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











Each of
the undersigned hereby certifies, for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, in
his capacity as an officer of Omega Flex, Inc. (the “Company”), that, to his
knowledge:





(a)         the
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the fiscal quarter
ended  June 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the “Report”), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





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








Dated:
June 30, 2010





/s/  Kevin R.
Hoben





Kevin R.
Hoben


Chief
Executive Officer








/s/  Paul J.
Kane





Paul J.
Kane


Chief
Financial Officer








This
certification is not deemed to be “filed” for purposes of section 18 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, or otherwise subject to the liability of that
section.  This certification is not deemed to be incorporated by
reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, except to the extent that the Company specifically
incorporates it by reference.
1

 
     7. No director shall be personally liable to the Corporation or its stockholders for monetarydamages for any breach of fiduciary duty by such director as a director. Notwithstanding theforegoing sentence, a director shall be liable to the extent provided by applicable law, (i) forbreach of the director’s duty of loyalty to the Corporation or its stockholders, (ii) for acts oromissions not in good faith or which involve intentional misconduct or a knowing violation of law,(iii) pursuant to Section 174 of the DGCL or (iv) for any transaction from which the directorderived an improper personal benefit. If the DGCL hereafter is amended to authorize the furtherelimination or limitation of the liability of directors, then the liability of a director of theCorporation, in addition to the limitation on personal liability provided herein, shall be limitedto the fullest extent permitted by the amended DGCL. No amendment to or repeal of this Article 7shall apply to or have any effect on the liability or alleged liability of any director of theCorporation for or with respect to any acts or omissions of such director occurring prior to suchamendment.     8. The Corporation shall indemnify, to the fullest extent permitted by Section 145 of theDGCL, as amended from time to time, each person that such section grants the Corporation the powerto indemnify.     9. The name and mailing address of the incorporator is Tara A. Laszlo, c/o Feldman Weinstein& Smith LLP, 420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 2620, New York, New York 10170.     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned, being the incorporator hereinbefore named, has executed,signed and acknowledged this certificate of incorporation this 6th day of October, 2006.              /s/ Tara A. Laszlo   Tara A. Laszlo   Incorporator  
2
No. 72-846.

#### Ball, Director, Department of Agriculture of Michigan, et al. *v.*Armour & Co. et al.

C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDGMENT

No. 04

- 18

- 00252

- CR

Benjamin ESCOBEDO

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 227th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2016CR4634

Honorable Kevin M. O ’ Connell, Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE MARION

, JUSTICE MARTINEZ , AND JUSTICE RIOS

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s judgment with regard

to Appellant’s conviction for the offense of continuous sexual abuse of a child is AFFIRMED. The

trial court’s judgment with regard to Appellant’s convictions for the offenses of sexual assault of

a child and indecency with a child by contact, as alleged in Counts II, IV, and V, are REVERSED

AND VACATED.

SIGNED December 27, 2018.

_____________________________ Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Lorenzo C. JACKSON, Appellant. Lorenzo C. JACKSON, Movant-Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

Nos. 64970, 67917.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Two.

Dec. 12, 1995.

Gary E. Brotherton, Office of the State Public Defender, Columbia, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., David G. Brown, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before CRAHAN, P.J., and CRANDALL and DOWD, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Defendant, Lorenzo Jackson, appeals from the judgments of conviction of first degree murder and armed criminal action, entered pursuant to jury verdicts. He was sentenced, as a prior and persistent offender, to consecutive, terms of life imprisonment without possibility of parole and life imprisonment, respectively. He also appeals from the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion without an evidentiary hearing.

We have reviewed the points on appeal relating to defendant’s direct appeal and find that no jurisprudential purpose would be served by written opinion. Defendant’s judgments of conviction are affirmed. Rule 30.25.

We have reviewed defendant’s claim of error relative to the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion and find the court’s findings of fact are not clearly erroneous. No error of law appears. A written opinion would have no precedential value. The denial of defendant’s Rule 29.15 motion is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
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 

FARHANG 

&

MEDCOFF

FARHANG & MEDCOFF

4801 E. Broadway Boulevard, Suite 311 

Tucson, Arizona 85711 

T: 520.790.5433 

F:520.790.5736 

Robert C. Garcia (#026246) 

rgarcia@fmlaw.law 

Cody D. Vandewerker (#033385) 

cvandewerker@fmlaw.law 

Attorneys for Defendants

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Nicholas Delisle, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Downtown Clifton, LLC and Moniqua 

Lane and Monte Workman, husband and 

wife, 

Defendants. 

Case No: CV 18-0008-DTF 

CORPORATE DISCLOSURE 

STATEMENT 

This Corporate Disclosure Statement is filed on behalf of Downtown Clifton, LLC 

in compliance with the provisions of: 

__X__ Rule 7.1, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a nongovernmental corporate 

party to an action in a district court must file a statement that identifies any parent 

corporation and any publicly held corporation that owns 10% or more of its stock or states 

that there is no such corporation. 

____ Rule 12.4(a)(1), Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure, any nongovernmental 

corporate party to a proceeding in a district court must file a statement that identifies any 

parent corporation and any publicly held corporation that owns 10% or more of its stock or 

states that there is no such corporation. 

____ Rule 12.4(a)(2), Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure, if an organizational 

victim of alleged criminal activity is a corporation the government must file a statement 

Case 4:18-cv-00008-DTF Document 10 Filed 03/08/18 Page 1 of 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 

FARHANG 

&

MEDCOFF

 

- 2 -

identifying the victim and the statement must also disclose the information required by Rule 

12.4(a)(1). 

The filing party hereby declares as follows: 

__X__ No such corporation. 

____ Party is a parent, subsidiary or other affiliate of a publicly owned corporation 

as listed below. (Attach additional pages if needed.) Relationship ____ 

____ Publicly held corporation, not a party to the case, with a financial interest in 

the outcome. List identity of corporation and the nature of financial interest. (Attach 

additional pages if needed.) Relationship ____ 

____ Other (please explain) 

___________________________________________________________________ 

___________________________________________________________________ 

A supplemental disclosure statement will be filed upon any change in the 

information provided herein. 

DATED this 8th day of March 2018. 

FARHANG & MEDCOFF

By /s/ Cody D. Vandewerker 

 Robert C. Garcia 

 Cody D. Vandewerker Attorneys for Defendants 

Copy mailed or emailed* this 8th day of 

March 2018 to: 

Thomas Griffin* 

ROBAINA & KRESIN PLLC 

5343 North 16th Street, Suite 200 

Phoenix, Arizona 85016 

ttg@robainalaw.com 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

Case 4:18-cv-00008-DTF Document 10 Filed 03/08/18 Page 2 of 2
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 114 (Wednesday, June 12, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29760-29761]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-14809]



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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
National Park Service


River Management Plan, Environmental Assessment, Canyonlands 
National Park

AGENCY: National Park Service, Department of the Interior.

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an environmental assessment for the 
River Management Plan, Canyonlands National Park.

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

SUMMARY: Under the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act, 
the National Park Service is preparing an environmental assessment for 
the River Management Plan for the Green and Colorado Rivers, including 
Cataract Canyon, in Canyonlands National Park.
    The effort will result in a comprehensive management plan that 
encompasses preservation of natural and cultural resources, visitor use 
and interpretation. In cooperation with the Bureau of Land Management 
and the State of Utah, attention will also be given to resources 
outside the boundaries that affect the Green and Colorado Rivers in 
Canyonlands

[[Page 29761]]

National Park. Alternatives to be considered include no action, a 
preferred alternative, and other alternatives.
    Canyonlands National Park has begun the scoping phase of the 
planning process, and is soliciting comments on issues and concerns 
that should be addressed by the River Management Plan. Issues 
identified to date include the type of recreational experience desired 
by visitors, the limited number of river corridor campsites during high 
water periods, the availability of permits for commercial and non-
commercial river runners, and impacts from river users on natural and 
cultural resources.
    To make comments or to obtain information on issues identified to 
date, contact David Wood, Canyonlands National Park, 2282 South West 
Resource Boulevard, Moab, Utah 84532, telephone 801-259-3911 ext. 2133, 
electronic mail Dave--W<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#741b1b10341a04075a131b02"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="99f6f6fdd9f7e9eab7fef6ef">[email protected]</span></a>. Scoping comments will be accepted 
at the above address for 30 days following publication of this notice.

For Further Information: Contact Superintendent Walter D. Dabney, 
Canyonlands National Park, 801-259-3911.

    Dated: May 24, 1996.
Walter D. Dabney,
Superintendent, Southeast Utah Group, National Park Service.
[FR Doc. 96-14809 Filed 6-11-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-70-P

</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### JONES *v.*JONES.

Where, after argument of a case on writ of error to the sustaining of a demurrer to a libel for divorce, the parties resumed marital relations and were no longer living apart, the questions raised became moot.

No. 3017.

October 11, 1922.

Eibel for divorce. Before C. H. Porter, judge pro hac vice. Floyd superior court. October 29,-1921.

*Willingham, Wright & Covington,*for plaintiff.

*G. E. Maddox, M. B. Eubanks-,*and-F. *W. Copeland,*for defendant.

Atkinson, J.

Mrs. Estelle C. Jones brought suit against J. M. Jones, for divorce, alimony, and the custody of their child. At an interlocutory hearing an order was granted giving the plaintiff temporary, alimony, attorney’s fees, and custody of the child until the further order of the court. The original petition was twice amended. Upon the hearing of a demurer the court struck so much of the petition as related to grounds of divorce, and retained so much of it as related to alimony and custody of the child. The plaintiff excepted to so much of the judgment as was adverse to her. After the case was argued in the Supreme Court, one of the attorneys of record for the defendant in error informed the court that the parties had resumed marital relations, and were no longer living separate and apart. A rule was duly issued and served upon the opposing counsel of record, requiring the plaintiff in error to show cause why the writ of error should not be dismissed on the ground that the questions therein raised are moot-.

No answer having been made or cause to the contrary shown, the writ of error will be dismissed.

*Writ of error dismissed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
<PAGE>
                                                                               .
                                                                               .
                                                                               .

                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1


                           INDUS INTERNATIONAL, INC.

                              LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES


<Table>
<Caption>
NAME OF SUBSIDIARY (AND DOING BUSINESS AS)            STATE OF INCORPORATION
------------------------------------------            ----------------------

<S>                                                   <C>
Indus Group North America, Inc.                       California
Indus Foreign Sales Corporation                       U.S. Virgin Islands
Indus UK, Inc.                                        California
Indus International, Ltd.                             United Kingdom
Indus International, S.A.                             France
Indus International Pty Ltd.                          Australia
Indus International Software Pte. Ltd.                Singapore
Indus International Canada, Inc.                      Canada
Indus International Japan, Inc.                       Delaware
Indus APAC, Inc.                                      Delaware
Wishbone Systems, Inc.                                New Jersey
Wishbone Systems GmbH                                 Germany
</Table>
**Exhibit 32**

**Certificate pursuant to18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of FirstBank Financial Services, Inc. (the“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Thaddeus M. Williams, ChiefExecutive Officer of the Company, and I, Lisa J. Maxwell, Chief FinancialOfficer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adoptedpursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1.             To myknowledge, the Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2.             The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|        | /s/ Thaddeus M.  Williams                    |   |
|--------|----------------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Thaddeus M.  Williams, President and C.E.O.  |
|   | (Principal  Executive Officer)               |
|   |                                         |
|   |                                         |
|   |                                         |
|        | /s/ Lisa J. Maxwell                          |   |
|   | Lisa J. Maxwell, C.F.O.                      |
|   | (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer) |
|   |                                         |
|   | May 14, 2007                                 |   |
|        |                                              |        |  |

 

1

----
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 104 (Wednesday, May 29, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 26906]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-13593]



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

FEDERAL RESERVE BOARD


Sunshine Act Meeting

Agency Holding the Meeting: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve 
System.

Time and Date: 11:00 a.m., Monday, June 3, 1996.

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: May 24, 1996.
Jennifer J. Johnson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 96-13593 Filed 5-24-96; 2:36 pm]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### March 21, 2006 Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

SHAWN R. CHAPMAN,

Petitioner-Appellant, No. 05-6321

v. (D.C. No. CIV-04-719-C) RON WARD (W. D. Okla.)

Respondent-Appellee.

ORDER

Before KELLY , McKAY, and LUCERO , Circuit Judges.

Petitioner, a state prisoner appearing pro se, seek s habeas relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The magistrate judge dismissed h is petition as time-barred by the statute of limitations. Report and Recommendat ion, 5 (W.D. Okla. Aug. 24, 2004). Petitioner did not appeal the magistrate ju dge’s Report and Recommendation even though he was advised that the deadline for filing objections was September 12, 2004. In a September 22, 2004, Order, Petitioner was granted an extension of time until October 13, 2004, to file his objections. No objections were filed. On October 28, 2004, the district court entered a separate judgment and order adopting the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation and dismissing the petition as untim ely. Petitioner filed a-2-

timely appeal in the district court on November 9, 2004. By failing to file an objection to the magistrate j udge’s Report and Recommendation, Petitioner has waived his right to appellate review of both factual and legal determinations, unless we elect t o review the merits of the appeal based on the “interests of justice” exceptio n. See Key Energy Resources Inc. v. Merrill , 230 F.3d 1197, 1199-1200 (10th Cir. 2000); Moore v. United States , 950 F.2d 656, 659 (10th Cir. 1991). We do not so elect. The issues Petitioner raises on appeal are identica l to those brought before the district court. To grant a certificate of appe alability, Petitioner must make a “substantial showing of the denial of a constitutio nal right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (1994). To meet this burden, Petitionermust demonstrate “that reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for th at matter, agree that) the petition should have been resolved in a different m anner or that the issues presented were adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (quotation omitted). We have carefully reviewed Petitioner’s brief, the district court’s disposition, the magistrate judge’s recommendation, and the record on appeal. Nothing in the facts, the record on appeal, or Peti tioner’s filing raises an issue which meets our standard for the grant of a certifi cate of appealability. For substantially the same reasons set forth by the mag istrate judge and adopted by-3-

the district court in its order of October 28, 2004 , we cannot say “that reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition should have been resolved in a different manner.” Id. We DENY Petitioner’s request for a certificate of appealab ility and his motion to proceed in forma pauperis , and we DISMISS the appeal. Entered for the Court

Monroe G. McKay Circuit Judge
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

Peter Strojnik, State Bar No. 6464

STROJNIK P.C.

2375 East Camelback Road Suite 600

Phoenix, Arizona 85016

Telephone:(602) 524-6602

ADA@strojnik.com 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Fernando Gastelum,

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Mesa Hospitality LLC,

Defendant.

Case No: 2:18-cv-00559-JZB

Plaintiff’s Discovery Request 

Number 1

Please take notice that the Discovery Request Number One has been served on 

Defendant on the 30th day of April, 2018.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 30TH Day of April, 2018.

Peter Strojnik, 6464

STROJNIK P.C.

2375 East Camelback Road Suite 600

Phoenix, Arizona 85016

Telephone: (602) 524-6602

ADA@strojnik.com 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

Case 2:18-cv-00559-JZB Document 22 Filed 04/30/18 Page 1 of 1
----

----

| x | QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 |
|---|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| ¨ | TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                                           |                                 |
|----------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------|
| Delaware                                                       | 20-5913059                           |
| (State or other jurisdiction of incorporation or organization) | (I.R.S. Employer Identification No.) |
|                                                           |                                 |
| 700 Milam Street, Suite 800Houston, Texas                      | 77002                                |
| (Address of principal executive offices)                       | (Zip Code)                           |

|                    |   |                                |   |   |
|-------------------------|--------|-------------------------------------|--------|--------|
| Large accelerated filer | ¨ | Accelerated filer                   | x      |
| Non-accelerated filer   | ¨ | Smaller reporting company | ¨ |

----

----

|   | CHENIERE ENERGY PARTNERS, L.P.                                                            |
|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |                                                                                      |
|   | By: Cheniere Energy Partners GP, LLC, its general partner                                 |
|   |                                                                                      |
|   | /s/    JERRY D. SMITH         |
|   | Jerry D. SmithChief Accounting Officer                                                    |
|   | (on behalf of the registrant and as principal accounting officer)                         |
|   |                                                                                      |
|   | Date: August 6, 2009                                                                      |

----