alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32.a



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, 
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), the undersigned officer of DataJungle Software Inc. (the Company), does hereby certify, to such officers knowledge, that:



The Annual Report on Form 10-QSB/A for the three months ended September 30, 2004 (the Form 10-QSB/A) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the Form 10-QSB/A fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of, and for, the periods presented in the Form 10-QSB/A.



|Dated: November 24, 2004 |  | /s/Edward Munden
Edward Munden
President & Chief Executive Officer
|------------------------ |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------





The foregoing certification is being furnished as an exhibit to the Form 10-QSB/A pursuant to Item 601(b)(32) of Regulation S-B and Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code) and, accordingly, is not being filed as part of the Form 10-QSB/A for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.
#### GOMEZ v. BROUSSARD.

No. 2996.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Pirst Circuit.

May 26, 1948.

For original opinion, see 34 So.2d 643.

John Fred Odom and Homer J. Belanger, both of Baton Rouge, for appellant.

Brumfield, Hebert & Rush, of Baton Rouge, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Opinion was rendered in this case on April 12, 1948, and notice thereof was given by registered mail on April 13, 1948. The application for rehearing was filed by the defendant-appellee on April 27, 1948. Plaintiff-appellant has filed a motion to dismiss the application for a rehearing for the reason that the application was filed too late. As fourteen days had not intervened between the date of the notice of the judgment and the filing of the application, the application was timely filed. See Act No. 16 of 1910 and Art VII, Sec. 24 of the Constitution. Plaintiff-appellant’s motion is denied.

After a thorough reconsideration of the record, our opinion and defendant-appellee’s application for rehearing, we are firm in our opinion that our decision is correct. Therefore the application for rehearing is denied.

ELLIS, J., absent.
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 25 (Wednesday, February 6, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 6971]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-2127]


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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding 
Companies; Correction

    This notice corrects a notice (FR Doc. E8-1202 published on page 
4573 of the issue for Friday, January 25, 2008.
    Under the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City heading, the entry 
for HOTC, Inc., Wray, Coloardo, is revised to read as follows:
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City (Todd Offenbacker, Assistant 
Vice President) 925 Grand Avenue, Kansas City, Missouri 64198-0001:
    1. HOTC, Investment Company, to become a bank holding company by 
acquiring 100 percent of the voting shares of Wray State Bank, both of 
Wray, Colorado.
    Comments on this application must be received by February 19, 2008.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, February 1, 
2008.
Jennifer J. Johnson,
Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. E8-2127 Filed 2-5-08 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-S
NUMBER 13-12-00697-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

IN RE LLOYD R. CARY JR.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Benavides and Perkes

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam1

Relator, Lloyd R. Cary Jr., filed a petition for writ of mandamus and a motion to 

stay trial in the above cause on November 9, 2012. 

To be entitled to the extraordinary relief of a writ of mandamus, the relator must 

show that the trial court abused its discretion and that there is no adequate remedy by 

appeal. In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. 

proceeding). The relator has the burden of establishing both prerequisites to 

 

1

See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(d) (“When denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is 

not required to do so.”); TEX. R. APP. P. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).
2

mandamus relief, and this burden is a heavy one. In re CSX Corp., 124 S.W.3d 149, 

151 (Tex. 2003) (orig. proceeding).

The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of

mandamus and the applicable law, is of the opinion that relator has not his burden to 

obtain mandamus relief. See In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d at 135–36; 

see also TEX. R. CIV. P. 204.1; Coates v. Whittington, 758 S.W.2d 749, 753 (Tex. 1988). 

Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus and the motion to stay trial are DENIED. 

See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a).

PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed the 

13th day of November, 2012.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 05-cr-207-01-SM

Dominick Bailey

O R D E R

Defendant Bailey’s oral motion to continue the final pretrial conference

and trial was granted in court. Trial has been rescheduled for the April 2006

trial period. Defendant Bailey shall file a waiver of speedy trial rights not later

than March 8, 2006. On the filing of such waiver, his continuance shall be

effective. 

The Court finds that the ends of justice served by granting a continuance

outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial, 18

U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(B)(iv), in that failure to grant a continuance would

unreasonably deny defendant the reasonable time necessary for effective

preparation taking into account the exercise of due diligence under the

circumstances. 

Final Pretrial Conference: March 22, 2006 at 4:00 p.m.

Jury Selection: April 4, 2006 at 9:30 a.m.

Case 1:05-cr-00207-SM Document 21 Filed 02/28/06 Page 1 of 2
2

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

 Chief Judge

February 28, 2006

cc: Sandra Bloomenthal, Esq.

Debra Walsh, AUSA

US Probation

US Marshal

Case 1:05-cr-00207-SM Document 21 Filed 02/28/06 Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> UT
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                      176,680
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                          0
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                          49,655
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                        12,262
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 238,597
<COMMON>                                         1,244
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                       37,657
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                             43,611
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                  82,512
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      6,400
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                            72,812
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                               9,605
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                       73,875
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                       0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                    2,173
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                      1,586
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                   476
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                  64,619
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                  238,597
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                      178,942
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                             5,961
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     156,049
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     162,010
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                         16,932
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                                 416
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                  17,348
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         5,608
<NET-INCOME>                                    11,740
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                        487
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                   11,253
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                         3,584
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                        4,537
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                          30,166
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     9.05
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     9.05
        


</TABLE>
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

465 

CAF 11-00297 

PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., FAHEY, LINDLEY, AND MARTOCHE, JJ.

 

 

IN THE MATTER OF JOHN B. AND SHAWN B. 

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

ERIE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, ORDER

PETITIONER-RESPONDENT; 

 

SHAWN B., SR., RESPONDENT-APPELLANT. 

EVELYNE A. O’SULLIVAN, EAST AMHERST, FOR RESPONDENT-APPELLANT. 

JOSEPH T. JARZEMBEK, BUFFALO, FOR PETITIONER-RESPONDENT.

DAVID C. SCHOPP, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILDREN, THE LEGAL AID BUREAU OF

BUFFALO, INC., BUFFALO (CHARLES D. HALVORSEN OF COUNSEL), FOR JOHN B.

AND SHAWN B. 

 

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Erie County (Margaret

O. Szczur, J.), entered February 7, 2011 in a proceeding pursuant to

Social Services Law § 384-b. The order, among other things,

terminated respondent’s parental rights and transferred custody and

guardianship of the subject children to petitioner. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed without costs.

Entered: April 20, 2012 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
EXHIBIT 32.2

Certification Pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18of the United States Code

I, Ralph Izzo, Chief Executive Officer of PSEG Power LLC, to the best of my knowledge, certify that (i) the Quarterly Report of PSEG Power LLC on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2008 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of PSEG Power LLC.



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ Ralph Izzo         
|Ralph Izzo             
|PSEG Power LLC         
|Chief Executive Officer
|August 1, 2008         









---
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

William Carey

v. Civil No. 05-cv–274-PB

Hillsborough Department of Corrections, et al

O R D E R

I herewith approve the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge

Muirhead dated November 22, 2005, no objection having been filed.

SO ORDERED.

December 27, 2005 /s/ Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

cc: William Carey, pro se

Case 1:05-cv-00274-PB Document 18 Filed 12/27/05 Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          NOV-03-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-21-1996
<CASH>                                             461
<SECURITIES>                                        11
<RECEIVABLES>                                    28568
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      40863
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 70928
<PP&E>                                           85169
<DEPRECIATION>                                   47174
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  109905
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            18030
<BONDS>                                          28891
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                          6356
<OTHER-SE>                                       50293
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    109905
<SALES>                                          36585
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 36585
<CGS>                                            29471
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    34649
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 584
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   1355
<INCOME-TAX>                                       441
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                914
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       914
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.32
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.32
        

</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Riverside Millworks Co., Inc.

v. Civil No. 05-cv-402-JM

Jackson Lumber & Millwork Co., Inc., et al.

ORDER

 The parties are ordered to meet and confer and jointly

arrange with the Deputy Clerk a time for the Markman Hearing.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________________

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: May 10, 2007

cc: Peter G. Callaghan, Esq.

 Alfred C. Frawley, Esq.

 Ashley L. Kirk, Esq.

 Stephen B. Mosier, Esq.

 Lawrence S. Smith, Esq.

 Todd A. Sullivan, Esq.

Case 1:05-cv-00402-JM Document 48 Filed 05/10/07 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 04-cr-162-01-PB

Destin Phillippe

O R D E R

The defendant, through counsel, has moved to continue the

May 2, 2006 trial in the above case, citing the need for

additional time to engage in further plea negotiations. The

government does not object to a continuance of the trial date.

Accordingly, for the above reason and to allow the parties

additional time to properly prepare for trial, the court will

continue the trial from May 2, 2006 to July 6, 2006. In agreeing

to continue the trial, the court finds pursuant to 18 U.S.C.A. §

3161(h)(8)(A) that for the above-stated reasons, the ends of

justice served in granting a continuance outweigh the best

interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial.

No further continuances. 

Case 1:04-cr-00162-PB Document 39 Filed 04/19/06 Page 1 of 2
2

SO ORDERED.

/s/Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

April 19, 2006

cc: Richard Monteith, Esq.

Mark Howard, AUSA

United States Probation

United States Marshal

Case 1:04-cr-00162-PB Document 39 Filed 04/19/06 Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT
      32.1


CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO


SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In
      connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Porta Systems Corp. (the
      “Company”) for the period ended March 31, 2006, as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Edward
      B. Kornfeld, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
      do hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of
      the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief 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.






Dated:
                May 12, 2006
            
            
            
            /s/
                Edward B. KornfeldEdward
                B. Kornfeld
              Chief
                Executive Officer
              and
                Chief Financial Officer






This
      certification accompanies each Report pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
      of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act
      of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of §18 of the Securities
      Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.




A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
      2002 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.
**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 Puget
        Energy, Inc. and Puget Sound Energy, Inc .
        (the
        "Companies") on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2006 as
        filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
        "Form
        10-Q"), I, Stephen
        P. Reynolds, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of the
        Companies, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of
        the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
  (1)  The
        Form
        10-Q 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 Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material
        respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
        Companies.
 
 
 
 Date:
                  May 4, 2006/s/Stephen
                  P. ReynoldsStephen
                  P. ReynoldsChairman,
                  President and
                Chief
                  Executive Officer
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 176 (Wednesday, September 10, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 52679]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-20987]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE


Notice of Lodging Proposed Consent Decree

    In accordance with Departmental Policy, 28 CFR 50.7, notice is 
hereby given that a proposed Consent Decree in United States of America 
v. Mark and Amanda St. Pierre, Civil Action No. 1:08-cv-177 (D. Vt.), 
was lodged with the United States District Court for the District of 
Vermont on September 3, 2008.
    This proposed Consent Decree concerns a complaint filed by the 
United States against Mark and Amanda St. Pierre, pursuant to sections 
309(b), 309(d) and 404 of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1319(b), 
1319(d) and 1344, to obtain injunctive relief from and impose civil 
penalties against the Defendants for violating the Clean Water Act by 
discharging pollutants without a permit into waters of the United 
States. The proposed Consent Decree resolves these allegations by 
requiring the Defendants to restore the impacted areas and perform 
mitigation and to pay a civil penalty. The Consent Decree also provides 
for the Defendants to perform a supplemental environmental project.
    The Department of Justice will accept written comments relating to 
this proposed Consent Decree for thirty (30) days from the date of 
publication of this Notice. Please address comments to Joshua M. Levin, 
Senior Trial Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, Environment and 
Natural Resources Division, Environmental Defense Section, P.O. Box 
23986, Washington, DC 20026-3986, and refer to United States of America 
v. Mark and Amanda St. Pierre, DJ <greek-i> 90-5-1-1-17229/1.
    The proposed Consent Decree may be examined at the Clerk's Office, 
United States District Court for the District of Vermont, Federal Bldg, 
5th Floor, 11 Elmwood Avenue, Burlington, VT 05401. In addition, the 
proposed Consent Decree may be viewed at http://www.usdoj.gov/enrd/Consent_Decrees.html.

Scott A. Schachter,
Assistant Section Chief, Environmental Defense Section, Environment and 
Natural Resources Division.
[FR Doc. E8-20987 Filed 9-9-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-CW-P
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1112 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1112

   To make Federal law apply to antique firearms in the same way it 
                       applies to other firearms.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 20, 2001

 Mr. Hoeffel (for himself, Mr. Conyers, Mrs. Maloney of New York, Mr. 
Fattah, Mr. Markey, Ms. Schakowsky, Mr. Frank, Mr. Becerra, Mr. Borski, 
 Mr. Brady of Pennsylvania, Mr. McGovern, Mr. Berman, Mr. Nadler, Mr. 
 Jackson of Illinois, Mr. Engel, Ms. Millender-McDonald, Mrs. Mink of 
   Hawaii, and Mr. Wexler) introduced the following bill; which was 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To make Federal law apply to antique firearms in the same way it 
                       applies to other firearms.

    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 ``Antique Firearm Safety Act''.

SEC. 2. ELIMINATION OF EXEMPTIONS FOR ANTIQUE FIREARMS.

    (a) In General.--Section 921(a)(3) of title 18, United States Code, 
is amended by striking the last sentence.
    (b) Conforming Amendments.--Section 922(v)(3)(B) of such title is 
amended--
            (1) by adding ``or'' at the end of clause (i);
            (2) by striking ``or'' at the end of clause (ii); and
            (3) by striking clause (iii).
    (c) Regulations.--Not later than 90 days after the date of the 
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Treasury shall prescribe 
such regulations as may be necessary to administer chapter 44 of title 
18, United States Code, as in effect pursuant to the amendments made by 
this Act.
                                 <all>
```
#### Douglas J. Lindsay et al., Plaintiffs, v Steven I. Potter, Defendant. Douglas J. Lindsay et al., Appellants, v William F. Cane, Doing Business as Lexington Avenue Inn, Respondent.

Order and judgment unanimously reversed on the law with costs and motion denied. Memorandum: Summary judgment was improperly granted to defendant Cane, doing business as Lexington Avenue Inn. To prevail on a motion for summary judgment, defendant must establish his defense "sufficiently to warrant the court as a matter of law in directing judgment” in his favor (CPLR 3212 [b]; *Iselin & Co. v Mann Judd Landau,*71 NY2d 420, 425). Upon review of the record, we find that defendant Cane failed to establish, as a matter of law, that a prohibited sale of alcoholic beverages was not made to defendant Potter in the Lexington Avenue Inn on December 15, 1985 *(see,*Alcoholic Beverage Control Law §65 [former (2)]). (Appeal from order and judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Patlow, J.—summary judgment.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Doerr, Boomer, Lawton and Davis, JJ.