alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 32.01

                  Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350
                 (Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Sec.  1350,  the  undersigned  hereby  certifies,  to his
knowledge,  that the Annual Report of Ocean Power Corporation (the "Company") on
Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2005 (the  "Report")  fully complies
with  the  requirements  of  Section  13(a)  or  15(d),  as  applicable,  of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report
fairly presents,  in all material respects,  the financial condition and results
of operations of the Company.

  /s/ MICHAEL HOPPER
      ---------------------------
Name: Michael Hopper
Title: Authorized Signatory
Date: January 31, 2008

The foregoing  certification  (i)  accompanies the filing and is being furnished
solely  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Sec.  1350,  (ii) will not be deemed  "filed" for
purposes of Section 18 of the  Securities  Exchange  Act of 1934,  or  otherwise
subject to the  liability  of that  section,  and (iii) will not be deemed to be
incorporated  by reference  into any filing under the  Securities Act of 1933 or
the  Exchange  Act,  except  to  the  extent  that  the  small  business  issuer
specifically incorporates it by reference.

A signed  original of this written  statement  required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the  electronic  version of this written  statement
required by Section 906, has been provided to Ocean Power  Corporation  and will
be retained by Ocean Power  Corporation  and  furnished  to the  Securities  and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

MARK BRNOVICH

Attorney General

CYNTHIA D. STARKEY, Bar No. 013418

TIMOTHY WATSON, Bar No. 018685

Assistant Attorneys General

2005 North Central Avenue

Phoenix, Arizona 85004-1592

(602) 542-7699 – JBB

(602) 542-7612 – CDS

(602) 542-8346 – TW 

Fax: (602) 542-3393

Cynthia.Starkey@azag.gov

Timothy.Watson@azag.gov

Attorneys for State Defendants

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Montiah Chatman, individually and on 

behalf of her two minor children, J.L.C. 

and E.V.T.P.,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

Marci D. Ferrell, Cindy Chrisman and 

John Sullivan,

Defendants.

Case No: 17-cv-03826-PHX-DLR

NOTICE OF SERVICE

OF

OFFER OF JUDGMENT

Defendants Ferrell, Chrisman and Sullivan (“State Defendants”), through 

undersigned counsel give notice that pursuant to Rule 68, Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure, an Offer of Judgment was served via first class mail and email on June 30, 

2020 to the following address:

Martin A. Bihn

Donna M. McDaniel

Bihn & McDaniel, P.L.C.

2600 North Central Avenue, Suite 1775

Phoenix, Arizona 85004

mbihn@phxlegal.com

Case 2:17-cv-03826-DLR Document 132 Filed 06/30/20 Page 1 of 2
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Respectfully submitted this 29th day of June, 2020.

Mark Brnovich

Attorney General

/s/ Cynthia Starkey

Cynthia D. Starkey

Timothy Watson

Assistant Attorneys General

Attorneys for the State Defendants

Original of the foregoing electronically

filed this 30th day of June, 2020, with:

Clerk of the United States District Court

using the CM/ECF System for filing and 

Transmittal of a Notice of Electronic Filing 

to the following registrants:

Martin A. Bihn

Donna M. McDaniel

Bihn & McDaniel, P.L.C.

2600 North Central Avenue, Suite 1775

Phoenix, Arizona 85004

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

_

Copy of the foregoing emailed this 30th day of June , 2020, to:

Honorable Douglas L. Rayes

U.S. District Court of Arizona

Rayes_chambers@azd.usacourts.gov

/s/ J. Navarro 

Legal Secretary to AAG Cindy Starkey

#8807961

Case 2:17-cv-03826-DLR Document 132 Filed 06/30/20 Page 2 of 2
#### Rudes Corporation, Respondent, *v.*Farid Sons, Ltd., Defendant, and Tagakotta Sotto, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,

October 25, 1956.

*Henry L. Finkelstein*for appellant.

*Edward Pious*for respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

The order should be affirmed, with $10 costs.

Concur: Eder, Hecht, Jr., and Tilzer, JJ.

Order affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 97 (Friday, May 17, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24962-24963]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-12441]



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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
[NAFTA-00646 et al.]


Pacific Power a/k/a PacifiCorp, a/k/a Utah Power, Casper, 
Wyoming, and Other Locations Within Wyoming and Other Locations Within 
Various States; Amended Certification Regarding Eligibility To Apply 
for NAFTA Transitional Adjustment Assistance

    In accordance with Section 250(a), Subchapter D, Chapter 2, Title 
II, of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2273), the 
Department of labor issued a Certification for NAFTA Transitional 
Adjustment Assistance on December 1, 1995, applicable to all workers of 
Pacific Power, located in Casper, Wyoming, and operating at various 
locations in the State of Wyoming. The notice was published in the 
Federal Register on January 26, 1996 (61 FR 2538).
    At the request of the company, the Department reviewed the 
certification for workers of the subject firm. New information provided 
by the company shows that worker separations have occurred at other 
production facilities of the subject firm at various locations within 
the States of Washington, Oregon, California, Montana, Idaho and Utah. 
The workers are engaged in employment related to the production of 
electrical power. The company reports that PacifiCorp was formed to 
combine Pacific Power and Utah Power. Consequently, some of the workers 
may have had their Unemployment Insurance (UI) wages reported under 
either PacifiCorp, Pacific Power or Utah Power tax accounts. Other 
findings show that workers of Pacific Power in Centralia, Washington 
are covered under an existing NAFTA-TAA certification, NAFTA-00655, and 
are specifically excluded from this amendment.
    The intent of the Department's certification is to include all 
workers of the subject firm who were adversely affected by increased 
imports from Canada or Mexico. Accordingly, the Department is amending 
the certification to reflect that in addition to Pacific Power, the 
workers UI wages may have been paid under PacifiCorp or

[[Page 24963]]

Utah Power; and to cover worker separations at the other locations of 
the subject firm.
    The amended notice applicable to NAFTA-00646 is hereby issued as 
follows:

    All workers of Pacific Power, a/k/a PacifiCorp, a/k/a Utah 
Power, Casper, Wyoming and at other locations within Wyoming (NAFTA-
00646); and other locations within the following States, who became 
totally or partially separated from employment on or after October 
16, 1994 are eligible to apply for NAFTA-TAA under Section 250 of 
the Trade Act of 1974:

NAFTA-00646A  Washington (Excluding Centralia)
NAFTA-00646B  Oregon
NAFTA-00646C  California
NAFTA-00646D  Montana
NAFTA-00646E  Idaho
NAFTA-00646F  Utah.

    Signed at Washington, D.C. this 8th day of May 1996.
Russell T. Kile,
Acting Program Manager, Policy and Reemployment Services, Office of 
Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 96-12441 Filed 5-16-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-M
```

[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 112 (Monday, June 14, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31538-31539]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-12529]

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

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

Sunshine Act Meeting

    The National Science Board's ad hoc Committee on Nominating NSB 
Class of 2022-2028 (NOMS), hereby gives notice of the scheduling of a 
teleconference for the transaction of National Science Board business, 
as follows:

TIME AND DATE: Thursday, June 17, 2021, from 11:30 a.m.-12:00 p.m. EDT.

PLACE: This meeting will be held by teleconference through the National 
Science Foundation, 2415 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, VA 22314.

STATUS: Closed.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: The agenda of the teleconference is: To 
review the master list of NSB Nominees, discuss review and rating 
guidance, and receive reviewing assignments.

[[Page 31539]]

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Point of contact for this meeting 
is: Chris Blair, [email protected], 703/292-7000. Meeting information and 
updates may be found at http://www.nsf.gov/nsb/meetings/notices.jsp#sunshine. Please refer to the National Science Board 
website www.nsf.gov/nsb for general information.

Chris Blair,
Executive Assistant to the National Science Board Office.
[FR Doc. 2021-12529 Filed 6-11-21; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-P
```
##### 



Exhibit 31.1
 Certification of Chief Executive Officer pursuant to Section 302 of the Public Company
Accounting Reform and Investor Protection Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted)
      (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; and(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during 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
  (a) 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(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.
  /s/ BARRY D. QUART, PHARM.D.Barry D. Quart, Pharm.D.Chief Executive Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                              5

<S>                                                    <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                            12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                      DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                         JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                           DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                                      0
<SECURITIES>                                                0
<RECEIVABLES>                                               0
<ALLOWANCES>                                                0
<INVENTORY>                                                 0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                            0
<PP&E>                                                      0
<DEPRECIATION>                                              0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                              0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                      95
<BONDS>                                                     0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                       0
<PREFERRED>                                                 0
<COMMON>                                                1,018
<OTHER-SE>                                             (1,113)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                0
<SALES>                                                     0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                            0
<CGS>                                                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                               0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                        1,095
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                            0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                          0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                        (1,095)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                         0
<DISCONTINUED>                                              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                             0
<CHANGES>                                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                                           (1,095)
<EPS-BASIC>                                           (0.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                           (0.00)




</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6292

JOHN DANIEL ROBERTS, Petitioner - Appellant, versusMICHAEL MOORE, Director, SCDC; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (CA-9-2761-2-20AJ) Submitted: July 2, 1998 Decided: July 27, 1998 Before NIEMEYER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John Daniel Roberts, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* Appellant’s action was referred to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (1994). 2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). * We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. The record shows that Appellant failed to file an objection to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation and that the Appellant was apparently not given a warning about the consequences of failure to object. In light of Appellant’s failure to object, the district court did not conduct a de novo review; however, this error is harmless. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. 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
N OTE : This order is nonprecedential

. 

# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________ DELTA DANIELLE HARRIS, Plaintiff

- Appellant

v.

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, Defendant

- Appellee

______________________

2023

- 1503

______________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida in No. 2:20

- cv

- 14195

- RLR, Judge Robin L. Rosenberg.

______________________

Before D YK , R EYNA , and C HEN , Circuit Judges

. P ER C URIAM

. O R D E R
We dismiss Delta Danielle Harris’s recently

- docketed appeal. Ms. Harris seek s review of “the final judgment which was entered into the District Court on the 19 th day of December 2022.” ECF No. 1

- 2 at 1. But t he only entryon the district court’s docket from that date is the mandate of the United States Court of Appeals for the El eventh Circuit regarding its decision affirming the district court’s dismissal of Ms. Harris’s complaint and denial of Case: 23-1503 Document: 7 Page: 1 Filed: 03/08/2023HARRIS v. INTERIOR 2

transfer to this court. This court does not possess jurisdiction to review the decisions of other courts of appeal s , see 28 U.S.C. § 129 5, and therefore this matter must be dismissed.
Accordingly,

I T I S O RDERED T HAT : (1) This appeal is dismissed.
(2) Each side shall bear its own costs.

March 8 , 2023 Date F OR THE C OURT

/s/ Peter R. Marksteiner Peter R. Marksteiner Clerk of Court Case: 23-1503 Document: 7 Page: 2 Filed: 03/08/2023
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Fernando Gastelum, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Teshara Investments LLC, 

Defendant. 

No. CV-17-04090-PHX-JAT

ORDER 

 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s counsel’s request to stay this case until 

Plaintiff can find new counsel. (Doc. 19). Three weeks have elapsed and no new counsel 

has appeared. The Court will not stay this case indefinitely. Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that by September 7, 2018, Plaintiff must either have substitute 

counsel who files a notice of appearance (or current can inform the Court if his 

suspension is no longer in place) or advise the Court of his address so that he can proceed 

pro se. If Plaintiff neither provides his address to proceed pro se, nor has counsel who 

can continue representation immediately, the Court will dismiss this case without 

prejudice. Thus, the motion to stay (Doc. 19) is denied except as to the limited relief 

provided herein. 

 Dated this 9th day of August, 2018.
##### 



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 Discovery Bancorp (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, James P. Kelley, II, President and Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, certify that:  (1)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 (a) or 15 (d), as applicable,
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. This certification is provided solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and shall not be deemed to be part of the Report
of filed for any purpose whatsoever. /s/ James P. Kelley, IIJames P. Kelley, II,President and Chief Executive Officer June 30, 2005
2004 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

9-15-2004

Zdrok v. V Secret Catalogue

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 02-3450

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2004

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2004 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"Zdrok v. V Secret Catalogue" (2004). 2004 Decisions. Paper 337.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2004/337
 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

Nos. 02-3450 & 03-2321

VICTORIA ZDROK, individually

d/b/a Planet Victoria, Inc.; d/b/a PlanetVictoria.com

v.

V SECRET CATALOGUE, INC.;

VICTORIA'S SECRET DIRECT, LLC;

VICTORIA'S SECRET STORES, INC.;

INTIMATE BEAUTY CORP.,

each corporations

VICTORIA ZDROK, individually and doing business

as Planet Victoria, Inc. and PlanetVictoria.com,

Appellant at No. 02-3450

VICTORIA ZDROK, individually and doing business

as Planet Victoria, Inc. and PlanetVictoria.com; and

her attorneys of record MICHAEL A. TAYLOR*,

ESQ. and STEVEN L. SLOCA*, ESQ.,

Appellants at No. 03-2321

(*Pursuant to Rule 12(a), F.R.A.P. and Amended Notice of Appeal 5/23/03)

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of New Jersey

D.C. Civil Action No. 01-cv-04282

(Honorable William G. Bassler)
 

*The Honorable Arthur L. Alarcón, United States Circuit Judge for the Ninth Judicial

Circuit, sitting by designation.

2

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

May 25, 2004

Before: SCIRICA, Chief Judge, RENDELL and ALARCÓN*, Circuit Judges

ORDER AMENDING OPINION

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the not precedential opinion in the above

case, filed July 23, 2004, be amended as follows:

Page 4, carryover paragraph, last sentence: Delete sentence which read:

Neither party informed this Court of these recent rulings by the Ohio

court, contrary to their responsibility to submit relevant supplemental

materials necessary to render a fair and impartial verdict. See Fed. R.

App. P. 28(j).

BY THE COURT,

 /s/ Anthony J. Scirica

Chief Judge

DATED: September 15, 2004
Case 2:17-cr-01402-GMS Document 1 Filed 09/07/17 Page 1 of 4
Case 2:17-cr-01402-GMS Document 1 Filed 09/07/17 Page 2 of 4
Case 2:17-cr-01402-GMS Document 1 Filed 09/07/17 Page 3 of 4
Case 2:17-cr-01402-GMS Document 1 Filed 09/07/17 Page 4 of 4
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE
F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: In re Seabrook Children’s Academy, Inc. and Stacy Earl

Appellate case number: 01

- 1 4

- 00 6 68

- CV

Trial court case number: 2013

- 41596

Trial court: 19 0 th Judicial District Court of Harris County

On August 11 , 201 4

, r elator s
, Seabrook Children’s Academy, Inc. and Stacy Earl,

filed a petition for writ of mandamus and an opposed motion for temporary stay of all proceedings. Relators request that we stay all trial court proceedings until this Court resolves their mandamus petition seeking review of the trial court’s July 2 1 , 2014 order granting the plaintiff’s motion for continuance of the hearing on the relator’s no

- evidence motion for summary judgment and the trial court’s failure to rule on their summary judgment motion.

Accordingly, we ORDER that all proceedings in the above

- referenced trial court

case ar e s tayed

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 52.10(b). This stay is effective until the mandamus petition in this Court is finally decided or the Court otherwise orders the stay lifted. Any party may file a motion for reconsideration of the stay. See id. at 52.10(c).

Th e Court requests a response to the mandamus petition by the real parties in

interest within 10 days from the date of this order

. See TEX. R. APP . P. 2, 52

. 4

.
It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Evelyn V. Keyes

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: August 19, 2014