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





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350





In connection with the Annual Report of SulphCo, Inc. (the “Registrant”) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Stanley W. Farmer, President, Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer and Corporate Secretary of the Registrant, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my 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 Registrant.




Date: March 31, 2011/s/ Stanley W. FarmerStanley W. Farmer

President, Chief Financial Officer,

Treasurer and Corporate Secretary




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





This certification accompanies this 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 the Company for purposes of § 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
#### STATE v. LEWIS and WILLIAMS

No. 91 PC.

Case below: 28 N.C. App. 591.

Petition for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 6 April 1976.
# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 15

- 1350 V

Filed: March 2, 2016

Unpublished

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

MARY HAMMOND

, *

*

Petitioner, * Ruling on Entitlement; Concession;

* Influenza (“Flu”) Vaccine ; Shoulder

* Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine

SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Administration (“SIRVA”); Special

AND HUMAN SERVICES, * Processing Unit (“SPU”)

*

Respondent. *

*

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Danielle Strait, Maglio Christopher and Toale, PA, Washington, DC

, for petitioner.

Douglas Ross , U

. S

. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT 1

Dorsey

, Chief Special Master:

On November 10, 2015

, Mary Hammond (“p etitioner ”) filed a petition for

compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C.

§300aa

- 10, et seq

. , 2 (the “Vaccine Act” or “Program”)

. Peti tioner alleges that as a result

of receiving an influenza (“ flu ”) vaccine on September 24 , 2014 , she suffered a n injury

to her shoulder

. Petit ion at 1

- 4

. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit

(“SPU”) of the Office of Special Masters.

On March 1, 2016

, respondent filed her Rule 4(c) r eport in which she concedes

that petitioner is entitled to compensa tion in this case. Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report

at 1 . Specifically, respondent concluded that petitioner’s alleged injury is consistent with

shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”), and that it was c ausally

related to the f lu vaccine she received on S eptember 24, 2014

. Id. at 4

. Respondent

further stated that she did not identify any other causes for petitioner’s SIRVA, and the

1 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, the

undersigned intends to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, in accordance wi th

the E

- Government Act of 2002

. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012)(Federal Management and Promotion of

Electronic Government Services). In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), petitioner has 14 days to

identify and move to redact medical or other information, the disclosure of which would constitute an

unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, the 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

e ase of citation, all “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subpara graph of 42 U.S.C. §

300aa (2012 ).2 records show that she has suffered the sequela of this injury for more than six months

. Id. Therefore, based on the record as it now stands, petitioner has satisfied all legal

prerequisites for compensation under the Act. Id.

In view of respondent’s concession and the evidence of record

, the

undersigned find s that petitioner is entitle d to compensation

.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Nora Beth Dorsey

Nora Beth Dorsey

Chief Special Master
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
                              THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL
                              INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM SEC FORM 10-Q AND IS
                              QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
                              FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              FEB-03-2001
<PERIOD-START>                                 APR-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUL-29-2000
<CASH>                                         1998
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  3460
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    41065
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               46523
<PP&E>                                         49620
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 133428
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          23678
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       90
<OTHER-SE>                                     (39557)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   133428
<SALES>                                        75385
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               75385
<CGS>                                          49015
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  49015
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               25365
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             244
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (969)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   61
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            761
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1030)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (.11)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.11)



</TABLE>
Case 1:07-cv-03531-CM-DCF Document 18-7 Filed 06/05/2008 Page 1 of 3
Case 1:07-cv-03531-CM-DCF Document 18-7 Filed 06/05/2008 Page 2 of 3
Case 1:07-cv-03531-CM-DCF Document 18-7 Filed 06/05/2008 Page 3 of 3
Case 1:09-cv-00257-MP-AK Document 109 Filed 07/21/10 Page 1 of 6
Case 1:09-cv-00257-MP-AK Document 109 Filed 07/21/10 Page 2 of 6
Case 1:09-cv-00257-MP-AK Document 109 Filed 07/21/10 Page 3 of 6
Case 1:09-cv-00257-MP-AK Document 109 Filed 07/21/10 Page 4 of 6
Case 1:09-cv-00257-MP-AK Document 109 Filed 07/21/10 Page 5 of 6
Case 1:09-cv-00257-MP-AK Document 109 Filed 07/21/10 Page 6 of 6
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

TERRANCE ALLEN BARGNARE,

Plaintiff,

v. 3:10cv57-WS

KATINA M. PATRICK,

Defendant.

 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Before the court is the magistrate judge's report and recommendation (doc. 8)

docketed May 11, 2010. The magistrate judge recommends that this case be dismissed

without prejudice for failure to comply with an order of the court. 

Upon review of the record, this court has determined that the recommendation

should be adopted.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

1. The magistrate judge's report and recommendation is adopted and 

incorporated by reference in this order of the court.

2. The plaintiff's complaint, and this action, are hereby DISMISSED without

prejudice for failure to prosecute and to comply with an order of the court. 

3. The clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

 
Page 2 of 2

DONE AND ORDERED this 9th day of June , 2010.

s/ William Stafford 

WILLIAM STAFFORD

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
**EXHIBIT        32.1**

**CERTIFICATION        OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

**AND        THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION        906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

**(SUBSECTIONS        (a) AND (b) OF SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18,**

**UNITED        STATES CODE)**

|   | (a) |   | the                  Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December                  31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on                  the date                  hereof (the Report), fully complies with the requirements of Section                  13(a)                  or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,                  as                  amended; and |
|--------|-----|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | (b) |   | the                  information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material                  respects, the financial condition and results of operations of                  the                  Company. |
|--------|-----|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:                  March 12, 2008 | */s/                  Larry D. Ryan*                                                  |   |
|---------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                                  | Larry                  D. Ryan                                                        |   |
|                                  | *Chief                  Executive Officer*                                       |   |
|                                  |
|                                  |                                                                                  |   |
|                                  | */s/                  Stanley W. Farmer*                                              |   |
|                                  | Stanley                  W. Farmer                                                    |   |
|                                  | *Vice                  President and**Chief                  Financial Officer*  |   |

----
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

TAREYAN COOKS,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 1:09-cv-00262-MP-AK

ROGER UALERIO RUIZ,

Defendant.

_____________________________/

O R D E R

Plaintiff, an inmate incarcerated within the Florida Department of Corrections, submitted

a civil rights complaint (doc. 1), and was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. 4). 

Upon review of the complaint, the Court finds that the Order granting leave to proceed should be

vacated and this case should be dismissed. 

The Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PLRA), provides that a prisoner may not

bring a civil action in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915:

. . . if the prisoner has, on 3 or more occasions, while incarcerated or detained in

any facility, brought an action or appeal in a court of the United States that was

dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim

upon which relief may be granted, unless the prisoner is under imminent danger

of serious physical injury.

28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 

Plaintiff has had two prior prisoner actions dismissed within this District on the grounds

that they were malicious or failed to state a claim: Case No.3:07cv192 (dismissed as malicious)

and Case No. 4:02cv423 (dismissed for failure to state a claim). Other cases in the Middle

District of Florida have been dismissed as well: Case No. 3:01cv826 (dismissed as malicious;
Page 2 of 2

1:09cv262-MP/AK

Case No. 3:02cv773 (dismissed as malicious); 3:03cv701 (dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

1915(e)(2)(B)) and 3:01cv1062 (dismissed for failure to exhaust).

The instant complaint has been reviewed sufficiently to discern that Plaintiff's allegations

concerning his defense attorney’s trial errors do not bring this case within the "imminent danger"

exception. 

Therefore, because Plaintiff has had at least three prior dismissals and is not under

imminent danger of serious physical injury, he is not entitled to proceed in forma pauperis. The

Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has clarified that the proper procedure in such a situation is

not to give the inmate time in which to pay the fee, rather dismissal is required if a "three striker"

does not pay the filing fee at the time he submits the complaint. Dupree v. Palmer, 284 F.3d

1234 (11th Cir. 2002). Thus, this case must be dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

1. The Order granting Plaintiff leave to proceed IFP (doc.4) is VACATED.

2. This case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to its refiling so long as it is

accompanied by the full filing fee of $350.00.

DONE AND ORDERED this 9th day of April, 2010

 s/Maurice M. Paul 

 Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge
Petition for Writ of Mandamus Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed 

August 20, 2013.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-13-00553-CV

IN RE STATE FARM LLOYDS, Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

WRIT OF MANDAMUS

11th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2010-54660

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relator State Farm Lloyds filed a petition for writ of mandamus in this 

court. See Tex. Gov’t Code §22.221; see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. In the petition, 

relator asks this court to order the Honorable Mike D. Miller, Judge of the 11th 

District Court in Harris County, Texas, to set aside his order dated June 24, 2013, 

entered in trial court cause number 2010-54660 styled Ramiro and Veronica 

Rivera v. State Farm Lloyds. Relator claims that the trial court abused its discretion 
2

in compelling production of allegedly irrelevant and burdensome discovery and it 

has no adequate remedy by appeal.

Relator also filed a motion for a temporary stay of the trial court’s order. See

Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(b), 52.10. On June 27, 2013, this court granted the motion 

and issued a stay of the June 24, 2013, order pending our consideration of this 

proceeding.

On August 5, 2013, the parties advised this court that the underlying case

was non-suited, rendering this proceeding moot. Accordingly, our stay order is 

vacated and we order this proceeding dismissed as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Hedges and Justices Frost and Donovan.
#### ELECTRIC SERVICE v. GRANGER

No. 4.

Case below: 16 N.C. App. 427.

Motion of plaintiff to dismiss appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question allowed 2 January 1973.
Case 1:07-cv-03345-RJS Document 13 Filed 11/27/2007 Page 1 of 1
#### STATE v. THOMAS

No. 25 PC.

Case below: 34 N.C. App. 534.

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 7 March 1978.
#### STATE v. MENSCH

No. 11 PC.

Case below: 34 N.C. App. 572.

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 7 March 1978.
Case 7:07-cv-03549-SCR Document 6 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 1 of 1
II 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 222 

To amend section 1341 of title 31, United States Code, to require payment 

of interest on back pay for employees affected by a lapse in appropriations. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 24, 2019 

Mr. JONES (for himself, Mr. CARDIN, Mr. KAINE, Mr. VAN HOLLEN, Ms. 

HIRONO, Mr. WYDEN, Ms. BALDWIN, Ms. KLOBUCHAR, and Mrs. SHAHEEN) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Appropriations 

A BILL 

To amend section 1341 of title 31, United States Code, 

to require payment of interest on back pay for employees 

affected by a lapse in appropriations. 

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 ‘‘Back Pay Fairness 

5 Act of 2019’’. 

6 SEC. 2. INTEREST ON BACK PAY FOR EMPLOYEES AF7 FECTED BY A LAPSE IN APPROPRIATIONS. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1341(c) of title 31, 

9 United States Code, is amended— 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 222 IS

1 (1) by redesignating paragraph (3) as para2 graph (4); and 

3 (2) by inserting after paragraph (2) the fol4 lowing: 

5 ‘‘(3)(A) If a payment under paragraph (2) to an em6 ployee furloughed as a result of a covered lapse in appro7 priations or to an excepted employee is made after the reg8 ularly scheduled pay date for such payment in the absence 

9 of a lapse in appropriations, the payment shall include an 

10 interest payment prorated daily which shall accrue from 

11 such regularly scheduled pay date. 

12 ‘‘(B) An interest payment under subparagraph (A)— 

13 ‘‘(i) shall be computed at the rate of interest es14 tablished by the Secretary of the Treasury under 

15 section 3902 that is in effect on the first day of the 

16 covered lapse in appropriations; and 

17 ‘‘(ii) shall be in addition to any other remedy 

18 available under any other law, rule, or regulation.’’. 

19 (b) APPLICABILITY.—The amendments made by this 

20 section shall apply with respect to any covered lapse in 

21 appropriations (as defined in section 1341(c) of title 31, 

22 United States Code) that begins before, on, or after the 

23 date of enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

B.L.F.,

Petitioner

v.

D.J.F.,

Respondent

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 257 EAL 2020

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 11th day of January, 2021, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
```

[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 195 (Wednesday, October 10, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57535-57539]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-4974]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary

[Transmittal Nos. 08-09]

36(b)(1) Arms Sales Notification

AGENCY: Department of Defense, Defense Security Cooperation Agency.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text 
of a section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification. This is published to 
fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated 21 
July 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. B. English, DSCA/DBO/CFM, (703) 
601-3740.
    The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of 
Representatives, Transmittals 08-09 with attached transmittal, policy 
justification, and Sensitivity of Technology.

    Dated: October 3, 2007.
L.M. Bynum,
OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
BILLING CODE 5001-06-M

[[Page 57536]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN10OC07.007

[[Page 57537]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN10OC07.008

[[Page 57538]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN10OC07.009

[[Page 57539]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN10OC07.010

[FR Doc. 07-4974 Filed 10-9-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-C
```
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-4277

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

PIERRE DANIELS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District Judge.

(CR-00-201)

Submitted: September 20, 2001 Decided: September 26, 2001

Before LUTTIG, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert B. Rigney, PROTOGYROU & RIGNEY, P.L.C., Norfolk, Virginia,

for Appellant. Kenneth E. Melson, United States Attorney, Joseph

E. DePadilla, Assistant United States Attorney, Thomas Scott

Liverman, Third-Year Law Student, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Following his conviction and sentence for unlawful possession

of a weapon by a convicted felon, 18 U.S.C.A. § 922(g) (West 2000),

Pierre Daniels appeals from the district court’s order denying his

motion to suppress evidence of his possession of a firearm. He

contends that the officers did not have reasonable suspicion to

stop him, and therefore the discovery of the gun was in violation

of the Fourth Amendment. We have reviewed the record on appeal and

the parties’ briefs and find no reversible error. See United

States v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1, 9 (1989). Accordingly, we affirm

the district court’s order denying Daniels’ motion to suppress. 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.

AFFIRMED
Case 1:07-cv-03386-LBS     Document 6      Filed 08/15/2007     Page 1 of 7

Case 1:07-cv-03386-LBS     Document 6      Filed 08/15/2007     Page 2 of 7

Case 1:07-cv-03386-LBS     Document 6      Filed 08/15/2007     Page 3 of 7

Case 1:07-cv-03386-LBS     Document 6      Filed 08/15/2007     Page 4 of 7

Case 1:07-cv-03386-LBS     Document 6      Filed 08/15/2007     Page 5 of 7

Case 1:07-cv-03386-LBS     Document 6      Filed 08/15/2007     Page 6 of 7

Case 1:07-cv-03386-LBS     Document 6      Filed 08/15/2007     Page 7 of 7
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

RAY CHRIS MOBLEY,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 5:10-cv-34-RS-EMT

CCA CORRECTIONS CORP.

OF AMERICA, et al.,

Defendants.

_________________________________/

ORDER

Before me is the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 39). 

No objections have been filed.

IT IS ORDERED:

1. The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation is 

approved and incorporated in this Order.

2. The case is DISMISSED without prejudice for Plaintiff’s 

failure to prosecute or failure to comply with an order of the 

court.

3. The clerk is directed to close the file.

ORDERED on February 10, 2012.

/S/ Richard Smoak 

RICHARD SMOAK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 5:10-cv-00034-RS-EMT Document 40 Filed 02/10/12 Page 1 of 1