03008-PKC-RLE Document 16 Filed 12/13/2007 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:07-cv-03008-PKC-RLE Document 16 Filed 12/13/2007 Page 2 of 2
#### SMITH v. BYERS

No. 81 PC.

Case below: 44 N.C. App. 731.

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 6 May 1980.
Country of
    
    Date ofName of Subsidiary
    
    Incorporation
    
    IncorporationChartered Silicon Partners Pte Ltd
    
    Singapore
    
    March 1997Chartered Semiconductor Manufacturing Incorporated
    
    U.S.
    
    June 1991Chartered Semiconductor Japan Kabushiki Kaisha
    
    Japan
    
    October 2000Chartered Semiconductor Taiwan Ltd
    
    Taiwan
    
    August 2000Chartered Semiconductor Europe Limited
    
    England and Wales
    
    March 2001Chartered Semiconductor Manufacturing (Tampines) Pte. Ltd.
    
    Singapore
    
    June 1996
Case 1:06-cv-15073-AKH Document 2 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 1 of 1
Order entered March 12, 2014

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-12-01538-CR

DOMINGO SANCHEZ-RODRIGUEZ, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 380th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 380-80148-2012

ORDER

We REINSTATE this appeal.

On December 5, 2013 we abated this appeal and ordered the trial court to make findings 

regarding the voluntariness of appellant’s statement admitted as State’s Exhibit No. 1. On 

January 6, 2014, we received and filed a Second Supplemental Clerk’s Record containing the 

requested findings. We will dispose of the appeal in due course. 

/s/ DAVID EVANS 

PRESIDING JUSTICE
#### DOWNEY v. DOWNEY

No. 170 PC.

Case below: 29 N.C. App. 375.

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 14 July 1976.
Exhibit  32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.
Section 1350)

	I, Michael E. Kibler, as the President and Chief Executive
Officer of US 1 Industries, Inc., certify that, to the best of my
knowledge and belief, the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year
ended December 31, 2009, which accompanies this certification fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the periodic
report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of US 1 Industries, Inc. at the
dates and for the periods indicated.  The foregoing certification is
made pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.
Section 1350) and shall not be relied upon for any other purpose.
The undersigned expressly disclaims any obligation to update the
foregoing certification except as required by law.

Dated this 15th day of March 2010.



/s/ Michael E. Kibler
________________________
Michael E. Kibler
Chief Executive Officer



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906,
or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting
the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version
of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided
to US 1 Industries, Inc. and will be retained by US 1 Industries, Inc.
and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.






















Exhibit 32.2


CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.
Section 1350)

	I, Harold E. Antonson, as the Executive Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer of US 1 Industries, Inc., certify that, to
the best of my knowledge and belief, the Annual Report on Form 10-K
for the year ended December 31, 2009, which accompanies this
certification fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained
in the periodic report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of US 1 Industries, Inc.
at the dates and for the periods indicated.  The foregoing certification
is made pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.
Section 1350) and shall not be relied upon for any other purpose.
The undersigned expressly disclaims any obligation to update the
foregoing certification except as required by law.


Dated this 15th day of March 2010.


/s/ Harold E. Antonson
_______________________
Harold E. Antonson
Chief Financial Officer


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or
other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the
signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of
this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to
US 1 Industries, Inc. and will be retained by US 1 Industries, Inc.
and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.
Case 7:07-cv-03318-CS Document 19-8 Filed 10/24/2007 Page 1 of 9
Case 7:07-cv-03318-CS Document 19-8 Filed 10/24/2007 Page 2 of 9
Case 7:07-cv-03318-CS Document 19-8 Filed 10/24/2007 Page 3 of 9
Case 7:07-cv-03318-CS Document 19-8 Filed 10/24/2007 Page 4 of 9
Case 7:07-cv-03318-CS Document 19-8 Filed 10/24/2007 Page 5 of 9
Case 7:07-cv-03318-CS Document 19-8 Filed 10/24/2007 Page 6 of 9
Case 7:07-cv-03318-CS Document 19-8 Filed 10/24/2007 Page 7 of 9
Case 7:07-cv-03318-CS Document 19-8 Filed 10/24/2007 Page 8 of 9
Case 7:07-cv-03318-CS Document 19-8 Filed 10/24/2007 Page 9 of 9
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

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

 

Inconnection with the Annual Report of Iteris, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Kfor the fiscal year ended March 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission (the “Report”), I, James S. Miele, Chief Financial Officerof the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1.The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

2. The information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company.

 
| Date: May 20, 2010 |                     |
|-------------------------|--------------------------|
|                    |                     |
|                    | /s/  JAMES S. MIELE      |
|                    | James  S. Miele          |
|                    | Chief  Financial Officer |

 

Asigned original of this written statement required by Section 906, or anyother document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting thesignature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of thiswritten statement required by Section 906, has been provided to theCompany and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities andExchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
Case 1:07-cv-03259-HB Document 9-11 Filed 07/06/2007 Page 1 of 9
Case 1:07-cv-03259-HB Document 9-11 Filed 07/06/2007 Page 2 of 9
Case 1:07-cv-03259-HB Document 9-11 Filed 07/06/2007 Page 3 of 9
Case 1:07-cv-03259-HB Document 9-11 Filed 07/06/2007 Page 4 of 9
Case 1:07-cv-03259-HB Document 9-11 Filed 07/06/2007 Page 5 of 9
Case 1:07-cv-03259-HB Document 9-11 Filed 07/06/2007 Page 6 of 9
Case 1:07-cv-03259-HB Document 9-11 Filed 07/06/2007 Page 7 of 9
Case 1:07-cv-03259-HB Document 9-11 Filed 07/06/2007 Page 8 of 9
Case 1:07-cv-03259-HB Document 9-11 Filed 07/06/2007 Page 9 of 9
#### STATE v. ROGERS

No. 40 PC.

Case below: 33 N.C. App. 757.

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 4 October 1977. Motion of Attorney General to dismiss appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question allowed 4 October 1977.
#### John Knefel, Anton Mack and Bernhard Dithelm v. James J. Ahern.

1. *Damages—Attorney*Fees.—In a proceeding in chancery to compel the specific performance of one contract and the cancellation of another, it is error in the court to award attorney fees to the successful party by reason of the wrongful conduct of the other.

*569Memorandum.—In equity. Appeal from a decree rendered by the Circuit Court of Cook Comity; the Hon. Samuel P. McConnell, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1894.

Reversed in part.

Opinion filed February 12, 1895.

Henry 0. Elston, attorney for appellants.

Sullivan & McArdle and Wm. P. Hays, attorneys for appellee.

Me. Justice G-ary

delivered the opinion of the Court.

The appellee filed a bill in brief alleging that after much urging to reduce the price, he did so from §3,500 to §2,800, and gave to John Knefel, one of the appellants, authority in writing to sell a lot for the smaller price; that Knefel made a written contract to sell to Dithelm for §3,200, but reported a sale for §2,800 without disclosing the name of the purchaser; that the appellee found out who was the purchaser., and that the price was $3,200, and offered to him to perform the contract; that then Knefel obtained from Dithelm the contract the latter held, and made and recorded another with Anton Mack, the other appellant, for the price of §2,800; that Knefel has collected some rent from tenants of the appellee, and Dithelm has entered into possession of part of the property. The bill prays the cancellation of the contract with Mack, and specific performance of the one with Dithelm.

The joint answer of the appellants alleges that Mack bought February 28, 1893, for §2,800, and sold March 8, 1893, to Dithelm, for §3,200. Thus the real controversy was whether one version or the other of the sale to Dithelm was true, and the court found in favor of the appellee and gave him the relief he prayed. The court also awarded to the appellee §400 for damages “ by reason of the aforesaid wrongful and fraudulent ” conduct, which the appellee, in his brief, says was for solicitors’ fees.

We know of, and are cited to, no authority for such damages. Even when an injunction has been issued, dissolved, and damages assessed under the' statute, the rule is uniform *570that for counsel fees, nothing can be allowed except such as pertained strictly to the injunction; none for the general defense of the suit. And there is no precedent for allowing damages to a complainant, on the ground that enforcing his right, cause him expense. Without collating the evidence it is enough to say that on the case before us, we can not say that the court below erred as to the residue of the relief, and therefore the decree is affirmed as to all but $400, and as to that reversed, without costs to either party.
Exhibit
      32.2





**Certification
      of CEO and CFO 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-Q of Kansas City
      Power & Light Company (the "Company") for the quarterly period ended
      June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
      hereof (the "Report"), William H. Downey, as President and Chief Executive
      Officer of the Company, and Terry Bassham, as Chief Financial Officer of the
      Company, each hereby certifies, 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
      his knowledge:





(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/
                William H. DowneyName:
              Title:
            William
                H. Downey
              President
                and Chief Executive OfficerDate:
            August
                4, 2006/s/
                Terry BasshamName:
              Title:
            Terry
                Bassham
              Chief
                Financial OfficerDate:
            August
                4, 2006





This
      certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350
      and
      is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
      This certification shall not be deemed “filed” for purposes of Section 18 of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934 or otherwise subject to liability under that
      section. This certification shall not be deemed to be incorporated by reference
      into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange
      Act
      of 1934 except to the extent this Exhibit 32.2 is expressly and specifically
      incorporated by reference in any such filing.





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
      authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
      in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required
      by Section 906, has been provided to Kansas City Power & Light Company
      and will be retained by Kansas City Power & Light Company and furnished
      to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
      request.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 26, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

131364-5 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

ALEXANDER PRINCE, LLC, Marilyn Kelly 

Plaintiff-Appellant, Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. and 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices CAROLYN A. PRINCE and THEODORE 

LINDSEY,

 Plaintiffs, 

v SC: 131364 

 COA: 259448 
 Wayne CC: 02-230424-CH

METWEST MORTGAGE SERVICES, 

Defendant-Appellee, 

and 

OCWEN FEDERAL BANK, FSB,

 Defendant. 

ALEXANDER PRINCE, LLC,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

and 

CAROLYN A. PRINCE and THEODORE 

LINDSEY,

 Plaintiffs, 

v SC: 131365 

 COA: 260021 
 Wayne CC: 03-311111-CH

WESTERN UNITED LIFE ASSURANCE
 COMPANY, 

Defendant-Appellee, 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 25, 2006 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

s0918 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

September 26, 2006 

 Clerk
#### KARL JEROME NIX, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF NEVADA, Respondent.

No. 8038

October 10, 1975

541 P.2d 1

*Lohse & Lohse Chartered,*Reno; *Morgan D. Harris,*Public Defender, and *Michael A. Cherry,*Deputy Public Defender, Clark County, for Appellant.

*Robert List,*Attorney General, Carson City; *George E. Holt,*District Attorney, and *Dan M. Seaton,*Deputy District Attorney, Clark County, for Respondent.

OPINION

*Per Curiam:*

On September 18, 1973, Karl Jerome Nix was granted habeas relief from a robbery charge because of prearraignment delay.

Five days later, on September 23, 1973, the robbery charge was refiled. Nix again sought, but was denied, habeas relief. No appeal was taken. He was subsequently tried and convicted and in this appeal attempts to obtain a review of the order denying *614his pretrial habeas petition. We decline to review the habeas proceeding.

Nix’s proper course of action was to appeal from the order denying the petition for a writ of habeas corpus, pursuant to the provisions of NRS 34.380(3).1 By failing to avail himself of this remedy, he has waived any impropriety in the trial court’s order. George v. State, 89 Nev. 47, 505 P.2d 1217 (1973); Oberle v. Fogliani, 82 Nev. 428, 420 P.2d 251 (1966).

Nix also contends there was insufficient evidence to support the conviction. We reject this contention. “Where there is substantial evidence to support a verdict in a criminal case, as the record indicates exists in this case, the reviewing court will not disturb the verdict nor set aside the judgment.” Sanders v. State, 90 Nev. 433, 434, 529 P.2d 206, 207 (1974). See also, Azbill v. State, 88 Nev. 240, 495 P.2d 1064 (1972); Crowe v. State, 84 Nev. 358, 441 P.2d 90 (1968).

Affirmed.

1

NRS 34.380(3) provides: “An applicant who has petitioned the district judge of a judicial district, as provided in this chapter, and whose application for such writ is denied, may appeal to the supreme court from the order and judgment of the district judge or district court refusing to grant the writ or to discharge the applicant, but such appeal shall be taken within 15 days from the day of entry of the order or judgment.”
Case 1:07-cv-03238-AKH Document 14 Filed 06/04/2007 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:07-cv-03238-AKH Document 14 Filed 06/04/2007 Page 2 of 2
Case 1:06-cv-15012-AKH Document 3 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 1 of 1
#### STATE v. ROBINSON

No. 178PC

Case below: 50 N.C. App.213

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 4 March 1981.
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION



Pursuant to the requirement set forth in Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the Exchange Act), and Section 1350 of
Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code (18 U.S.C. Section 1350), David L. Brown, President and Chief Executive Officer of Website Pros, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the Company) hereby certifies that, to the best of his
knowledge:



| | 1. | The Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2006, to which this Certification is attached as Exhibit 32.1 (the Annual Report)
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act, and
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | The information contained in the Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has set his hand hereto as of this 9thday of March, 2007.



By:

/s/ David L. BrownDavid L. BrownPresident and Chief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)




This certification
accompanies the Form 10-K to which it relates, is not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of Website Pros, Inc. under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date of the Form 10-K), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.
#### SUBURBAN TRUST CO. v. EDWARDS

No. 192 PC.

Case below: 29 N.C. App. 422.

Petition by defendants for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 1 September 1976. Appeal dismissed ex mero motu for lack of substantial constitutional question 1 September 1976.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 

AARON PURNELL, 

Defendant Below, 

Appellant, 

v. 

STATE OF DELAWARE, 

Plaintiff Below, 

Appellee. 

§ 

§ 

§ No. 96, 2019 

§ 

§ Court Below: Superior Court 

§ of the State of Delaware 

§ 

§ Cr. ID No. 1607019111 (K) 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

Submitted: March 19, 2019 

Decided: April 2, 2019 

Before VAUGHN, SEITZ, and TRAYNOR, Justices. 

ORDER

After consideration of the notice to show cause and the response, it appears to 

the Court that: 

(1) On March 4, 2019, the appellant, Aaron Purnell, filed a notice of appeal 

from a Superior Court order dated and docketed on January 23, 2019 denying his 

motion for postconviction relief. Under Supreme Court Rule 6, a timely notice of 

appeal should have been filed on or before February 22, 2019. 
2 

(2) A notice of appeal must be timely filed to invoke the Court’s appellate 

jurisdiction.1

 The jurisdictional defect created by the untimely filing of a notice of 

appeal cannot be excused unless the appellant can demonstrate that the delay in filing 

is attributable to court-related personnel.2

(3) On March 5, 2019, the Senior Court Clerk issued a notice directing 

Purnell to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed as untimely filed. In 

response to the notice to show cause, Purnell attributes the untimeliness of his notice 

of appeal to his unfamiliarity with the legal system and to the fact that he is 

incarcerated in a maximum security unit at the James T. Vaughn Correctional 

Center. 

(4) Purnell’s response to the notice to show cause does not provide a basis 

for excusing the untimely filing of the notice of appeal. A notice of appeal must be 

received by the Court within the applicable time period to be effective.3

 An 

appellant’s pro se, incarcerated status does not excuse a failure to comply strictly 

with the jurisdictional requirements of Supreme Court Rule 6.4

 Because the record 

 

1 Carr v. State, 554 A.2d 778, 779 (Del. 1989). 

2 Bey v. State, 402 A.2d 362, 363 (Del. 1979). 

3

 DEL. SUPR. CT. R. 10(a). 

4 Mathis v. State, 2018 WL 3060215 (Del. June 19, 2018) (citing Smith v. State, 47 A.3d 481 (Del. 

2012)). 
3 

does not reflect that Purnell’s failure to file a timely notice of appeal is attributable 

to court-related personnel, the appeal must be dismissed. 

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, under Supreme Court Rule 29(b), 

that the appeal is DISMISSED. 

 BY THE COURT: 

 /s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr. 

 Justice
#### STATE v. SADLER

No. 93 PC.

Case below: 19 N.C. App. 641.

Petition for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 4 December .1973. Motion of Attorney General to dismiss appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question allowed 4 December 1973.