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 Vystar Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the Quarter Ended March 31, 2014 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, William R. Doyle, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and W. Dean Waters, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of our knowledge:  (1)The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and  (2)The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.  /s/ William R. DoyleWilliam R. DoyleChairman, President and Chief Executive OfficerJune 6, 2014/s/ W. Dean WatersW. Dean WatersChief Financial Officer
June 6, 2014  A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Vystar Corporation and will be retained by Vystar Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.  The foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of Vystar Corporation, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.   1
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

February 4, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-7236

Omron Management Center of America, 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 failed to show that the imposition of additional duties on 

the particular product would cause severe economic harm to you or other U.S. interests.

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
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Matthew M. Robinson, Appellant.

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Counsel’s application to withdraw granted *(see, People v Crawford,*71 AD2d 38). (Appeal from judgment of Ontario County Court, Henry, Jr., J.—driving while intoxicated.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Green, Balio and Lowery, JJ.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-21-00171-CV

Leticia RODRIGUEZ 

Appellant

v.

Lydia RODRIGUEZ and Robert Pereida

Appellees

From the 224th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2017CI19456

Honorable Cynthia Marie Chapa, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Irene Rios, Justice

Delivered and Filed: November 17, 2021

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION

On September 20, 2021, appellee/cross-appellant Robert Pereida’s counsel, Sergio R.

Davila and Olga G. Brown, filed a motion to withdraw as counsel for appellee/cross-appellant

Robert Pereida. On October 11, 2021, we granted the motion to withdraw and ordered 

appellee/cross-appellant Robert Pereida’s counsel to notify him, in writing, of any deadlines. See 

TEX. R. APP. P. 6.5(c). We also ordered appellee/cross-appellant Robert Pereida to file his brief 

and stated that failure to file his brief or a motion for extension of time within 10 days of the order 

would result in dismissal of his cross-appeal for want of prosecution. See id. R. 38.8(a), 42.3(c). 
04-21-00171-CV

- 2 -

Appellee/cross-appellant Robert Pereida did not file a motion for extension of time or his brief. 

Accordingly, Robert Pereida’s cross-appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution. See id. R. 

38.8(a), 42.3(a). Appellant/cross-appellee Leticia Rodriguez’s appeal against appellee/crossappellant Lydia Rodriguez and appellee Robert Pereida, and appellee/cross-appellant Lydia 

Rodriguez’s cross-appeal against appellant/cross-appellee Leticia Rodriguez are retained on this 

court’s docket. 

PER CURIAM
[Cite as State v. Pence , 2022

- Ohio

- 2468.]



## IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT TRUMBULL COUNTY STATE OF OHIO,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

- vs - RANDY PENCE,

Defendant

- Appellant. CASE NO. 2022 - T - 0062

Criminal Appeal from the Warren Municipal Court

Trial Court No. 2022 CRB 000275

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
Decided: July 18, 2022 Judgment: Appeal dismissed

Nicholas J. Graham , Warren City Assistant Law Director, 141 South Street, Warren, OH 44483 (For Plaintiff

- Appellee). Randy Pence , pro se, P.O. Box 1002, Warren, OH 44481 (Defendant

- Appellant).

CYNTHIA WESTCOTT RICE, J. {¶1} On June 16, 2022, appellant, Randy Pence, pro se, filed a notice of appeal in the Warren Municipal Court. Appellant appeals the court’s May 16, 2022 entry which found him guilty of disorderly conduct and sentenced him to serve 30 days in jail, with 12 day s suspended; pay a $50 fine; and one year probation. {¶2} A timely notice of appeal was due no later than June 15, 2022, which was not a weekend or a holiday. Thus, the appeal is untimely by one day.2

Case No. 2022

- T

- 0062 {¶3} “* * * [A] party who wishes to appeal from an order that is final upon its entry shall file the notice of appeal required by App.R. 3 within 30 days of that entry.” App.R. 4(A)(1). {¶4} However, an appellant make seek leave to file an untimely criminal appeal by strictly following App.R. 5(A) which provides: {¶5} “(1) Aft er the expiration of the thirty day period provided by App.R. 4(A) for filing a notice of appeal as of right, an appeal may be taken by a defendant with leave of the court to which the appeal is taken in the following classes of cases: {¶6} “(a) Criminal proc eedings; * * *. {¶7} “(2) A motion for leave to appeal shall be filed with the court of appeals and shall set for forth the reasons for the failure of the appellant to perfect an appeal as of right. Concurrently with the filing of the motion, the movant shall file with the clerk of the trial court a notice of appeal in the form prescribed by App.R. 3 and shall file a copy of the notice of appeal in the court of appeals. The movant also shall furnish an additional copy of the notice of appeal and a copy of the motion for leave to the clerk of the court of appeals who shall serve the notice of appeal and the motion upon the prosecuting attorney.” {¶8} Because a ppellant has neither complied with the thirty

- day rule set forth in App.R. 4(A)(1) nor sought leave to appeal under App.R. 5(A) , th is court is without jurisdiction to consider the appeal. Appeal dismissed, sua sponte, as untimely.

THOMAS R. WRIGHT, P.J. , MATT LYNCH, J. ,

concur.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7164
LACY WILLIAMS, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MARVIN L. POLK; BOYD BENNETT; CATHY JUDGE; JENNIE LANCASTER; MARSHALL PIKE; BENNY LANGDON; JOHN A. MANESS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (CA-04-144-5-FL) Submitted: December 23, 2004 Decided: January 10, 2005 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lacy Williams, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Lacy Williams, Jr., appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Williams v. Polk , No. CA-04-144-5-FL (E.D.N.C. Apr. 20, 2004). 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
#### In the Matter of Louis Aviles, Appellant, v Charles Scully, as Superintendent of Green Haven Correctional Facility, et al., Respondents.

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent Charles Scully, dated December 7, 1987, which, after a hearing, found that the petitioner violated prison rules prohibiting assault and violent conduct, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Donovan, J.), entered April 28, 1988, which dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Following a Tier III Superintendent’s hearing, the petitioner was found to have violated prison rules prohibiting assault and violent conduct arising from an incident during a visit with his wife. The Hearing Officer had previously conducted two other disciplinary hearings involving this petitioner. The petitioner contends that the Hearing Officer was biased against him because the petitioner had sought administrative and judicial review of the prior determinations.

We find that merely because this Hearing Officer had previously found the petitioner guilty of other unrelated charges and was aware that the petitioner had challenged such determinations did not require the officer to disqualify himself in the instant matter *(see, Matter of Grant v Senkowski,*146 AD2d 948). A review of the record discloses that the Hearing Officer was in every regard patient, courteous and evenhanded. He permitted the petitioner great latitude in presenting his case and in cross-examining the correction officer witness. The record discloses absolutely no bias against the petitioner *(see, People v Muka,*72 AD2d 649). We further find that the determination is supported by substantial evidence in the record. Thompson, J. P., Kunzeman, Harwood and Miller, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.16

                               AGREEMENT TO CANCEL
                             STOCK OPTION AGREEMENTS

         This Agreement to Cancel Stock Option Agreements (the "Agreement") is
made as of January __, 2002, by and between AVIDYN, Inc., a Delaware corporation
(the "Company"), and ________ ("Option Holder").

                                    RECITALS:

         WHEREAS, the Company granted Option Holder the following option
agreements (the "Option Agreements"):

         WHEREAS, the parties desire to cancel the Option Agreements.

                                   AGREEMENT:

         NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the mutual
covenants set forth in this Agreement, and for other good and valuable
consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the
parties hereto agree as follows:

         1. AGREEMENT. In consideration of Option Holder's agreement to cancel
the Option Agreements, the Company agrees to pay Option Holder $______. The
Company will pay this amount, within ten (10) business days after the Option
Holder executes this Agreement and delivers it to the Company. The Company and
Option Holder agree that the Option Agreements are hereby terminated in all
respects and this represents all options held by the Option Holder to purchase
shares in the Company.

         2. RELEASE. Option Holder and his or her heirs, executors,
administrators, successors and assigns (collectively "Option Holder"), of his or
her own free will, voluntarily COVENANTS NOT TO SUE AND HEREBY RELEASES AND
FOREVER DISCHARGES the Company and its predecessors, successors, assigns,
affiliates, officers, directors, partners, agents, employees and attorneys, past
and present (collectively "Releasees"), of and from any and all actions or
causes of action, suits, claims, debts, charges, complaints, contracts (whether
oral or written, express or implied from any source), and promises whatsoever,
in law or equity, which Option Holder may now have or hereafter may have,
against any or all of the Releasees, for, upon, by reason of or relating to the
Option Agreements or the Company's offer to cancel Option Holder's stock option
agreements.

         3. CONFLICT OF LAWS. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed
in accordance with the laws of the State of Texas without giving effect to its
conflicts of law provisions.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement as of the
date first written above.

                                    AVIDYN, Inc.


                                    By:
                                       -----------------------------------------
                                       Joseph A. Hensley, President


                                    --------------------------------------------
                                    Date of execution by Option Holder:
                                                                       ---------
EXHIBIT 32.2

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



         In connection with the Quarterly Report of North Penn Bancorp, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2005, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Philip O. Farr, Senior Vice President and Chief 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, 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:  May 13, 2005                        /s/ Philip O. Farr
       ------------                        -------------------------
                                           Philip O. Farr
                                           Senior Vice President and
                                           Chief Financial Officer
```
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 75 (Wednesday, April 19, 1995)]
[Sunshine Act Meetings]
[Page 19624]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-9735]

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

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System

Time and Date: 11:00 a.m., Monday, April 24, 1995.

Place: Marriner S. Eccles Federal Reserve Board Building, C Street 
entrance between 20th and 21st Streets, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20551.

Status: Closed.

Matters to be Considered:

    1. Personnel actions (appointments, promotions, assignments, 
reassignments, and salary actions) involving individual Federal 
Reserve System employees.
    2. Any items carried forward from a previously announced 
meeting.

Contact Person for More Information: Mr. Joseph R. Coyne, Assistant to 
the Board; (202) 452-3204. You may call (202) 452-3207, beginning at 
approximately 5 p.m. two business days before this meeting, for a 
recorded announcement of bank and bank holding company applications 
scheduled for the meeting.

    Dated: April 14, 1995.
Jennifer J. Johnson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 95-9735 Filed 4-17-95; 9:55 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
```
#### In the Matter of James A. Smith Contracting, Inc., Respondent, v Norman Stahl, Appellant.

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to confirm an arbitration award, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (O’Shaughnessy, J.), entered May 8, 1989, which, upon confirming the award, is in favor of the petitioner and against the appellant in the amount of $149,993.72.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The parties to the proceeding were also parties to a construction contract giving rise to a dispute over payment for, and the quality and completeness of, the appellant’s work. They then submitted the dispute to arbitration. During the course of the arbitration proceeding, which spanned several months and 14 separate hearings, it allegedly came to the appellant’s attention that 1 of 3 arbitrators made improper comments in the presence of a nonparty which demonstrated bias about the disputed work. Although the appellant unsuc*689cessfully sought to question the arbitrators about the details of the alleged conversation, he made no formal accusation of bias, made no written protest as required by the Construction Industry Arbitration Rules governing the arbitration, and did not call as a witness the person to whom the improper remarks were allegedly made, although that witness was available. The appellant nonetheless argues that, in addition to other alleged instances of misconduct, the failure of the arbitrator to disclose the details of the alleged conversation warrants vacatur of the award ultimately made in the petitioner’s favor.

The appellant has, under the circumstances presented here, waived the right to object to the arbitration award on the ground that the arbitrator failed to disclose the details of the alleged conversation *(cf., Matter of Stevens & Co.,*34 NY2d 123, 129; *Rose v Travelers Ins. Co.,*118 AD2d 844; *Matter of Cheek v Chubb & Son,*70 AD2d 622). In any event, the appellant has failed to sustain his burden of demonstrating the existence of any misconduct prejudicing his rights or the integrity of the arbitration process *(see,*CPLR 7511 [b] [1] [i]; [2] [i]; *cf., Matter of Goldfinger v Lisker,*68 NY2d 225; *see also, Matter of Wiener Furniture Co.,*90 AD2d 875). Thompson, J. P., Sullivan, Harwood and Miller, JJ., concur.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v William Martinez, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward McLaughlin, J.), rendered November 29, 1988, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the second degree and witness tampering in the second degree and sentencing him, as a predicate felony offender, to concurrent indeterminate terms of from 12 years’ to life and from 3 to 6 years’ imprisonment, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

By failing to move to vacate or withdraw his guilty plea at Trial Term, defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his claim that his plea of guilty was not knowingly made. *(People v Pellegrino,*60 NY2d 636.) Moreover, were we to consider his claim in the interest of justice, we would find it to be without merit.

*275Defendant acknowledged on the record that he was adequately advised by counsel with respect to his options. His sentence on the witness tampering charge runs concurrently with his sentence on the greater offense of sale of a controlled substance in the second degree and, in light of all the surrounding circumstances, it does not appear that the trial court’s erroneous statement, that defendant could be sentenced to 4 Vi to 9 years on the tampering count as opposed to the 3Vi-to-7-year maximum that could be imposed upon him as a second felony offender under the statute (Penal Law § 70.06 [3] [d]), materially affected the voluntariness of defendant’s plea. *(See, People v Provosty,*141 AD2d 867, *Iv denied*72 NY2d 960; *People v Brownell,*140 AD2d 755, *Iv denied*72 NY2d 916.) Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Sullivan, Rosenberger, Kassal and Smith, JJ.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

 

I, M. Farooq Kathwari, hereby certify that the June 30, 2010Annual Report on Form 10-K as filed by Ethan Allen Interiors Inc. (the “Company”),which contains the Company’s financial statements, fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and that information containedin such Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
|                   |   |   | Chairman,  President and |
|------------------------|--------|--------|--------------------------|
| /s/ M. Farooq Kathwari |   |   | Chief  Executive Officer |
| (M. Farooq Kathwari)   |   |   |                     |

 

 

August 19, 2010

 

----
**Exhibit
      32.1**




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), each of the
      undersigned officers of China Premium Lifestyle Enterprise, Inc. (the
“Company”), does hereby certify, to such officer’s knowledge, that:




The
      Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2007 of the
      Company fully complies, in all material respects, with the requirements of
      section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the
      information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.


Date:
                May 14, 2007
            By:
            /s/
                Richard Man Fai LeeRichard
                Man Fai LeeChief
                Executive OfficerDate:
                May 14, 2007
            By:
            /s/
                Joseph Tik Tung WongJoseph
                Tik Tung WongChief
                Financial Officer