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


CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 In connection with the Annual Report of Linkwell Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Xuelian Bian, CEO and President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. SS. 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 result of operations of the Company.
 /s/ Xuelian BianXuelian Bian,

CEO and President,

Principal Executive Officerand

Principal Financial and Accounting Officer



March 31, 2011
 
 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 has been provided to the company and will be retained by the company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
* Local Rule 47.5.1 provides: "The publication of

opinions that merely decide particular cases on the basis of

well-settled principles of law imposes needless expense on the

public and burdens on the legal profession." Pursuant to that

Rule, the court has determined that this opinion should not be

published.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 95-50395

Conference Calendar

__________________

DWAYNE LAVAUGHN DUSON,

 Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

GARY PAINTER, Sheriff of Midland County, Texas;

JIM CHANCELLOR; VIRGINIA STRICKLAND, Nurse,

Medical Administrator for Midland County

Detention Center,

 Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. MO-94-CV-179

- - - - - - - - - -

December 21, 1995

Before DAVIS, STEWART, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Dwayne Duson appeals the dismissal of his civil rights

action as frivolous. Duson contends that the medical staff and

administration of the Midland County, Texas, jail were

deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs because

they failed to treat him for scabies during his stay in the jail.

It is unclear from the record whether Duson was a convicted
No. 95-50395

-2-

prisoner or a pretrial detainee during his stay in the Midland

County jail. We have reviewed the reviewed the record and the

magistrate judge's report, which was adopted by the district

court, and find no arguable abuse of discretion regarding the

dismissal of Duson's Eighth Amendment deliberate-indifference

contention. Additionally, Duson's allegations at most give rise

to a contention that the jail medical staff was negligent. 

Duson's medical care was not sufficiently unreasonable to violate

the Fourteenth Amendment if Duson was a pretrial detainee. 

Ortega v. Rowe, 796 F.2d 765, 767-68 (5th Cir. 1986), cert.

denied, 481 U.S. 1013 (1987). Finally, Duson's motion for

appointment of counsel on remand of his case to the district

court is moot and is DENIED.

APPEAL DISMISSED. 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1145 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1145

 To amend section 114 of title 17, United States Code, to provide for 
agreements for the reproduction and performance of sound recordings by 
                              webcasters.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 21, 2009

  Mr. Wyden (for himself and Mr. Brownback) introduced the following 
    bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the 
                               Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend section 114 of title 17, United States Code, to provide for 
agreements for the reproduction and performance of sound recordings by 
                              webcasters.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Webcaster Settlement Act of 2009''.

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION OF AGREEMENTS.

    Section 114(f)(5) of title 17, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) in subparagraph (D), by striking ``2008'' and inserting 
        ``2008, the Webcaster Settlement Act of 2009,'';
            (2) in subparagraph (E)(iii), by striking ``to make 
        eligible nonsubscription transmissions and ephemeral 
        recordings''; and
            (3) in subparagraph (F), by striking ``February 15, 2009'' 
        and inserting ``at 11:59 p.m. Eastern time on the 30th day 
        after the date of the enactment of the Webcaster Settlement Act 
        of 2009''.
                                 <all>
```
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-18-0000805 29-JAN-2019 08:25 AM
#### Louis LAMBERT, Appellant, v. CHURCHILL TRUCK LINES, Respondent, and Treasurer of the State of Missouri, as custodian of the Second Injury Fund.

No. 66638.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Feb. 21, 1995.

Nile D. Griffiths, St. Louis, for appellant.

Edward M. Voukoun, St. Louis, for respondent.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Maria W. Campbell, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for Second Injury Fund.

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

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Louis Lambert, appeals from the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission’s determination that he is not permanently and totally disabled. We affirm. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the legal file and find the findings of the Commission are supported by competent and substantial evidence on the whole record. As we further find an extended opinion would have no precedential value, we affirm the Commission’s award pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).
#### Thomas CHAPMAN, Employee/Appellant, v. JONES CHEMICALS, INC., Employer/Respondent.

No. 66011.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Nov. 29, 1994.

Ronald B. Wessel, St. Louis, for appellant.

S. Alan Cotten, St. Louis, for respondent.

Before REINHARD, P.J., and GARY M. GAERTNER and CRAHAN, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Employee appeals from a final award of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission (Commission) denying his claim for Workers’ Compensation benefits. The Administrative Law Judge found that claimant was not entitled to benefits because she failed to give employer adequate notice of her injury, and this decision was affirmed by the Commission. We affirm. The order of the Commission is supported by competent and substantial evidence on the whole record, and an extended opinion would have no prec-edential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-7017

WALTER W. WALLACE, IV,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; MICHAEL CARVAJAL; 

THOMAS SCARANTINO; DR. TAMARA S. LYN; RICHARD ENGEL; 

OFFICER BOWERS,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at 

Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:21-ct-03035-D)

Submitted: March 15, 2022 Decided: April 6, 2022

Before WILKINSON, QUATTLEBAUM, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Walter W. Wallace, IV, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 21-7017 Doc: 16 Filed: 04/06/2022 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Walter W. Wallace, IV, appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 

complaint filed pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b)(1), 2671-

2680, and Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 

388 (1971). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we 

affirm the district court’s order. Wallace v. U.S. Dep’t of Just., No. 5:21-ct-03035-D 

(E.D.N.C. June 24, 2021). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

USCA4 Appeal: 21-7017 Doc: 16 Filed: 04/06/2022 Pg: 2 of 2
#### Jerry J. SULLIVAN, Appellant, v. EMPLOYER HEALTH SERVICES, INC., d/b/a Business and Industry Health Group, Respondent.

No. WD 47563.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Sept. 14, 1993.

*851Mark Reinhard Schmid, Kansas City, for appellant.

William Lee Yocum, Kansas City, for respondent.

Before BRECKENRIDGE, P.J., and KENNEDY and LOWENSTEIN, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appeal from summary judgment in medical malpractice action. Judgment affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).
##### 



Exhibit 32.1 CERTIFICATION Certification required by Rule 13a-14(b) and Section 1350 of
Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code In connection with the report of Vasogen Inc. (the Company) on the Form 40-F for the fiscal year
ending November 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the Report), the undersigned certifies, 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:  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 this 19th day of January, 2005. /s/ David G. ElsleyDavid G. Elsley
President and Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive
Officer),

Vasogen Inc.
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 Apple REIT Eight, Inc., (the Company)
on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending September 30, 2010 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the
undersigned 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 Report
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities and 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 as of September 30, 2010, and for the period then
ended.

|                                         | 
|---------------------------------------- | 
|/s/     GLADE M. KNIGHT                  | 
|                                         | 
|Glade M. Knight
 Chief Executive Officer | 
|                                         | 
|November 5,
 2010                        | 
|                                         | 
|/s/     BRYAN PEERY                      | 
|                                         | 
|Bryan Peery
 Chief Financial Officer     | 
|                                         | 
|November 5,
 2010                        | 

---
#### STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Michael Wayne PYATT, Defendant/Appellant. Michael Wayne PYATT, Movant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

Nos. 62948, 66778.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Four.

Nov. 21, 1995.

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

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Mary Moulton Bryan, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before AHRENS, P.J., and PUDLOWSKI and GRIMM, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was found guilty of second degree murder and armed criminal action in the trial court and was sentenced to incarceration terms of life and 99 years. He now asserts that the trial court committed plain error in allowing the introduction of certain evidence and in denying his Rule 29.15 motion. We have carefully considered the evidence and the record and we find no manifest injustice and no error. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rules 30.25(b) and 84.16(b).
Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATION OF CEO AND CFO 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 Travelport Limited (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended
September 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Jeff Clarke, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Michael E. Rescoe,
as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies, 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 his knowledge:



|/s/JEFF CLARKEJeff Clarke Chief Executive OfficerNovember 14, 2007             |  | 
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |  | 
|/s/MICHAEL E. RESCOEMichael E. Rescoe Chief Financial OfficerNovember 14, 2007 |  | 

---



QuickLinks
**Exhibit 10.26**

 

**Tyler Wall**

 

Pursuant to the terms of his employment as of March 9, 2004, Mr. Wall receives an annual base salary of $200,000. Mr. Wall is eligible for an annual bonus of up to fortypercent (40%) of his base salary based upon Company performance goals. Mr. Wall is eligible for Stock Awards under the Company’s Equity Incentive Plans and may participate in the Company’s Employee Stock Purchase Plan. Mr. Wall and theCompany have entered into a Change in Control Agreement as well as the Company’s Form Indemnification agreement. Mr. Wall is also entitled to reimbursement for tax preparation services in the amount of up to $1,000 per annum. Mr. Wall iseligible for Company health benefits and may participate in the Company 401K plan offered to all employees.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-11162

3:97-CR-408-12-P

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

ALBERTO MANUEL GARCIA-GONZALEZ, also known as Tito,

also known as Alberto Lnu; OLGA BENITEZ

also known as Olga Osorio,

Defendants-Appellants.

 Appeal from United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

December 13, 1999

Before JONES, BARKSDALE and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Garcia-Gonzalez and Benitez challenge various aspects of

their convictions for marijuana trafficking. Having reviewed the

briefs and carefully considered the arguments of counsel and

pertinent portions of the record, we affirm in all respects.

Both appellants argue that the district court abused its

discretion in admitting the testimony of Agent Marshall as to the

meaning of drug “code” words. We find no abuse of discretion. 
2

United States v. Griffith, 118 F.3d 318 (5th Cir. 1997). Given the

agent’s professional background and experience, and the helpfulness

to the jury of his identification of drug traffickers’ code

language, the court did not err in admitting his testimony. 

There is sufficient evidence to support Garcia’s

conviction for use of a telephone to facilitate a drug trafficking

offense. The appellant’s conversation with Benitez, when taken in

context with other evidence in the record, showed that he was

supplying her money to acquire marijuana and that, within a couple

of days, he did acquire marijuana for resale through her efforts.

The court did not abuse its discretion in denying

Benitez’s instruction concerning duress as a defense. Benitez did

not establish a fact issue concerning two of the requirements for

that duress, in that she demonstrated neither a “present, imminent,

and impending threat of such nature as to induce a well-grounded

apprehension of death or serious bodily injury,” nor that she had

no “reasonable legal alternative” to violating the law. United

States v. Posada-Rios, 158 F.3d 832, at 873 (5th Cir. 1998). 

Finally, there is no merit to Benitez’s challenge to her

offense level for sentencing purposes. The district court did not

clearly err in calculating the amount of marijuana attributable to

her, and it properly enhanced her offense level for possession of

a firearm, for obstruction of justice based on perjured trial

testimony, and for her managerial role in the drug conspiracy.

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 13.2





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 annual report of RiT Technologies Ltd. (the "Company") on Form 20-F for the period ending December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Moti Antebi, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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, as amended and





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





Date: June 30, 2011





By: /s/ Moti Antebi


Moti Antebi


Chief Financial Officer
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 the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants
fourth fiscal 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.
 Date: August 14, 2008
    By:
    /s/ Martin R. GausvikMartin R. GausvikExecutive Vice President, Treasurer and
Chief Financial Officer
#### David Kirk SPARKS, Petitioner/Respondent, v. DIRECTOR OF REVENUE, STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent/Appellant.

No. 69537.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

July 30, 1996.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., James A. Chenault, III, Special Asst. Atty. Gen., Mo. Dept, of Revenue, Jefferson City, for appellant.

Timothy Francis Devereux, Clayton, for respondent.

Before DOWD, P.J., and REINHARD and GARY M. GAERTNER, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Director of Revenue (Director) appeals from the circuit court’s judgment reinstating petitioner’s driving privileges. We remand.

Petitioner’s driving privileges were suspended after he was arrested for driving while intoxicated, § 302.505, RSMo 1994.1 The suspension was sustained following an administrative hearing, §§ 302.505.2 and 302.530, and he requested a trial de novo, § 302.535. The case was assigned to a traffic court commissioner, who heard the case and reinstated petitioner’s driving privileges. The findings and recommendations of the commissioner were adopted and confirmed by Judge McGhee.

On appeal, Director contends the reinstatement order is without effect because the case was heard by a traffic court commissioner. We agree. This case is controlled by our recent decision in *Chamberlain v. Director of Revenue,*921 S.W.2d 138 (Mo.App. E.D.1996). *See also State ex rel. Coyle v. O’Toole,*914 S.W.2d 871 (Mo.App. E.D.1996). In *Chamberlain,*we found that an order entered after a trial *de novo*heard by a traffic commissioner was without legal effect and that the petition remained in the circuit court. *Chamberlain,*921 S.W.2d at 138-39.

Remanded.

1

. All statutory citations are RSMo 1994.
1 In The 

### Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________ NO . 09
- 24
- 00058
- CR

__________________ LAWRENCE PAUL DAVENPORT, Appellant
V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

__________________________________________________________________ On Appeal from the 435th District Court Montgomery County, Texas Trial Cause No. 20
- 02
- 02517
- CR

__________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION The trial court sentenced Lawrence Paul Davenport on October 10, 2023. Davenport did not file a motion for new trial within 30 days after the date in which the trial court i mposed sentence. See Tex. R. App. P. 21.4(a). Notice of appeal was due to be filed on November 9, 2023. Davenport’s time for filing a motion for extension of time to perfect his appeal expired on November 27, 2023. On December 19, 2023, the District Clerk received and filed a pro se n otice of appeal dated December 13, 2023. On F ebruary 21, 2024, the Clerk of the Court notified the p a rties2 that the notice of appeal has been filed outside the time for which an extension of time may be granted for filing notice of appeal, and warned the parties that the appeal would be dismissed unl ess grounds were shown for continu ing the appeal. Davenport, through his appointed app ellate cou nsel, obtained additional time to respond t o the Clerk’s notice, but Davenport did not file a response that identifies a valid basis for this Court to exercise appellate jurisdiction over his appeal. When a defendant appeals from a conviction in a criminal case, the time to file a notice of appeal runs from the date sentence is imposed or suspended in open

co urt. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.2(a). An appellate court may extend the time to file the notice of appeal if, within 15 days after the deadline for filing the notice of appeal, the defendant files a notice of appeal in the trial court and files a motion for ex tension of time in the appellate court. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.3. Davenport failed to file a notice of appeal and a motion for an extension of time within the time permitted by the rule. See id

. “Timely filing of a written notice of appeal is a jurisdictional prerequisite to hearing an appeal.” Castillo v. State , 369 S.W.3d 196, 198 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012). “If a notice of appeal is not timely filed, the court of appeals has no option but to dismis s the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.” Id

. Davenport does not argue that he obtained an out

- of

- time appeal from the Court of Criminal Appeals. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(f).3 APPEAL DISMISSED.
PER CUR IAM Submitted on April 30, 202 4 Opinion Delivered May 1, 2024 Do Not Publish Before Golemon, C.J., Johnson and Wright, JJ.