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



Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), each of the undersigned officers of Integrated Security Systems, Inc. (the Company), does hereby certify, to such officers knowledge, that:



The Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended September 30, 2007 (the Form 10-QSB) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of, and for, the periods presented in the Form 10-QSB.





Date:  November 19, 2007

/s/ Vernon H. Foersterling, Jr.

Vernon H. Foersterling, Jr.

President and Chief Executive Officer

Principal Executive and Financial Officer

Acting Chief Financial Officer







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



The foregoing certification is being furnished as an exhibit to Form 10-QSB pursuant to Item 601(b)(32) of Regulation S-B and Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code) and, accordingly, is not being filed as part of the Form 10-QSB for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03
- 24
- 00389
- CV

Megan Moore , Appellant

v. Oscar Reyes , Appellee

FROM THE 169TH DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY , NO. 21DFAM328842 THE HONORABLE CARI L. STARRITT
- BURNETT , JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
The clerk’s record in this appeal was due for filing in this Court on September 13,
2024 . On September 17, 2024 , we notified appellant that no clerk’s record had been filed due to her failure to pay or make arrangements to pay the trial clerk’s fee for preparing the clerk’s record. The notice requested that appellant make arrangements for the clerk’s record and submit a status report regarding this appeal by September 27, 2024 . Further, the notice advised appellant that her failure to comply with this re quest could result in the dismissal of the appeal for want of prosecution. To date, appellant has not filed a status report or otherwise responded to this Court’s notice, and the clerk’s record has not been filed. If a trial

- court clerk fails to file the clerk’s record due to an appellant’s failure to pay or make arrangements to pay for the clerk’s fee for preparing the record, the appellate court may dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution unless the appellant was entitled to proceed2 without payment of costs. Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(b). In this case, appellant has not established that she is entitled to proceed without payment of costs. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 145. Because appellant has failed to pay or make arrangements to pay the clerk’s fee for preparing the clerk’s record, this appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution.

__________________________________________ Darlene Byrne , Chief Justice Before Chief Justice Byrne, Justices Triana, and Kelly Dismissed for Want of Prosecution Filed: October 3, 2024
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 22-0556

STATE OF MONTANA, 

Plaintiff and Appellee, 

v. 

PITASKUMMAPI DAVID GREEN,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, 

and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including October 18, 2023, within which to prepare, file, 

and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

September 11 2023

09/11/2023

Case Number: DA 22-0556
**Applied Signal Technology, Inc.  Exhibit 31.1**

I, Gary Yancey, Chief Executive Officer of the  registrant, certify that:

1.	I have reviewed this quarterly report on    Form 10-Q of Applied Signal Technology, Inc.;

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 in order 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 quarterly report;

3.	Based on my knowledge, the financial statements    and other financial information included in this report fairly present in    all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash    flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly    report;

4.	The registrant’s other certifying    officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure    controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15e and 15d-15e)    for the registrant and we have:

(a)	Designed such disclosure controls and      procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed      under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the      registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us      by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which      this report is being prepared;

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

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

5.	The registrant’s other certifying    officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal    control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the    audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing    the equivalent function):

- All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses    in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting, which    are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to    record, process, summarize, and report financial information; and
- Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves    management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s    internal controls over financial reporting.
 

/s/ Gary L. Yancey 
June 8, 2004
Gary L. Yancey, Chief Executive Officer
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

December 13, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice

132007 Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. HOME-OWNERS INSURANCE COMPANY, Stephen J. Markman, Plaintiff-Appellee, Justices

v SC: 132007 COA: 259233 Van Buren CC: 04-051971-CK DOUGLAS CRAI G BROWN, Defendant, and

ROBERT KIMBRO, Persona l Representative of the Estate of Lawrence Grand, Deceased, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 27, 2006 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

K ELLY , J., would grant leave to appeal.

t1206 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

December 13, 2006

Clerk
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1637 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1637

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To extend through the end of the current fiscal year certain expiring 
            Federal Aviation Administration authorizations.

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

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF AIRPORT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM, ETC.

    (a) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 48103 of title 49, 
United States Code, is amended by striking ``$2,050,000,000 for the 
period beginning October 1, 1998 and ending August 6, 1999.'' and 
inserting ``$2,410,000,000 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
1999.''.
    (b) Obligational Authority.--Section 47104(c) of such title is 
amended by striking ``August 6, 1999,'' and inserting ``September 30, 
1999,''.
    (c) Liquidation of Contract Authorization.--The provision of the 
Department of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 
1999, with the caption ``Grants-in-Aid for Airports (liquidation of 
contract authorization) (airport and airway trust fund)''  is amended 
by striking ``Code: Provided further, That no more than $1,660,000,000 
of funds limited under this heading may be obligated prior to the 
enactment of a bill extending contract authorization for the Grants-in-
Aid for Airports program to the third and fourth quarters of fiscal 
year 1999.'' and inserting ``Code.''.

            Passed the Senate September 24, 1999.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
106th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                                S. 1637

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To extend through the end of the current fiscal year certain expiring 
            Federal Aviation Administration authorizations.
```
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

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. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

March 5, 2012 

t0227 

Order 

 

March 5, 2012 

144045 & (75) 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 144045 

 COA: 297588 

Wayne CC: 07-007351-FC 

TERRY WAYNE WILLIAMS, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 26, 2011 

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. The motions 

for miscellaneous relief are DENIED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                            2413
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                  1450
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                      15952
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                            4343
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                              4316
<LOANS>                                          13248
<ALLOWANCE>                                        167
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   38776
<DEPOSITS>                                       35597
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                                302
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           281
<OTHER-SE>                                        2596
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                   38776
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                    318
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                  283
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                    19
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                   620
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                                 276
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                              377
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                       10
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   1
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                    305
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    118
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                         118
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                        81
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.89
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.89
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    .038
<LOANS-NON>                                        268
<LOANS-PAST>                                        56
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                   158
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        1
<RECOVERIES>                                        10
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                  167
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                               167
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 23.2

                            DeGOLYER and MacNAUGHTON
                        4925 Greenville Avenue, Suite 400
                                One Energy Square
                               Dallas, Texas 75206


                                  March 9, 2001

Triton  Energy  Limited
Caledonian  House
Mary  Street
P.O.  Box  1043
George  Town
Grand  Cayman,  Cayman  Islands

Gentlemen:

We  hereby consent to (i) the use of the information contained in our "Appraisal
Report,  as  of  December  31,  2000, on Certain Properties in Colombia owned by
Triton  Colombia  Incorporated," under the caption "Items 1 and 2 - Business and
Properties - Reserves" and in note 21 of the Notes to the Consolidated Financial
Statements  under  the  caption  "Oil  and  Gas Data" in the Form 10-K of Triton
Energy  Limited for the year ended December 31, 2000, and (ii) the references to
DeGolyer and MacNaughton  under  such  captions. We further consent to (i) the
incorporation by reference  from  the  Form 10-K of certain data from the Report
in the Company's Registration  Statements  on  Form  S-3 (Nos. 33-59567,
333-11703, 333-11703-01, 333-67843,  and  333-81029),  and  on Form S-8
(Nos. 2-80978, 33-4042, 33-27203, 33-29498, 33-46968, 33-51691, 333-08005,
333-27313, 333-48616, and 333-81031) of the  Company, and to (ii) references to
DeGolyer and MacNaughton in said Registration Statements and  the  Prospectuses
contained  therein.

     Very  truly  yours,


     DeGOLYER  and  MacNAUGHTON
12-331-cr

U.S. v. Caldwell

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

SUMMARY ORDER

RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO

A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS

GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S

LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH

THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN

ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING

A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY

COUNSEL.

At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the

Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 

 14th day of June, two thousand thirteen.

Present:

ROBERT A. KATZMANN,

BARRINGTON D. PARKER, JR.,

Circuit Judges,

WILLIAM F. KUNTZ, II,

District Judge.

*

________________________________________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Appellee, 

v. No. 12-331-cr

JOHN CALDWELL, aka Chi Chi,

Defendant-Appellant,

JAI BETSY JONES et al., 

Defendants.

_______________________________________________

*

 The Honorable William F. Kuntz, II, of the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of New York, sitting by designation.
For Appellee: PAUL D. SILVER (John M. Katko, on the brief),

Assistant United States Attorneys, for Richard S.

Hartunian, United States Attorney for the Northern

District of New York, Albany, NY

For Defendants-Appellant: JAMES P. EGAN (Lisa A. Peebles, on the brief), Federal

Public Defender’s Office, Syracuse, NY

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northen District of New York

(Scullin, J.). 

ON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and

DECREED that the judgment of the district court be and hereby is AFFIRMED. 

Defendant-Appellant John Caldwell appeals from an order of the United States District

Court for the Northen District of New York (Scullin, J.) dated January 19, 2012. In that order,

the district court refused to reduce Caldwell’s sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) to a term of

imprisonment that fell below his amended guideline range. We affirm for the reasons set forth in

United States v. Clifton Stith, 11-4933-cr (2d Cir. May 30, 2013).

We have considered the Defendant-Appellant’s remaining arguments and find them to be

without merit. For the reasons stated herein, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

FOR THE COURT:

CATHERINE O’HAGAN WOLFE, CLERK

2
| **Summary of Significant Accounting Policies Reclassifications (Policies)**         | 12 Months Ended                                                                                                      |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
||
| **Organization, Consolidation and Presentation of Financial Statements [Abstract]** |                                                                                                                 |
| Reclassification, Policy [Policy Text Block]                                        | Reclassifications: Certain prior period amounts have been reclassified to conform to current year presentation. |

| X                                                                                                                                                                                                         |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| - Details**Name:**us-gaap_OrganizationConsolidationAndPresentationOfFinancialStatementsAbstract**Namespace Prefix:**us-gaap_**Data Type:**xbrli:stringItemType**Balance Type:**na**Period Type:**duration |
| X                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| - Definition
Disclosure of accounting policy for reclassifications that affects the comparability of the financial statements.
+ References
Reference 1: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 205 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 1 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6359566&loc=d3e326-107755
+ Details**Name:**us-gaap_PriorPeriodReclassificationAdjustmentDescription**Namespace Prefix:**us-gaap_**Data Type:**nonnum:textBlockItemType**Balance Type:**na**Period Type:**duration |
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                          21,545
<SECURITIES>                                     2,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                   40,195
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (1,248)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                78,660
<PP&E>                                          28,110
<DEPRECIATION>                                (12,215)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 207,713
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           53,358
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            49
<OTHER-SE>                                     150,732
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   207,713
<SALES>                                        138,063
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               138,063
<CGS>                                           32,581
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  151,802
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  26
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (13,075)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    10,295
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (23,370)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (23,370)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.54)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.54)


</TABLE>
(November 23, 1899.)

#### HAYS v. YOUNG, Sheriff.

[59 Pac. 1113.]

APPEAL from District Court, Shoshone County.

Same attorneys and same briefs as in case of *Hays v. Simmons,*ante, p. 651.

Per CURIAM.

— The questions in this ease being identical with those in the case of *Hays v. Simmons,*ante, p. 651, 59 Pac. 182, by agreement of counsel the cases were argued together, and the same judgment will be entered in this case as in the case of *Hays v. Simmons.*The judgment of the district court is affirmed, with costs to respondent.