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

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the IOMED, Inc. (the "Company") Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ending June 30, 2004, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Robert J. Lollini, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, 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 my knowledge:



|Date: September 22, 2004 |  | By: |  | /s/ROBERT J. LOLLINIRobert J. Lollini President and Chief Executive
Officer
|------------------------ |  | --- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to IOMED, Inc. and will be retained by IOMED, Inc. and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---



QuickLinks
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 115 (Thursday, June 13, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 30108]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-14982]



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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Maritime Administration


Reports, Forms and Recordkeeping Requirements; Agency Information 
Collection Activity Under OMB Review

AGENCY: Department of Transportation (DOT), Maritime Administration 
(MARAD).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 
et seq.), this notice announces that the Information Collection Request 
(ICR) abstracted below has been forwarded to the Office of Management 
and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The ICR describes the nature 
of the information collection and its expected cost and burden. The 
Federal Register notice with a 60-day comment period soliciting 
comments on the following collection of information was published on 
March 7, 1996 [FR 61, page 9223].

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before July 8, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joseph Freeman, (202) 366-6057, and 
refer to the OMB Control Number.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title: Applications and Amendments for Participant Under Section 
651, Subtitle B, Merchant Marine Act, 1936, as Amended.
    OMB Control Number: 2133-0525.
    Abstract: The Maritime Security Bill provides for the acceptance of 
applications for enrollment in the Maritime Security Fleet. Because 
each vessel accepted as a participant in the Maritime Security Fleet 
will receive support payments for up to ten years, the information 
submitted on the application must be certified to be true and correct.
    The information collected will form the pool of vessels from which 
the Maritime Security Fleet will be selected.
    The information collected is intended for: the initial application 
for participation in the Maritime Security Fleet, and amendments for 
additional vessels or changes to existing vessels or status of the 
applicant.
    Respondents: The respondents are carrier desiring to enroll their 
vessels in the Maritime Security Program Fleet.
    Annual Reporting and Recordkeeping Burden: The number of 
respondents are approximately 10. The total annual responses are 10. 
The total annual burden hours are 80.
    Frequency: Reporting is one-time.
    Send comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, 
Office of Management and Budget, 725-17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 
20503, Attention MARAD Desk Officer.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on June 6, 1996.
Phillip A. Leach,
Clearance Officer, United States Department of Transportation.
[FR Doc. 96-14982 Filed 6-12-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-18-P
# United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted February 2, 2009 ∗

Decided February 25 , 2009



### Before

F RANK H. E ASTERBROOK

, Chief Judge

W ILLIAM J. B AUER

, Circuit Judge

M ICHAEL S. K ANNE

, C ircuit Judge



### No

. 08

- 3053

J ULIO J OSE L EON S ANCHEZ

, Petitioner

- Appellant,

v.

U NITED S TATES OF A MERICA

, Respondent

- Appellee

. Appeal from the United

States District Court for the

Western District of Wisconsin.

No. 08

- cv

- 243

- bbc

Barbara B. Crab b,

Chief Judge

.

Order

After denying Julio Jose Leon Sanchez’ s motion for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255,

the district judge stated that reasonable persons could disagree with her decision and

issued a certificate of appealability. This certificate does not comply with 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(3) because it does not identify the issue for appeal or state why that issue

∗ This successive appeal has been submitted to the original panel under Operating Procedure 6(b). After

examining the briefs and the record, we have concluded that oral argument is unnecessary. See Fed. R.

App. P. 34(a); Cir. R. 34(f). NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with

Fed. R. App. P. 32.1No. 08

- 3053 Page 2

satisfies the requirement of subsection (b)(2) that the appeal present a “ substantial

showing of the de nial of a constitutional right.” The dist rict court’ s certificate therefore

is vacated. Davis v. Borgen , 349 F.3d 1027 (7th Cir. 2003).

We h ave reviewed the district court’s opinion and appellant’ s brief. For the

reasons explained in the district court’ s thorough opinion, none of the arguments

presented by appellant is substantial. Sanchez therefore is not entitled to a certificate of

appealability in this court, and the appeal is dismissed.
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)

In connection with this Report on Form 10-Q for the six months ended March 31, 2011 (the Report) of
PennantPark Investment Corporation (the Registrant), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Arthur H. Penn, Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant, hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge,
that:



| | (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
Registrant.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                  
|------------------
|/s/ Arthur H. Penn
|Arthur H. Penn    
|May 4, 2011
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 115 (Thursday, June 13, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 30052]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-14992]



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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. RP96-269-000]


East Tennessee Natural Gas Company; Notice of Tariff Filing

June 7, 1996.
    Take notice that on June 5, 1996, East Tennessee Natural Gas 
Company (East Tennessee) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas 
Tariff, Second Revised Volume No. 1, the following revised tariff 
sheets with a proposed effective date of July 1, 1996.

First Revised Sheet No. 50
First Revised Sheet No. 51
Second Revised Sheet No. 52
First Revised Sheet No. 52A
Second Revised Sheet No. 53
Second Revised Sheet No. 55
Original Sheet No. 55A
Original Sheet No. 55B

    East Tennessee states that it is filing the instant tariff sheets 
to allow East Tennessee' customers to use their firm storage contracts 
with Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company (``Tennessee'') to manage the 
difference between scheduled and actual flows on a daily basis at East 
Tennessee's delivery points. East Tennessee states that it is filing 
revised tariff sheets so that it can test the proposed Swing Storage 
Option with a designated group of customers in a Pilot Program. After 
completion of the Pilot Program, East Tennessee will move to place the 
tariff sheets into effect on a systemwide basis or will propose 
modifications of those sheets based on actual operating experience.
    East Tennessee further states that Tennessee is making a filing 
simultaneously herewith setting forth the requirements during the Pilot 
Program to allow for downstream pipelines and their customers to use 
Tennessee's storage in a similar fashion.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to make any protest with 
reference to said filing should file a petition to intervene or protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street N.E., 
Washington, D.C. 20426, in accordance with Section 211 and 214 of the 
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.211 and 
385.214. All such petitions or protests must be filed as provided in 
Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to this 
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a petition 
to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file and available for 
public inspection in the Public Reference Room.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 96-14992 Filed 6-12-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
<PAGE>   1


                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.14


         Amendment to Section 8. Exercise of Options of the 1994 Stock Option
Plan

8.       Exercise of Options

         The term of each option  shall be not more than ten (10) years from the
date of granting  thereof or such shorter period as is prescribed in Paragraph 9
following.  No option or SAR may be exercised during the first six (6) months of
its term. Within such limit,  options will be exercisable at such time or times,
and subject to such restrictions and conditions, as the Committee shall, in each
instance,  approve,  which  need not be  uniform  for all  optionees;  provided,
however, that except as provided in Paragraphs 9 and 10 following, no option may
be  exercised at any time unless the optionee is then an employee of the Company
or a subsidiary and has been so employed  continuously since the granting of the
option.  The holder of an option shall have none of the rights of a  shareholder
with  respect to the shares  subject to option until such shares shall be issued
to him upon the exercise of his option. Upon exercise of an option the Committee
shall  withhold  a  sufficient   number  of  shares  to  satisfy  the  Company's
withholding obligations for any taxes incurred as a result of such exercise, and
the Committee may, at the request of the optionee,  withhold a sufficient number
of shares to satisfy the optionee's  tax liability  incurred as a result of such
exercise  up to the  maximum  marginal  federal,  state  and  local  tax  rates;
provided, that in lieu of all or part of such withholding,  the optionee may pay
an equivalent amount of cash to the Company.
DISTRICT JUDGE'S MINUTES

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA – PHOENIX

U.S. District Judge: Susan M. Brnovich Date: December 4, 2020

USA v. Lacey et al Case Number: CR-18-00422-PHX-SMB

Defendant-1: Michael Lacey, Released-Presence Waived

Attorney for Defendant: Paul Cambria, Jr., Robert Corn-Revere, and Erin McCampbell, Retained

Defendant-2: James Larkin, Released-Present

Attorney for Defendant: Thomas Bienert, Jr., Retained

Defendant-3: Scott Spear, Released-Present

Attorney for Defendant: Bruce Feder, Retained 

Defendant-4: John Brunst, Released-Presence Waived

Attorney for Defendant: Gopi Panchapakesan and Gary Lincenberg, Retained

Defendant-6: Andrew Padilla, Released-Presence Waived

Attorney for Defendant: David Eisenberg, CJA Appointment

Defendant-7: Joye Vaught, Released-Presence Waived

Attorney for Defendant: Joy Bertrand, CJA Appointment

TELEPHONIC MOTION HEARING:

All present parties appear telephonically. Oral argument is presented on the Motion to Stay (Doc. 1092). 

For the reasons stated on the record, the Court does not find the parties have met their burden to justify 

a stay in this matter. Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED the Motion to Stay (Doc. 1092) is denied.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED setting a telephonic status hearing for January 4, 2021 at 11:00 a.m.

Assistant U.S. Attorneys: Peter Kozinets, Margaret Perlmeter, Kevin Rapp, Andrew Stone, Daniel

Boyle, and Reginald Jones

Court Reporter Linda Schroeder 

Deputy Clerk Christine Boucher

Start: 10:02 a.m.

Stop: 11:25 a.m.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1097 Filed 12/04/20 Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT D

Case 4:18-cr-00353-RCC-BGM Document 45-5 Filed 03/21/19 Page 1 of 3
Case 4:18-cr-00353-RCC-BGM Document 45-5 Filed 03/21/19 Page 2 of 3
Case 4:18-cr-00353-RCC-BGM Document 45-5 Filed 03/21/19 Page 3 of 3
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

 

The undersigned, Jamie Arthur Lewin, of Dussault Apparel Inc., hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)           the quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Dussault Apparel Inc. for the three month period ended July 31, 2007 (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 Dussault Apparel Inc.

Date:  September 19, 2007

/s/ Jamie Arthur Lewin                                                          

Jamie Arthur Lewin 

Chief Financial Officer

(Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer)

 

 

 

CW1425312.1
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4.

### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-60959 Summary Calendar

JOHN W. HARDY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF SENATOBIA, MISSISSIPPI, Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi

No. 2:06-CV-81

Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and ELROD, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *

John Hardy appeals the summaryjudgment denying hisvariousstateand federal claims. Instead of attacking the judgment in regard to the merits, Hardy United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D July 22, 2008 Charles R. Fulbruge III ClerkNo. 07-60959

2 focuses on a notion that the motion for summary judgment was somehow not in a proper posture to be considered by the district court. In that respect, Hardy presents no cogent or meritorious argument. In any event, the summary judgment is sound on the merits. We affirm, essentially for the reasons given by the district court in its Memorandum Opinion entered on November 1, 2007. Although it does not affect the result, we note that the district court erred in its analysis of the Fifth Amendment concerning the incorporation doctrine for the Fourteenth Amendment. See, e.g. , Benton v. Maryland, 395 U.S. 784 (1969) (double jeopardy). AFFIRMED.
Paul A. 

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

June 10, 2015

No. 04-15-00329-CV

Michael E. GEIGER,

Appellant

v.

Paul A. HAMPEL,

Appellee

From the 407th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013-CI-13615

Honorable Renee Yanta, Judge Presiding

ORDER

On June 1, 2015, appellant filed a notice of appeal, which stated appellant is appealing

from the trial court’s April 13, 2015 judgment.1 On June 1, 2015, appellant also filed an 

affidavit of inability to pay costs in this court. It appears appellant did not file his affidavit in the 

trial court. 

A party who cannot pay the costs of an appeal must file an affidavit of indigence “in the 

trial court with or before the notice of appeal.” TEX. R. APP. P. 20.1(c)(1). Appellant’s affidavit 

was therefore due in the trial court on June 1, 2015, the date his notice of appeal was filed, or a 

motion for extension of time to file the affidavit was due in this court on or before June 16, 2015.

See id. R. 20.1(c)(1), (3). 

We construe the affidavit filed in this court on June 1, 2015, as a motion for extension of 

time to file the affidavit in the trial court. The affidavit was filed within the fifteen-day deadline 

 1 We note that on May 28, 2015, the district clerk filed a notification of late record in this court in which the clerk 

stated: “The prose [sic] is appealing the Judge’s notes from May 11, 2015, which is not an ORDER, therefore a 

Clerk’s Record will not be prepared.” First, we note that appellant’s notice of appeal specifically states he is 

appealing from a judgment signed April 13, 2015. Second, and more importantly, it is not for the district clerk to 

determine whether an appeal may be prosecuted or whether this court has jurisdiction over any particular appeal; 

rather, that is within the province of the appellate court.” We shall, at the appropriate time, determine whether 

appellant may prosecute the appeal. Accordingly, the notification of late record filed May 28, 2015, is DENIED AS 

MOOT. 
set forth in rule 20.1(3). See id. R. 20.1(c)(3). Accordingly, we GRANT the motion to extend 

time to file an affidavit of inability to pay costs. 

We further ORDER that any contest to the affidavit of indigence must be filed in 

this court on or before June 22, 2015. If no contest is timely filed, appellant will be deemed 

indigent and entitled to a clerk’s record and reporter’s record without cost. 

We ORDER the clerk of this court to send copies of the affidavit and this order to 

appellant, appellee, all counsel (if any), the district clerk, the court reporter, and the trial court 

judge. See id. R. 20.1(d)(2). All other appellate deadlines are suspended until further order of 

this court.

_________________________________

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 10th day of June, 2015.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit. No. 95-8821. Larry Grant LONCHAR, Petitioner-Appellee,

v. Tony TURPIN, Warden, Georgia Diagnostic and Classification Center, Respondent-Appellant. May 16, 1996. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia (No. 1:95-CV-1656-JTC), Jack T. Camp, Judge. ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES May 16, 1996. Before TJOFLAT, Chief Judge, and COX and DUBINA, Circuit Judges. Prior report: --- U.S. ----, 116 S.Ct. 1293, 134 L.Ed.2d 440. BY THE COURT: This case is before us on remand from the Supreme Court following a ruling and judgment vacating the judgment of this court. It is ordered that the case is remanded to the district court for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court's opinion.
## '**~&t-L-**

. l 

# Couu c4-

## 4~_~;_,._,~ L ..

## 4PP~~t/s 

# _________ _

l 

## f,o.**-r3a~( J.~~of$**  ______________ _ I l 

# ..**;Al.'..s.T~** 

# __ AJ I

### Tetk~ 7<{ 

# 7 !/

...... i

t

_ L 

### -R_t : 

## f?l.**~** 

### IGJ--e._ -biEF5

### ~ 0 4vJ AJ LA ;flf#i'62.,W l2.r I 1 Y t:;. 7

### ~ 

### zs-.

- . I -



### .. - -- ;!)e.t.rr<, . 

### 0) !?J_}(:

### ,1/~e.. Cour2..:) OR

### ~ou**p~Le.Ge-de..d..** A.vL.(

### KJ~: T 

### o.f

### ~~e-lkS 

## &P-4 u5 

### :1D Tl-\.e.

### ~uf2.r otJ M4'-/ 1/ 1

### ~~s~**wput~** 

### 'jPv {J/vf£e 

### Le....T

_

)/\£__**~** "vow 

### (.j 

### A 

## d e..c.-; 5 

# to A.J 

## fuo 6. e-e-J /Lv 

### l e 

### cL 

## -c tb.tAIC_S

<(**;J,AJC~l'i, -.~~~-**  

# RECEIVED. IN COURT OF CRIMINAt APPEALS JUN 2 4 2015 _f;/21!ff:Pj ] flow . .J 

### I 

### I;. 

## 'iPo.S-**Ab®~~@OOta c~~VIk** 

- ' ( 

### _fsre!IE UNt' I**_J_~** 

### !f fw-__ 

### 3 

### Y: 7 cj



## . t/uJ.J-ky 1 

## i fe- 

## Tx 7 7 .52. 

## o

- {**-~(_:**
AO 85 (Rev. 8/97) Notice, Consent, and Order of Reference - Exercise of Jurisdiction by a United States Magistrate Judge

(For Use In Civil Cases With District Judge as Presider)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

_______________________________ District of __________________________________________________

NOTICE, CONSENT, AND ORDER OF REFERENCEPlaintiff EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION BY A UNITED STATES

MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

 v.

 Case Number:

Defendant

NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY OF A UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

TO EXERCISE JURISDICTION

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. 636(c) and Fed.R.Civ.P.73, you are hereby notified that a United States magistrate

judge of this district court is available to conduct any or all proceedings in this case including a jury or nonjury trial, and to order the entry

of a final judgment. Exercise of this jurisdiction by a magistrate judge is, however, permitted only if all parties voluntarily consent.

You may, without adverse substantive consequences, withhold your consent, but this will prevent the court’s jurisdiction from

being exercised by a magistrate judge. If any party withholds consent, the identity of the parties consenting or withholding consent will

not be communicated to any magistrate judge or to the district judge to whom the case has been assigned.

An appeal from a judgment entered by a magistrate judge shall be taken directly to the United States court of appeals for this

judicial circuit in the same manner as an appeal from any other judgment of a district court.

CONSENT TO THE EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION BY A UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. 636(c) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 73, the parties in this case hereby voluntarily consent to

have a United States magistrate judge conduct any and all further proceedings in the case, including the trial, order the entry of a final

judgment, and conduct all post-judgment proceedings.

Signatures Party Represented Date

_____________________________________ __________________________________ ____________________

_____________________________________ __________________________________ ____________________

_____________________________________ __________________________________ ____________________

_____________________________________ __________________________________ ____________________

ORDER OF ASSIGNMENT

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this case be assigned to ______________________________________________________

United States Magistrate Judge, for all further proceedings and the entry of judgment in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 636(c), Fed.R.Civ.P.

73 and the foregoing consent of the parties. All further documents filed with the court are to carry the following case number

________________________________________.

________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________

 Date United States District Judge

NOTE: RETURN THIS FORM TO THE CLERK OF THE COURT ONLY IF ALL PARTIES HAVE CONSENTED ON THIS

FORM TO THE EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION BY A UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

Case 2:18-cv-00719-DLR Document 2 Filed 03/06/18 Page 1 of 1