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





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








In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Card Activation Technologies, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2008 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, William
P. Williams, Chief Executive 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 result of operations of the Company.







Date:
      August 14, 2008By:
      /s/ William P. WilliamsWilliam
      P. WilliamsChairman,
      President Chief Executive Officer (Principle Executive
      Officer)






22
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, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Jeff Clarke, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Philip Emery, 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 CLARKE Jeff Clarke Chief Executive OfficerNovember 13, 2009/s/ PHILIP EMERY Philip Emery Chief Financial OfficerNovember 13, 2009


---



QuickLinks
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16

- 11526 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
ADNAN SHAHZAD , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:16

- CR

- 94

- 1

Before WIE NER, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Adnan Shahzad has appealed his jury conviction of enticement of a child in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b). Shahzad’s arrest resulted f rom an I nternet sting operation in which an offic er posed as a 13

- year
- old girl. The superseding indictment alleged that Shahzad’s criminal conduct, if successful, would have constituted a violation of Texas Penal Code § 22.011, which criminalizes sexual assault of a child younger than age 17

.

* 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. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED July 21, 2017 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 16-11526 Document: 00514084318 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/21/2017No. 16

- 11526

2 Shahzad contends that the superseding in dictment narrowed the scope of Section 2422(b) by alleging that the would

- be victim was age 13 and that it was constructively amended by the trial court’s instructions and by the Government’s arguments , which permitted conviction on the basis of a finding that the victim was younger than age 17

. As Shahz ad concedes, our review is for plain error because he failed to object that the indictment had been constructively amended. Se e United States v. Boh uchot , 625 F.3d 892, 897 (5th Cir. 2010).

“ [N] o constructive amendment arises where the evidence proves facts different from those alleged in the indictment, but does not modify an essential element of the charged offense.” United States v. Munoz , 150 F.3d 401, 417 (5th Cir. 1998). I t made no difference whether the would

- be victim was age 13 or some other age, as long as the Government proved that Shahzad believed she was younger than age 17. See § 22.011(a) & (c)(1); § 2422(b). There was ample evidence of such belief

. Because there was no error, plain or otherwise, it was not profession ally unreasonable for counsel not to lodge an objection. See Strickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668, 688 (1984). Shahzad contends that the state statute did not provide federal jurisdic tion for the Section 2422(b) charge. T he difference between the age
thresho lds in the two statutes merely narrows the applicability of the federal statute to the age range proscribed by state law and does not create an irreconcilable conflict between the two statutes

. The district court’s jurisdiction was established by showing that Sh ahzad used facilities of interstate commerce, that is, a cellular telephone and a computer connected to the Internet. See § 2422(b); United States v. Barlow , 568 F.3d 215, 220

– 21 (5th Cir. 2009); see also United States v. Lopez , 514 U.S. 549, 559 (1995). The judgment is AFFIRMED. Case: 16-11526 Document: 00514084318 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/21/2017
**EXHIBIT 31.02****CERTIFICATION**  I, John E. Calonico, Jr., certify that: 1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Interwoven, Inc.;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periodspresented in this report;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have: a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensurethat material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;  b) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or causedsuch internal control over financial reporting to be designed under oursupervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability offinancial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for externalpurposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;  c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controlsand procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of theperiod covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s fourthquarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materiallyaffect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions): a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likelyto adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and  b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.   Dated: March 14, 2008 /s/ John E. Calonico, Jr.     John E. Calonico, Jr.
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

GARY M. RESTAINO

United States Attorney

District of Arizona

KEVIN M. RAPP (Ariz. Bar No. 014249, kevin.rapp@usdoj.gov) MARGARET PERLMETER (Ariz. Bar No. 024805, margaret.perlmeter@usdoj.gov) PETER S. KOZINETS (Ariz. Bar No. 019856, peter.kozinets@usdoj.gov) 

ANDREW C. STONE (Ariz. Bar No. 026543, andrew.stone@usdoj.gov) Assistant U.S. Attorneys

40 N. Central Avenue, Suite 1800

Phoenix, Arizona 85004-4408

Telephone (602) 514-7500

DAN G. BOYLE (N.Y. Bar No. 5216825, daniel.boyle2@usdoj.gov) Special Assistant U.S. Attorney

312 N. Spring Street, Suite 1400

Los Angeles, CA 90012

Telephone (213) 894-2426

NICOLE M. ARGENTIERI

Acting Assistant Attorney General Criminal Division, U.S. Department of Justice

AUSTIN M. BERRY (Texas Bar No. 24062615, austin.berry2@usdoj.gov) U.S. Department of Justice

Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section

1301 New York Avenue, NW, 11th Floor

Washington, D.C. 20005

Telephone (202) 412-4136

Attorneys for Plaintiff

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America,

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Michael Lacey, et al.,

Defendants.

CR-18-422-PHX-DJH

UNITED STATES’ NOTICE OF 

ERRATA

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1968 Filed 11/13/23 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

The United States files this Notice of Errata in conjunction with its Response to 

Defendant’s Oral Motion to Dismiss (filed at Doc. 1966). When the United States 

attempted to file its motion and attached exhibits, it found that Exhibit 3—Versoza 

Affidavit, filed 10/31/2018, Case No. 2:18-MJ-2872, Doc. 3-1, Bates No. DOJ-BP0004719085-327—was too large to be filed. The United States—in order to timely file its 

response—went ahead and filed its motion and all exhibits except Exhibit 3. The United 

States has now reduced Exhibit 3 to a manageable size and attaches it to this Notice of 

Errata.

Respectfully submitted this 13th day of November, 2023.

GARY M. RESTAINO

United States Attorney

District of Arizona

NICOLE M. ARGENTIERI

Acting Assistant Attorney General Criminal Division, U.S. Department of Justice

s/Andrew C. Stone

KEVIN M. RAPP

MARGARET PERLMETER

PETER KOZINETS

ANDREW STONE

DANIEL BOYLE

Assistant U.S. Attorneys

AUSTIN M. BERRY

Trial Attorney

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on November 13, 2023, I electronically transmitted the attached 

document to the Clerk’s Office using the CM/ECF System for filing and transmittal of a 

Notice of Electronic Filing to the CM/ECF registrants who have entered their appearance 

as counsel of record.

s/ Daniel Parke

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1968 Filed 11/13/23 Page 2 of 2
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1097 

To require the Secretary of Energy, in coordination with the Secretary of 

Labor, to establish a program to provide for workforce training and 

education, at community colleges, in sustainable energy. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 20, 2009 

Mr. WYDEN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To require the Secretary of Energy, in coordination with 

the Secretary of Labor, to establish a program to provide 

for workforce training and education, at community colleges, in sustainable energy. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Community College 

5 Energy Training Act of 2009’’. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
2 

•S 1097 IS

1 SEC. 2. SUSTAINABLE ENERGY TRAINING PROGRAM FOR 

2 COMMUNITY COLLEGES. 

3 (a) DEFINITION OF COMMUNITY COLLEGE.—In this 

4 Act, the term ‘‘community college’’ means an institution 

5 of higher education, as defined in section 101(a) of the 

6 Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001(a)), 

7 that— 

8 (1) provides a 2–year program of instruction 

9 for which the institution awards an associate degree; 

10 and 

11 (2) primarily awards associate degrees. 

12 (b) WORKFORCE TRAINING AND EDUCATION IN SUS13 TAINABLE ENERGY.—From funds made available under 

14 subsection (d), the Secretary of Energy, in coordination 

15 with the Secretary of Labor, shall carry out a joint sus16 tainable energy workforce training and education pro17 gram. In carrying out the program, the Secretary of En18 ergy, in coordination with the Secretary of Labor, shall 

19 award grants to community colleges to provide workforce 

20 training and education in industries and practices such 

21 as— 

22 (1) alternative energy, including wind and solar 

23 energy; 

24 (2) energy efficient construction, retrofitting, 

25 and design; 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
3 

•S 1097 IS

1 (3) sustainable energy technologies, including 

2 chemical technology, nanotechnology, and electrical 

3 technology; 

4 (4) water and energy conservation; 

5 (5) recycling and waste reduction; and 

6 (6) sustainable agriculture and farming. 

7 (c) AWARD CONSIDERATIONS.—Of the funds made 

8 available under subsection (d) for a fiscal year, not less 

9 than one-half of such funds shall be awarded to commu10 nity colleges with existing (as of the date of the award) 

11 sustainability programs that lead to certificates or degrees 

12 in 1 or more of the industries and practices described in 

13 paragraphs (1) through (6) of subsection (b). 

14 (d) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is 

15 authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section 

16 $100,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2010 through 

17 2015. 

Æ 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan



### November 29, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice


### 132021 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan 

### PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices



### v SC: 132021 COA: 270867 St. Joseph CC: 05-012941-FC ALEXIS ANTONIO MONTES, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 19, 2006 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.

t1120 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

November 29, 2006

Clerk
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 20 (Tuesday, January 30, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 3040]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-1632]



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


DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Notice of Interest Rate on Overdue Debts

    Section 30.13 of the Department of Health and Human Services' 
claims collection regulations (45 CFR Part 30) provides that the 
Secretary shall charge an annual rate of interest as fixed by the 
Secretary of the Treasury after taking into consideration private 
consumer rates of interest prevailing on the date that HHS becomes 
entitled to recovery. The rate generally cannot be lower than the 
Department of Treasury's current value of funds rate or the applicable 
rate determined from the ``Schedule of Certified Interest Rates with 
Range of Maturities.'' This rate may be revised quarterly by the 
Secretary of the Treasury and shall be published quarterly by the 
Department of Health and Human Services in the Federal Register.
    The Secretary of the Treasury has certified a rate of 13\3/4\% for 
the quarter ended December 31, 1995. This interest rate will remain in 
effect until such time as the Secretary of the Treasury notifies HHS of 
any change.

    Dated: January 22, 1996.
George Strader,
Deputy Assistant Secretary, Finance.
[FR Doc. 96-1632 Filed 1-29-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4150-04-M
EXHIBIT 32.1

               Statement of Chief Executive Officer

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec 1350, as created by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned Chief Executive Officer of
SDG&E Funding LLC (the "Company") certifies that:

(i)	the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2004 (the "Annual Report") fully complies with
the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as
applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended; and

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



March 14, 2005
                                           /s/ Charles A. McMonagle
                                           ______________________
                                            Charles A. McMonagle
                                            Chief Executive Officer
Advanced BioMedical Technologies, Inc - 10Q  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 Advanced BioMedical Technologies, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended April 30, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "report"), I, Wang Hui, Chief Executive 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 requirements of Section 13 (a) or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and




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




Dated this 20th day of June 2011./s/ Wang Hui

Wang Hui, Director and Chief Executive Officer
#### Dr. Shirley PIERCE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FOUR SEASONS SOLAR PRODUCTS CORPORATION, Defendant-Respondent.

No. 66380.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Three.

March 28, 1995.

Kristopher T. Schmidt, St. Louis, for appellant.

Stephen D. Hoyne, St. Louis, for respondent.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff appeals the trial court’s decision granting Defendant’s Motion for Directed Verdict after both sides’ opening statements. We affirm.

We find no error of law appears, and an opinion would have no precedential value. Rule 84.16(b)(5).
1 WO 

2 

3 

4 

5 

7 

8 

9 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

1 O United States of America, 

11 Plaintiff, 

12 v. 

13 Waldon Ray Lomayaktewa, Jr., 

14 Defendant. 

No. 18-04089MJ-001-PCT-DMF 

ORDER 

wj:- .: 15 .. ~ 

·'.;.)~~ •. t 

;;<' 

,,1-1'--' 

,,Y" ' ' 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

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

detention hearing was he1d. The defendant is ordered detained pending an intake 

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 

facili,ty, as conditi~ns 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 O'Connor Courthouse for the 

2 defendant. 

3 Dated this 30th day of March, 2018. 

4 

5 

3}'. i 6 

7 

8 

9 

"}f7 i 10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

;/17 .i 28 

- 2 -
IV 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 905 

Recognizing the 70th anniversary of the retirement of Justice Louis D. 

Brandeis from the United States Supreme Court. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 16, 2009 

Mr. YARMUTH submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on the Judiciary 

RESOLUTION 

Recognizing the 70th anniversary of the retirement of Justice 

Louis D. Brandeis from the United States Supreme Court. 

Whereas the United States Supreme Court has played a fundamental role in interpreting the Nation’s laws; 

Whereas Louis D. Brandeis, born in Louisville, Kentucky, on 

November 13, 1856, led a selfless career as a practicing 

lawyer helping to create the pro bono tradition in the 

United States through his devotion to public causes, becoming known as the ‘‘people’s lawyer’’ for challenging 

the power of railroad, bank, and insurance company monopolies; 

Whereas Justice Brandeis was nominated an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court by appointment of President 

Woodrow Wilson and confirmed by the United States 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 905 IH 

Senate in 1916 as the first Jewish Justice of the Supreme Court; 

Whereas Justice Brandeis vastly contributed to constitutional 

jurisprudence, particularly in the areas of free speech, 

right to privacy, labor relations, and women’s suffrage; 

Whereas through the marshalling of evidence and development of the doctrine of judicial notice, Justice Brandeis 

concerned himself as a citizen, attorney, and Justice of 

the Supreme Court with the power and role of education 

in the Nation’s democracy; 

Whereas Justice Brandeis supported the University of Louisville and its law school (named the Louis D. Brandeis 

School of Law in 1997) by contributing funding and his 

personal papers and ensuring that the law school library 

received Supreme Court briefs for its archives; 

Whereas Justice Brandeis provided the role model for public 

service which served as the inspiration for the University 

of Louisville adopting a public service requirement for all 

students; 

Whereas Justice Brandeis resigned from the Supreme Court 

70 years ago in 1939; and 

Whereas, to this day, schools, universities, the United States 

Postal Service, and other institutions remember the name 

of Justice Brandeis and commemorate his service: Now, 

therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

2 (1) recognizes the 70th anniversary of Justice 

3 Louis D. Brandeis’s retirement from the United 

4 States Supreme Court and the significant contribuVerDate Nov 24 2008 02:21 Nov 17, 2009 Jkt 089200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\HR905.IH HR905

wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HRES 905 IH 

1 tion he made in United States Supreme Court juris2 prudence; and 

3 (2) directs the Clerk of the House of Represent4 atives to make available enrolled copies of this reso5 lution to the University of Louisville Louis D. Bran6 deis School of Law for appropriate display. 

Æ 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with BILLS