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 of SpeechSwitch, Inc. ("the Company") on
Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof ("the Report"), I, Bruce R. Knef,
President, Chief Executive Officer and Principal Financial 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, to the best of my knowledge and
belief, 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.


Date: September 13, 2005

                                       By /s/ Bruce R. Knef
                                       --------------------------------------
                                       Bruce R. Knef
                                       President, Chief Executive Officer and
                                       Principal Financial Officer
#### Ithamar W. FENERSON, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent.

No. 64896.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

June 21, 1994.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Aug. 11, 1994.

Application to Transfer Denied Sept. 20, 1994.

David C. Hemingway, Asst. Public Defender, St. Louis, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Joane E. Beal Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent. ■

Before CRANDALL, P.J., and REINHARD and CRIST, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Movant appeals the denial of his Rule 24.-035 motion without an evidentiary hearing. We affirm. The findings and conclusions of the motion court are not clearly erroneous, and an extended opinion would have no prec-edential value. Rule 84.16(b).
NUMBER 13-08-00322-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

IN RE ASSET PROTECTION & SECURITY SERVICES, L.P.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Yañez, Rodriguez, and Vela

Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

Relator, Asset Protection & Security Services, L.P., filed a petition for writ of

mandamus in the above cause arguing that the trial court abused its discretion in denying

relator’s motion to compel arbitration. On May 22, 2008, this Court requested a response

from Juan Martinez, III, the real party in interest, and said response was duly filed on July

7, 2007. 

The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus

and response thereto, is of the opinion that relator has not shown itself entitled to the relief
2

sought. Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is DENIED. See TEX. R. APP. P.

52.8(a). 

PER CURIAM

Memorandum Opinion delivered and 

filed this 18th day of July, 2008.
EXHIBIT23.1




**CONSENT
      OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**




We
      consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements on Form
      S-8
      (Nos. 333-112625 and 333-131631) of Firstwave Technologies, Inc. of our report
      dated March 28, 2007, related to the audits of the consolidated financial
      statements of Firstwave Technologies, Inc. as of December 31, 2006 and 2005,
      and
      for each of the years in the three year period ended December 31, 2006, included
      herein.






CHERRY,
      BEKAERT & HOLLAND, L.L.P.




Atlanta,
      Georgia


March
      28,
      2007
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

February 19, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-6256

BorgWarner, Inc:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20.

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request concerns a product strategically important or related to 

‘‘Made in China 2025’’ or other Chinese industrial programs.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

July 3, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number USTR-2018-0025-6680

C&U Americas, LLC:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20.

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request failed to show that this particular product is available 

only from China.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Joseph Barloon

General Counsel
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 Sonoma College, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-QSB for the fiscal quarter ended December 31, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Charles
D. Newman, Chairman and President (Principal Executive Officer and Principal
Accounting and Financial Officer) of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.




/s/ Charles D. Newman
---------------------
Charles D. Newman
Chief Executive Officer
March  7, 2006
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-17-00040-CR

Sean A. Valdez

v.

The State of Texas

§

§

§

§

§

From Criminal District Court No. 3

of Tarrant County (1428428D)

June 7, 2018

Opinion by Justice Pittman

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that 

there was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of 

the trial court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By _/s/ Mark T. Pittman_________________

 Justice Mark T. Pittman
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000897432
<NAME> INCO HOMES CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                             736
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     27,329
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  30,934
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      2,340
<COMMON>                                            16
<OTHER-SE>                                       1,734
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    30,934
<SALES>                                         21,721
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                21,721
<CGS>                                           20,946
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   20,946
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (13,074)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (13,074)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  1,425
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (11,649)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (7.15)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (7.15)


</TABLE>
## IN THE COU RT O F CR IM IN AL AP PE ALS OF TE XAS N O S. A P - 76, 313 & A P - 76, 314
EX PA R TE FE LIPE R U BIO G A SPA R , A ppl i c ant
ON AP P LI CAT I ONS F OR W RI TS OF HABE AS CORP US

CAUS E N OS . 2 2 4 8 1 - A AND 2 2 3 8 6 - A I N T HE 3 3 6 J UDI CI AL DI S TR I CT COURT

TH FROM FANNI N CO UNTY
P er cur i am . O P I N I O N Pursuant to the provisions of Ar t i cl e 1 1 .07 of the Te x as Code of Criminal Proce dure, the cler k of the trial c ourt transmitted to thi s C o u rt t h es e appli cations for writs of habe as cor

pus. Ex parte Y oung , 418 S.W .2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of burg lary of a ha bitation and ag g ravated assault and sente nced to fifty

y ea rs ’ imprisonment for the burg lary of a ha bitation, and twenty

y ear s’ imprisonment f

or the ag g ravated assault . His direct a ppeals we re dismiss ed for

want of jurisdiction. Ga sp ar v . S tate , N os . 0 6- 08 -0020 9-CR a nd 06 -0 8- 00 20 7- CR (Tex. App. – Texarkana , October 22, 2008).2

Ap pli c ant c on te nd s that he wa s de nie d the op po rt un ity to a pp e a l th e se c onvic tio ns be c a us e no timely notice of appea l w as filed in e ither case . We remande d these a pplications to the trial court for f indings of f

act a nd conclusions of law
. The trial co u rt h as determined that Applicant wa s denied his rig ht to appeal due to a brea kdown in the l eg al s y stem as a whole, and that the err or is not directly attributable to either

trial
or a pp e llate c ouns e l. We fin d, the re fo re , th at App lic ant i s e nti tle d to the op po rt un ity to f ile an o utof-time appea l of the judgme nts of conviction in Cause Nos. 22481-A a nd 22386-Afrom the 336 th J udicial District Court of Fa nnin County
. Applicant is order ed re turned to that time at which he may g ive a wr itten notice of a ppeal so t h at h e may

then, with the aid of c ounsel, obtain a mea ningf ul appea l. All tim e limits shall be calculate d as if the se ntence s had bee n imposed on the date on which the mandate of this Court issues. W e hold t hat, s hould Applicant desire t o prosec ute an a ppeal, he must take affirmative steps to file a wr itten notice of a ppeal in the tria l court within 30 day s after the
mand ate of

thi s Co ur t is su e s.
Deliver ed: Marc h 17, 2010 Do No t Pu

bli sh
ex10-1.htm












Exhibit 10.1







Joinder Agreement


For


Steven A. Orchard


 


 


The undersigned (“Employee”) hereby agrees to be bound by the terms and conditions of the Employment Security Plan of Internap Network Services Corporation dated as of November 14, 2007, as if he initially had executed such Plan as a party thereto, and, without by implication limiting the foregoing, agrees to each acknowledgment, covenant and other agreement contained therein.  Provided, Employee specifically agrees to the following additional provisions, which shall control in the event of a conflict with the Employment Security Plan:







Employee agrees to provide Company not less than two (2) months prior written notice of Employee’s intent to terminate employment with Company. If accepted by Company, Employee will be paid Employee’s Base Compensation and health benefits during the two-month notice period. Employee shall cooperate with Company (including its employees, officers, directors, attorneys and representatives) and furnish complete and truthful information, testimony or affidavits in connection with any matter that arose during employment.


 


The parties agree that the periods of post employment restriction set forth in Sections 2.3 and 2.4 of the Employment Security Plan will be seven (7) months following the termination of Employee’s employment with the Company.


 


 



	  	
/s/ Steven A. Orchard

	  
	  	
Employee

	  
	  	  	  
	  	
5/5/10

	  
	  	
Date

	  





















	
Accepted:

	  
	
INTERNAP NETWORK SERVICES CORPORATION

	  
	  	  	  
	
By: 

	
/s/ Richard P. Dobb

	  
	
Richard P. Dobb

	  
	
Its: Chief Administrative Officer

	  
	  	  	  
	
Date:

	
5/5/10
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 69 (Tuesday, April 11, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 18394]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-8799]



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


DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service


Forestry Research Advisory Council; Meeting

    According to the Federal Advisory Committee Act of October 6, 1987, 
(Public Law 92-463, 86 Stat. 770-776) the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture announces the following meeting:

    Name: Forestry Research Advisory Council.

    Date: May 10-11, 1995.

    Time: 8:30 a.m.-5:00 p.m.

    Place: Governor's House Hotel, 17th Street and Rhode Island 
Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C. 20036.
    Type of Meeting: Open to the public. Persons may participate in 
the meeting if time and space permit.
    Comments: The public may file written comments before or after 
the meeting by contacting the person below.
    Purpose: The council agenda will include: the Forestry Research 
and Education Initiative; 1995 Farm Bill; National Science and 
Technology Council strategy; performance measures for research; 
review of the Cooperative Forestry Research Program (McIntire-
Stennis); and other current research issues.
    Contact Person for Agenda and More Information: Jerry A. Sesco, 
Forest Service, 14th & Independence SW, P.O. Box 96090, Washington, 
D.C., 20090-6090; telephone (202) 205-1665.

    Dated: April 4, 1995.
William D. Carlson,
Administrator, Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension 
Service.
[FR Doc. 95-8799 Filed 4-10-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-22-M
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

November 13, 2018

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-2191

Signode Industrial Group LLC:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20. 

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request failed to show that this particular product is available 

only from China.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn
#### Tony L. COBBINS, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

Nos. WD 45621, WD 46922.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

June 1, 1993.

Rosalynn Koch, Office of the State Public Defender, Columbia, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Breck K. Burgess, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before LOWENSTEIN, C.J., and BERREY and ULRICH, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals from conviction of cocaine possession, § 195.202 RSMo Cumm. Supp.1992, and a sentence of five years imprisonment as a persistent offender, and denial of post-conviction relief under Rule 29.15.

The judgment of conviction is affirmed. Rule 30.25(b).

*475The denial of post-conviction relief is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
#### Anthony WOODS and Lee Ann Ballard, Appellants, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 949-86.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, En Banc.

Dec. 7, 1988.

James E. Davis, Texarkana, Ark., for appellants.

Robert Huttash, State’s Atty., and Matthew W. Paul, Asst. State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

OPINION ON APPELLANTS’ PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

PER CURIAM.

Appeals are taken from convictions for the offenses of aggravated sexual assault. After finding the appellants guilty, the jury assessed punishment for appellant Woods at fifteen years and appellant Ballard at twenty-five years.

On appeal, appellants urged the trial court erred in admitting a pretrial videotape interview of the complainant, as authorized by Article 38.071, Section 2, V.A.C. C.P. It was urged that the admission of the videotaped testimony of the child victim did not allow for the contemporaneous confrontation of the witnesses against the appellants. The Court of Appeals rejected the point of error on the basis of earlier opinions which had upheld the constitutionality of Article 38.071, Section 2, against such a challenge. *Woods v. State,*713 S.W.2d 173 (Tex.App.—Texarkana 1986).

In light of our decision in *Long v. State,*742 S.W.2d 302 (Tex.Cr.App.1987), we find that the Court of Appeals erred. In *Long,*this Court, after an extensive analysis of the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 10, of the Texas Constitution in relation to Article 38.071, Section 2, supra, held:

> “Based on our previous observations and authorities and for the reasons stated, we find that Art. 38.071, § 2, supra, is both facially and as it was applied to the appellant an unconstitutional depriva*378tion of his right of confrontation under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

> “In addition, and independent of the above finding, we further find that Art. 38.071, § 2, supra, is both facially and as it was applied to this appellant an unconstitutional deprivation of his State guaranteed right of confrontation under Art. I, § 10 of the Texas Constitution.” 742 S.W.2d at 323.

Having determined in *Long,*supra, that Article 38.071, Section 2, supra, is facially unconstitutional under both the Federal and State constitutions, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the cause to that court for reconsideration of the point of error.
Exhibit 21

SUBSIDIARIES OF THE COMPANY



|                                              |  |                                                             |  |                                                 
|--------------------------------------------- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------------
|NAME OF SUBSIDIARY                            |  | STATE OR OTHER JURISDICTION OF INCORPORATION ORORGANIZATION |  | OTHER NAMES UNDER WHICH SUBSIDIARY DOES BUSINESS
|Cave Springs, Inc.                            |  | Delaware                                                    |  | N/A                                             
|                                              |  |                                                            
|Destination Maternity Apparel Private Limited |  | India                                                       |  | N/A                                             
|                                              |  |                                                            
|Maternity Factory Warehouse Centre, Inc.      |  | Canada                                                      |  | N/A                                             
|                                              |  |                                                            
|Mothers Work Canada, Inc.                     |  | Delaware                                                    |  | N/A                                             
|                                              |  |                                                            
|Mothers Work Services, Inc.                   |  | Delaware                                                    |  | N/A