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

Certification of Chief Executive Officer

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to

to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

The undersigned, the Chief Executive Officer of SAVVIS, Inc. (the Company), hereby
certifies that, to his knowledge on the date hereof:



|(a) | the quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2010, filed on the date hereof with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934: and
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



|      |  |                  |  |  |  |     |  |                                        
|----- |  | ---------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | ---------------------------------------
|Date: |  | November 5, 2010 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ James E. Ousley                    
|      |  |                  |  |  |  |     |  | James E. Ousley Chief
Executive Officer



45
<PAGE>   1

                                                                 EXHIBIT 23.01

                   CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation by
reference of our report dated July 27, 2000 included in this Form 10-K into the
Company's previously filed Registration Statements on Form S-8, File Nos.
333-20057, 333-20073 and 333-31398. It should be noted that we have not audited
any financial statements of the Company subsequent to June 30, 2000 or performed
any audit procedures subsequent to the date of our report.


/s/ ARTHUR ANDERSEN

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
September 27,  2000
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDGMENT

No. 04

- 15

- 00614

- CR

The STATE of Texas,

Appellant

v.

Preston Mitchell EVANS

, Appellee

From the County Court, Bandera County, Texas

Trial Court No. 14

- 00360

Honorable Richard A. Evans, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE ANGELINI

, JUSTICE MARTINEZ , AND JUSTICE ALVAREZ

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the order of the trial court is

AFFIRMED.

SIGNED July 20, 2016.

_____________________________ Karen Angelini, Justice
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

United States Space Command

USSPACECOM

                - 
                - 
                - 
                - 
                - 

Search

Search
Search

-  Home		 
-  About    -  Mission         
  -  Warfighting Units         
  -  Frequently Asked Questions         
  -  Strategic Vision         
  -  Emblem 
-  Leaders    -  Commander         
  -  Deputy Commander         
  -  Command Senior Enlisted Leader         
  -  Chief of Staff 
-  Support    -  Inspector General         
  -  FOIA      -  Making a FOIA Request         
    -  Reading Room 
  -  Equal Opportunity Coordinator         
  -  Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Victim Advocate         
  -  Command Chaplain         
  -  Commandant         
  -  Resilience Program 
-  Newsroom    -  News      -  FY2025 Testimony 
  -  Photos and Videos         
  -  Speeches         
  -  Publications 
-  Contact		 
-  Partnerships and Outreach    -  Academic Engagement Enterprise      -  AEE Articles of Interest         
    -  AEE Members 
  -  Careers      -  Civilians         
    -  Internships 
  -  Industry Engagement Portal 
-  Newcomers    -  Newcomer Information         
  -  Checking In 

# USSPACECOMLEADERSHIP

USSPACECOM Leadership

VIEW BIO

VIEW BIO

VIEW BIO

VIEW BIO

#### **QUICK LINKS**

#### Accessibility  |  Section 508    Web PolicySite Map  |  Defense.gov  |  Intel.govQuestions  |  Privacy and SecurityContact Us  |  Inspector General  |  FOIAOPM.gov  |  Plain Writing Act | MISONo Fear Act  |  Links DisclaimerUSA.gov  |  DoD Open Government

                  - Facebook
                  - X
                  - YouTube
                  - LinkedIn
                  - Civilian Careers

Hosted by Defense Media Activity - WEB.mil
#### STATE v. JAMES CHESTER OAKLEY.

(Filed 8 April, 1959.)

Appeal by defendant from *Williams, J.,*September, 1958 Term, PERSON Superior Court.

Criminal prosecution upon a warrant charging the defendant with the unlawful operation of a motor vehicle upon the public highways while he was under the .influence of intoxicating liquor. From a conviction and judgment of the County Court of Person County, the defendant appealed/ to the,Superior Court, and from a jury verdict of guilty and judgment there, he appealed, assigning errors.

*Malcolm B. Seawell, Attorney General, T. W. Bruton, Assistant Attorney General for the State.*

*T. Jule Warren for defendant, appellant.*

*99PeR Cueiam.

The State’s evidence tended to show the defendant was driving 'a certain automobile upon -the pulblie highways. The defendant’s evidence tended to show one of the defendant's companions was the driver. All the evidence tended to show the defendant was intoxicated. The contest involved a question of fact as to the identity of the driver. The jury resolved the issue against the defendant.

No Error.
U.S. SOUTHCOM

INBOUND DATA REQUEST

Dependents: Yes

How Many: 

 No Married: Yes No

Congratulations on your assignment to United States Southern Command HQ! To assist you 

during your transition and formally welcome you and your family please complete this form with 

applicable information and return to the J1 Sponsorship Specialist. Also, for any questions please 

ensure that you are communicating with your sponsor and contact our housing office before 

PCS'ing (305)437-2664.

Inbound Members Rank/Name:

Sponsors Rank/Name:

Projected Report Date: 

Date Initial Welcome Email Sent Out:

Date Welcome Letter Sent Out:

Mailing Address:

*** WELCOME EMAILS AND PHONE CALLS ARE MADE TO SPOUSES ON BEHALF OF MRS. FALLER**

Spouse's Name: 

Spouse's Email:

Spouse's Number:

Would the spouse like to be contacted: Yes No

Pets: Yes No

***Please return within 7 days of receiving this form***
EXHIBIT 32.1



Certification of Chief Executive Officer

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to

to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002



The undersigned, the Chief Executive Officer of SAVVIS, Inc.
(the Company), hereby certifies that, to his knowledge on the date hereof:



|(a) | the quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2005, filed on the date hereof with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report) fully complies with
the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934: and
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



|                     |  |     |  |                                                  
|-------------------- |  | --- |  | -------------------------------------------------
|Date: August 5, 2005 |  | By: |  | /s/ Robert A. McCormick                          
|                     |  |     |  | Robert A. McCormick                              
|                     |  |     |  | Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer
#### SARAH HURLEY v. J. N. LOVETT.

(Filed 3 December, 1930.)

Libel and Slander D c — Where complaint does not allege that words of defendant imported immorality testimony to. this effect is not admissible.

In an action to recover damages for slandering a female when the words sued on are ambiguous, the complaint must allege that the words spoken of and concerning the plaintiff implied immorality in order to admit testimony of witnesses as to their understanding ■ of the intent of the words actually spoken, the wrongful intent being denied both in the answer and in testimony of defendant as a witness.

Appeal by plaintiff from *Hcurding, J.,*at January Special Term, 1930, of Wilkes.

Affirmed.

This is an action to recover damages, botb actual and punitive, for slanderous words alleged in tbe complaint to bave been spoken by tbe defendant of and concerning tbe plaintiff.

From judgment dismissing tbe action, at tbe close of all tbe evidence, plaintiff appealed to tbe Supreme Court.

*F. J. McDuffie cmd Trivetie é ¡I ohhouser for plaintiff.*

*T. 0. Bowie for defendant.*

Peis Cueiam.

Tbe words alleged in tbe complaint to bave been spoken by tbe defendant of and concerning tbe plaintiff are slanderous *per se.*However, tbe words wbicb all tbe evidence shows were spoken by defendant are not slanderous *per se.*Tbey do not in themselves impute to plaintiff immoral conduct.

Conceding that tbe words which tbe evidence shows tbe defendant did speak of and concerning tbe plaintiff, are ambiguous and fairly admit of a slanderous interpretation, in tbe absence of an allegation in tbe complaint to that effect, there was no error in excluding testimony of witnesses offered by plaintiff as to their understanding of tbe meaning of tbe words spoken by tbe defendant. Defendant in bis answer and also as a witness at tbe trial, denied that be intended to charge or did charge plaintiff with immoral conduct. Tbe evidence as to tbe circumstances under wbicb tbe words were spoken, supports tbe denial of tbe defendant. Tbe instant case is distinguishable from *Vincent v. Pace,*178 N. C., 421, 100 S. E., 581, relied on by plaintiff on her appeal to this Court. In that case, it is alleged in tbe complaint not only that defendant spoke tbe words set out therein, but also that be intended thereby to charge and did charge plaintiff with a felony, to wit, larceny.

There was no error in tbe trial of this action. Tbe judgment is

Affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 234 (Wednesday, December 6, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 62478-62479]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-29679]



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


DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--The ATM Forum

    Notice is hereby given that, on November 6, 1995, pursuant to 
Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 
1993, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''). The ATM Forum (the 
``ATM Forum'') filed written notifications simultaneously with the 
Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in 
membership. The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending 
the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to 
actual damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, the 
identities of the new members of ATM Forum are: Data Connection, Ltd., 
Middlesex, UNITED KINGDOM; Dialogic, Parsippany, NJ; LANOptics, Nigdal, 
ISRAEL; Spectran Specialty Optics Co., Avon, CT; and Zenith Electronics 
Corp., Glenview, IL. The following company is no longer a member: 
Centillion Networks.

[[Page 62479]]

    No changes have been made in the planned activities of ATM Forum. 
Membership remains open, and the members intend to file additional 
written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
    On April 19, 1993, ATM Forum filed its original notification 
pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice 
published a notice in the Federal Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of 
the Act on June 2, 1993 (58 FR 31415).
    The last notification was filed with the Department on August 8, 
1995. A notice has not yet been published in the Federal Register.
Constance K. Robinson,
Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 95-29679 Filed 12-5-95; 8:45am]
BILLING CODE 4410-01-M
#### CARRIE L. McLEAN, Administratrix of the Estate of VIRGIL A. FLEENOR, v. RULANE GAS COMPANY.

(Filed 24 November, 1937.)

Venue § 1—

Defendant’s appeal from an order of the trial court denying defendant’s motion to remove the action brought by an administratrix in the county of her residence, is affirmed on authority of *Lawson v. Langley,*211 N. C., 626.

Appeal by defendant from *Rousseau, J.,*at March Term, 1937, of Mecklenbueg.

Affirmed.

This is an action for actionable negligence, alleging damage, brought by Carrie L. McLean, the duly appointed administratrix of the estate of Virgil A. Fleenor, who died intestate in Anson County on 13 December, 1936, as a result of the alleged negligence of the defendant. The personal residence of Carrie L. McLean, the plaintiff, is in Mecklenburg County. The defendant, a corporation, is a resident of Gaston County. The plaintiff Carrie L. McLean qualified as administratrix in Anson County, where the deceased was injured and killed. The beneficiaries of any recovery are residents of Tennessee. The action was instituted in Mecklenburg County, the personal residence of the plaintiff, and the sole question is whether the defendant has the right to remove the case to Gaston County, which is the residence of the defendant.

*Robinson & J ones and Simmons & Bowman for plaintiff.*

*J onas & J onas and Fred B. Helms for defendant.*

Per Curiam.

*We*carefully considered the case of *Lawson v. Langley,*211 N. C., 526, when before this Court. The defendant in its brief says, *544in reference to the *Lawson case, supra,*and other cases: “In the face of these apparently adverse former adjudications, the appellant prosecutes this appeal only because it believes it is about to be deprived of a substantial legal right. It believes its contention ought to prevail even though it should require the review, modification, or even the overruling of former adjudications.”

This statement would meet with the approval of this Court if we were of the opinion that the other eases were not correctly decided. This case is governed by the *Lawson case, supra,*and the judgment of the court below is

Affirmed.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-4095

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

JULIE POLICANO, a/k/a Julie Ferguson,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern

District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley, Chief

District Judge. (1:06-cr-00066-IMK)

Submitted: September 5, 2007 Decided: November 19, 2007

Before WILKINSON, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed in part; affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam

opinion.

Hiram C. Lewis, IV, LEWISLAW, Morgantown, West Virginia, for

Appellant. David Earl Godwin, Assistant United States Attorney,

Clarksburg, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Julie Policano appeals her conviction and 110-month

sentence following her guilty plea to conspiracy to possess with

intent to distribute and to distribute in excess of five grams of

cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1), and

(b)(1)(B) (2000). The Government filed a motion to dismiss based

upon the waiver of appellate rights to which Policano agreed as a

part of her plea agreement.

We conclude that Policano’s appellate waiver is valid and

encompasses her sentencing claim regarding the district court’s

consideration of her objections to the presentence report. We

therefore grant in part the Government’s motion to dismiss, and we

dismiss the portion of the appeal related to Policano’s sentence.

With respect to Policano’s claims that the district court erred in

accepting her guilty plea and violated her Sixth Amendment rights

during the sentencing hearing, we have reviewed those claims as

well and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, although we

deny the motion to dismiss the appeal as to Policano’s conviction,

see United States v. Attar, 38 F.3d 727, 732-33 & n.2 (4th Cir.

1994), we affirm the conviction. We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in

the materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process. 

DISMISSED IN PART;

AFFIRMED IN PART
<PAGE>

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 of Washington Banking Company (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2006, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Michal
D. Cann, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

(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 result of operations of the Company
      as of, and for, the periods presented in the Report.

This certification is being furnished solely to comply with the requirements of
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, and shall not be incorporated by reference into any of
the Company's filings under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, or otherwise be deemed to be filed as part of the Report
or under such Acts.

/s/ Michal D. Cann
-------------------------------
Michal D. Cann
Chief Executive Officer

August 8, 2006
#### Isaac Purqua and others, Respondents, v. Joseph M. Purqua and others, Appellants.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. Opinion by

Learned, P. J
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 241 (Friday, December 15, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 64444]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-30565]



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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration


Agency Information Collection Activities Under OMB Review

    Periodically, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services 
Administration (SAMHSA) will publish a list of information collection 
requests under OMB review, in compliance with the Paperwork Reduction 
Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). To request a copy of these documents, call 
the SAMHSA Reports Clearance Officer on (301)443-0525.
    Evaluation of High Risk Youth Substance Abuse Prevention 
Initiatives--New--The Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP) will 
conduct a cross-site evaluation of approximately 50 demonstration 
projects targeting high risk youth to assess the effectiveness of the 
demonstration program in: (1)preventing and/or reducing substance abuse 
among at-risk youth; and (2) intervention strategies for reducing 
selected risk factors and enhancing protective factors. Youth 
participating in the programs and comparison group youth will complete 
self-administered questionnaires at four points in time, including 
baseline, program exit, and 6 months and 18 months following program 
exit. The annual burden estimate is shown below:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                               Average          
                                                                                   Number of   burden     Total 
                                                                      Number of    responses     per     annual 
                                                                     Respondents      per     response   burden 
                                                                                  respondent   (hours)   (hours)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Youth..............................................................      12,000           1      0.433          
                                                                                                   hrs     5,205
                                                                                                             hrs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Written comments and recommendations concerning the proposed 
information collection should be sent within 30 days of this notice to: 
Virginia Huth, Human Resources and Housing Branch, Office of Management 
and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 10236, Washington, D.C. 
20503.

    Dated: December 11, 1995.
Richard Kopanda,
Acting Executive Officer, SAMHSA.
[FR Doc. 95-30565 Filed 12-14-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4162-20-P
#### FANNIE K. GROOME v. CITY OF STATESVILLE.

(Filed 20 November, 1935.)

Appeal and Error L d—

Where a new trial is had upon the same pleadings and practically the same evidence, the decision of the Supreme Court on the former appeal that defendant’s motion for judgment as of nonsuit should be denied is the law of the case in the subsequent proceedings in the trial court and upon a subsequent appeal.

Devin, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

Appeal from *Warlick, J.,*at March Term, 1935, of Iredell.

*Stewart & Bobbitt, Lewis & Lewis, Self, Bagby, Aiken & Patrick, Jack Joyner, and W. B. Battley for plaintiff, appellee.*

*Land & Sowers and Long & Long for defendant, appellant.*

Pek Oueiam.

This case was here on a former appeal and a new trial was awarded. See 207 N. 0., 538.

Upon the former appeal, upon the same pleadings and practically the same evidence, the defendant urged its motion for a judgment of nonsuit, *816which motion was denied when this Court sent the case back for a new trial. This denial of the motion became the law of that aspect of the ease. "A. decision of the Supreme Court on a prior appeal constitutes the law of the case, both in subsequent proceedings in the trial court and on a subsequent appeal.” *Power v. Yount, ante,*182 (184), and cases there cited.

The error on the first trial upon which the new trial was awarded was corrected at the second trial, and we have examined the other assignments of error relative to the admission of evidence and of the charge and find no reversible error.

Affirmed.

Devin, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.