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

                                SAVWATT USA, INC.
                             A Delaware Corporation
                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In  connection  with  this  amended   Quarterly  Report  of  SavWatt  USA,  Inc.
("Company")  on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2010, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, Isaac
H. Sutton, President and Chief Financial Officer, 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.


Dated: January 28, 2011                    /s/  Isaac H. Sutton
                                           -------------------------------------
                                      By:  Isaac H. Sutton
                                      Its: President and Chief Financial Officer
                                           (Principal Executive Officer)
                                           (Principal Financial Officer)
EXHIBIT 99.5

                                  CERTIFICATION

         Pursuant to Section  906 of the Public  Company  Accounting  Reform and
Investor  Protection  Act of 2002  (18  U.S.C.ss.  1350,  as  adopted),  Charles
Crocker,  the Chief Executive Officer of BEI Technologies,  Inc. (the "Company")
hereby certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:

         1.       The Company's  Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended
                  September 28, 2002, to which this Certification is attached as
                  Exhibit 99.5 (the "Annual  Report"),  fully  complies with the
                  requirements   of  Section  13(a)  or  Section  15(d)  of  the
                  Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

         2.       The   information   contained  in  the  Annual  Report  fairly
                  presents, in all material respects, the financial condition of
                  the  Company  at the end of the  period  covered by the Annual
                  Report and results of operations of the Company for the period
                  covered by the Annual Report.

Dated:   December 19, 2002

/s/ Charles Crocker
----------------------------
Charles Crocker
Chief Executive Officer
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 118 (Tuesday, June 18, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 30852]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-15429]



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


COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS

Agenda and Notice of Public Meeting of the New Jersey Advisory 
Committee

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and 
regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, that a meeting of 
the New Jersey Advisory Committee to the Commission will convene at 
10:00 a.m. and adjourn at 1:00 p.m. on Monday, July 1, 1996, at the New 
Jersey State House, Room 319, West State Street, Trenton, New Jersey 
08625. The purpose of the meeting is to plan future program activities.
    Persons desiring additional information, or planning a presentation 
to the Committee, should contact Ki-Taek Chun, Director of the Eastern 
Regional Office, 202-376-7533 (TDD 202-376-8116). Hearing-impaired 
persons who will attend the meeting and require the services of a sign 
language interpreter should contact the Regional Office at least five 
(5) working days before the scheduled date of the meeting.
    The meeting will be conducted pursuant to the provisions of the 
rules and regulations of the Commission.

    Dated at Washington, DC, June 7, 1996.
Carol-Lee Hurley,
Chief, Regional Programs Coordination Unit.
[FR Doc. 96-15429 Filed 6-17-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6335-01-P
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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of China Multimedia, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2007 (the "Report"), I, Wilson Cheung, 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 requirement 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 Company's
> financial position and results of operations.

/s/Wilson Cheung



Wilson Cheung, Chief Financial Officer

May 14, 2007
/ /4\ 

# FILED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FORTHE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

## JUL 30 

## 2010 Clerk 

### us' C ". District&8

Ourts for the Dist
. ankruptcy KEITH SMITH, Plaintiff,
v. Civil Action No. THE UNITED STATES, 

### et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION 

# 10 1299

This matter is before the Court onplaintiffs application to proceed 

### informapauperis and

### pro se complaint. The application will be granted, and the complaint will be dismissed. Plaintiffalleges that he has beenkidnapped and is held illegally in a privateprison, the Wheeler Correctional Facility in Alamo, Georgia. Among otherrelief, plaintiffdemands unspecified injunctive reliefand $20 million in damages. net of COlumbia

Because plaintiffs claims go to the fact ofhis incarceration, he cannotrecover damages in this civil rights action without showing that his confinement has been invalidated by "revers[al] on direct appeal, expunge[ment] by executive order, declar[ation ofinvalidity] by a state tribunal authorized to make such determination, or ... a federal court's issuance ofa writ of habeas corpus." 

### Heck v. 

### Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477,486-87 (1994); 

### accord White v. 

### Bowie, 194 F.3d 175 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (table). Plaintiffhas not satisfied this prerequisite and therefore his complaint fails to state a claim upon which reliefcan granted. This action will be dismissed under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(8)(ii) and 1915A(b)(1). An Order is issued separately.
Exhibit 16.1



Mine safety disclosure, as required
by Section 1503 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (“Dodd-Frank”)

Atna Resources Ltd. and Subsidiaries
— January through December 2014



|                        |  |           |  |         |  |           |  |            |  |         |  |              |         |  |            |   |            |    | Received  |    |         |   |           |   |         
|----------------------- |  | --------- |  | ------- |  | --------- |  | ---------- |  | ------- |  | ------------ | ------- |  | ---------- | - | ---------- | -- | --------- | -- | ------- | - | --------- | - | --------
|                        |  |           |  |         |  |           |  |            |  |         |  |              |         |  |            |   | Received   |    | Notice of |    | Legal   |   |           |   |         
|                        |  |           |  |         |  |           |  |            |  |         |  |              |         |  | Total      |   | Notice of  |    | Potential |    | Actions |   |           |   |         
|                        |  |           |  |         |  | Section   |  |            |  |         |  | Total Dollar |         |  | Number     |   | Pattern of |    | to Have   |    | Pending |   | Legal     |   | Legal   
|Mine or                 |  |           |  |         |  | 104(d)    |  |            |  |         |  | Value of     |         |  | of         |   | Violations |    | Pattern   |    | as of   |   | Actions   |   | Actions 
|Operating               |  | Section   |  | Section |  | Citations |  | Section    |  | Section |  | MSHA         |         |  | Mining     |   | Under      |    | Under     |    | Last    |   | Initiated |   | Resolved
|Name/MSHA               |  | 104 S&S   |  | 104(b)  |  | and       |  | 110(b)(2)  |  | 107(a)  |  | Assessments  |         |  | Related    |   | Section    |    | Section   |    | Day of  |   | During    |   | During  
|Identification          |  | Citations |  | Orders  |  | Orders    |  | Violations |  | Orders  |  | Proposed     |         |  | Fatalities |   | 104(e)     |    | 104(e)    |    | Period  |   | Period    |   | Period  
|Number                  |  | (#)       |  | (#)     |  | (#)       |  | (#)        |  | (#)     |  | ($)          |         |  | (#)        |   | (yes/no)   |    | (yes/no)  |    | (#)     |   | (#)       |   | (#)     
|Briggs Mine ID 0405276  |  | 31        |  | 0       |  | 0         |  | 0          |  | 0       |  | $            | 113,613 |  |            | 0 |            | NO |           | NO |         | 0 |           | 0 |         
|Pinson Mine ID 26-01597 |  | 0         |  | 0       |  | 0         |  | 0          |  | 0       |  | $            | 877     |  |            | 0 |            | NO |           | NO |         | 0 |           | 0 |
The Hon. Danny C. Reeves, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Kentucky, sitting

*

by designation. 

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION

File Name: 06a0730n.06

Filed: October 4, 2006

Nos. 05-1211/05-1472

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

DUANE MONTGOMERY,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

CITIBANK, N.A.,

Defendant-Appellee.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED

STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

Before: MARTIN and DAUGHTREY, Circuit Judges, and REEVES, District Judge. *

PER CURIAM. This litigation began in the bankruptcy court, following attempts by

defendant Citibank to foreclose on plaintiff Duane Montgomery’s home for non-payment

on Montgomery’s mortgage note. In defense of the threatened foreclosure, Montgomery

filed three law suits in Michigan state court, pursued four appeals to the state appellate

court, applied for leave to the state supreme court, filed four bankruptcy petitions, and

sought three appeals to the district court. It is the last two of these actions – two decisions

by the bankruptcy court and the subsequent affirmances by the district court – that are the

subject of the consolidated appeal currently before us. However, the plaintiff has failed to

file an appropriate joint appendix in this court, in violation of Sixth Circuit Rule 30. We are,
Nos. 05-1211/05-1472

Montgomery v. Citibank

- 2 -

therefore, authorized to dismiss the appeal pursuant to Rule 30(m), and because it

appears that these appeals are simply one more stage of the dilatory litigation described

by the district court in its order of May 6, 2005, we elect to do so.

The appeals are DISMISSED and the cases are REMANDED to the district court

for further proceedings on the question of sanctions in Civil Action No. 05-CV-70009-BAFDAS.
<PAGE>   1
RCN CORPORATION
LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES

                                                                      Exhibit 21
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                      State of        Percentage
Name                                                  Incorporation   Owned
<S>                                                   <C>             <C>
RCN Corporation                                       DE              100%
TEC Air, Inc.                                         DE              100%
RCN Financial Management, Inc.                        DE              100%
RCN Internet Service, Inc.                            DE              100%
UNET Holding, Inc.                                    DE              100%
Brainstorm Networks, Inc.                             CA              100%
RCN Telecom Services, Inc.                            PA              100%
RCN International Holdings, Inc.                      DE              100%
RCN Telecom Services of Illinois, Inc.                IL              100%
21st Century Telecom Services, Inc.                   DE              100%
RCN Cable TV of Chicago, Inc.                         DE              100%
RCN Telecom Services of Massachusetts, Inc.           MA              100%
RCN Telecom Services of Philadelphia, Inc.            PA              100%
RCN  Telecom Services of Virginia, Inc.               VA              100%
RCN Telecom Services of Washington, D.C., Inc.        DC              100%
RLH Property Corporation                              NJ              100%
RCN-BecoCom, LLC                                      MA              76.86%
Starpower Communications, LLC                         DE              50%
</TABLE>
---

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

The undersigned, Joe Loeppky, 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 Search By Headlines.com Corp. for the
quarterly period ended January 31, 2008 (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 Search By
Headlines.com Corp.

Dated: March 7, 2008



/s/ Joe Loeppky Joe Loeppky President,
Secretary, Treasurer and Director (Principal Executive Officer, Principal
Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer)





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 Search By
Headlines.com Corp. and will be retained by Search By Headlines.com Corp. 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 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

United States of America, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Def. 1 Michael Lacey 

Def. 2 James Larkin, 

Defendants. 

No. CR-18-00422-PHX-SPL 

ORDER 

 Defendants James Larkin and Michael Lacey have filed a motion for an extension 

of time to file an opposition in response to the government’s motion to disqualify counsel 

(second request). (Doc. 149.) These Defendants ask the Court to extend the time for 

their response in opposition from May 23, 2018 to June 6, 2018. (Id.) Defendants state 

that they were unable to resolve this issue through personal consultation with the 

government’s counsel. (Id. at 2.) 

 Defendants have also filed a motion for an accelerated hearing on their motion for 

an extension of time. (Doc. 150.) Defendants ask the Court to set a hearing on the 

motion for an extension of time for May 23, 2018 at 9:00 a.m., at the same time as 

another hearing in this matter. (Id.) However, Defendants subsequently filed a notice of 

errata after realizing that the May 23, 2018 hearing is set before United States District 

Judge Steven P. Logan, not before United States Magistrate Judge Bridget S. Bade.1

 

 1

 The government’s motion to disqualify counsel (Doc. 118) was referred to United 

States Magistrate Judge Bridget S. Bade on May 2, 2018. (Doc. 129.) 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 156 Filed 05/21/18 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 

(Doc. 153.) The government has not yet filed a response to Defendants’ motion for an 

extension of time. 

 Although the Court cannot set an accelerated hearing on the motion for an 

extension of time for May 23, 2018, at the same time as the hearing set before United 

States District Judge Steven P. Logan, it recognizes that Defendants’ response to the 

motion to disqualify counsel is due before the government’s response to the motion for an 

extension of time is due. Therefore, the Court will order expedited briefing on the 

motion for an extension of time and stay the deadline for the Defendants’ response to the 

motion to disqualify until it rules on the motion for an extension of time. 

 Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that the government must file its response to Defendants’ 

motion for an extension of time (Doc. 149) by May 23, 2018 at 12:00 p.m. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants must file their reply in support of 

their motion for an extension of time, if any, by May 24, 2018 at 9:00 a.m.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERD that the deadline for Defendants’ response to the 

motion to disqualify counsel is stayed pending resolution of their motion for an extension 

of time. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ motion to accelerate hearing 

(Doc. 150) is DENIED as moot. 

 Dated this 21st day of May, 2018. 

 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 156 Filed 05/21/18 Page 2 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 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

__,FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

United States of America, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Georgina Warren, 

, Defendant. 

No. CR-17-08315-001-PCT-SPL 

ORDER 

Defendant appeared in court with counsel. Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3141 et. seq. a 

detention hearing was held. The ·defendant is ordered detained pending an intake 1, 

assessment for placement at Crossroads in Phoenix, Arizona or other facility as 

designated by Pretrial Services. Should defendant qualify for such placement, defendant 

shall be released upon conditions set by this Court, including pretrial residency at said 

facility, as conditions do exist which would reasonably assure the safety of others and the 

appearance of the defendant. Should defendant not so qualify, the release conditions set 

by this Court shall be vacated and defendant shall be detained pending trial as there are 

no conditions or combination of conditions which would reasonably assure the safety of 

others or the appearance of the defendant. 

The Pretrial Services Officer is ordered to timely notify this Court of the 

defendant's intake assessment results, and if found acceptable, the date and time the 

II 
1 facility will provide transportation from the Sandra Day 0' Connor Courthouse for the 

2 defendant. 

3 Dated this 10th day of January, 2018. 

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 

- 2 -
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Pablo GOMEZ, Appellant. Pablo GOMEZ, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

Nos. 61852, 64583.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Five.

Aug. 23, 1994.

Ellen H. Flottman, Office of the State Public Defender, Columbia, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Jennifer A. Clancy, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before GRIMM, C.J., and CRIST and CARL R. GAERTNER, J.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Defendant, Pablo Gomez, appeals from his convictions of burglary in the first degree, four counts of assault in the first degree and four counts of armed criminal action. He *734also appeals from the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion after an evidentiary hearing. Finding no error, we affirm. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum setting forth reasons for our decision.

Judgment and sentence affirmed pursuant to Rules 30.25(b) and 84.16(b).
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 112 (Monday, June 10, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 29429]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-14714]



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

FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting

TIME AND DATE: 10:00 a.m., Wednesday, June 12, 1996.

PLACE: Room 6005, 6th Floor, 1730 K Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.

STATUS: Open.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: The Commission will consider and act upon the 
following:

    1. New Warwick Mining Co., Docket Nos. PENN 93-199-R and PENN 
93-308. (Issues include whether the judge correctly determined that 
the operator violated 30 CFR Sec. 70.207(a) by taking respirable 
dust samples from underneath the face shield of an airstream helmet 
and that the violation was the result of unwarrantable failure.)
    2. Consolidation Coal Co., Docket No. WEVA 94-235-R. (Issues 
include whether the judge correctly determined that the operator did 
not violate 30 CFR Sec. 75.342(b)(2) when the warning light on a 
methane monitor was not within the line of sight of a person who 
could deenergize the longwall equipment on which the monitor was 
mounted.)

    Any person attending this meeting who requires special 
accessibility features and/or auxiliary aids, such as sign language 
interpreters, must inform the Commission in advance of those needs. 
Subject to 29 CFR Sec. 2706.150 (a)(3) and Sec. 2706.160(d).

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFO: Jean Ellen (202) 653-5629 / (202) 708-
9300 for TDD Relay /1-800-877-8339 for toll free.

    Dated: June 4, 1996.
Jean H. Ellen,
Chief Docket Clerk.
[FR Doc. 96-14714 Filed 6-11-96; 11:58 am]
BILLING CODE 6735-01-M
#### Angela Kay WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 1674-92.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 30, 1993.

Gary L. Waite, Paris, for appellant.

Tom D. Wells, III, Dist. Atty., Paris and Robert Huttash, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

*OPINION ON APPELLANT’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW*

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was convicted of injury to an elderly individual and was sentenced by the jury to forty years confinement. Her conviction was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. *Williams v. State,*843 S.W.2d 170 (Tex.App.—Texarkana 1992).

In her first ground for review, appellant argues that the Court of Appeals incorrectly held that the trial court did not err in failing to allow court appointed counsel ten days to prepare for trial. Since the Court of Appeals rendered its decision affirming appellant’s conviction, this Court has held that the trial court errs when it denies counsel the additional ten days to prepare for trial, and no objection need be lodged to preserve error. *Marin v. State,*851 S.W.2d 275 (Tex.Cr.App.1992). The Court of Appeals did not have the benefit of our opinion in *Marin.*Therefore, we will remand this case in light of that opinion.

Ground one of appellant’s petition for discretionary review is granted. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed and the case is remanded to that court for reconsideration in light of *Marin.*

McCORMICK, P.J., dissents.