alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                                  CALTON, INC.
     CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
                            (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)


     In connection with the annual report of Calton, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-KSB/A for the fiscal year ended November 30, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Anthony
J. Caldarone, Chairman and 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 in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
     the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated: April 15, 2005                By: /s/ Anthony J. Caldarone
                                         -------------------------------------
                                         Anthony J. Caldarone
                                         CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
                                         AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-40637

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JOSE PABLO RODRIGUEZ-CORDERO,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:09-CR-290-1

Before GARZA, DENNIS, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Jose Pablo RodriguezCordero (Rodriguez) has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in

accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Rodriguez has not

filed a response. Our independent review of the record and counsel’s brief

discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for

leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities

herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

February 12, 2010

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

Case: 09-40637 Document: 00511027406 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/12/2010
<PAGE>

                                   EXHIBIT 11

                 TRANSCRYPT INTERNATIONAL, INC AND SUBSIDIARIES
                   COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME (LOSS) PER SHARE
                                   (Unaudited)
                 (in thousands, except share and per share data)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                   THREE MONTHS ENDED
                                                                 ----------------------------------------------------
                                                                      MARCH 31, 1999              MARCH 31, 1998
                                                                 -------------------------    -----------------------
<S>                                                              <C>                          <C>
Net income (loss)                                                         $       (3,957)              $       1,316
                                                                 =========================    =======================

                                                                 NET INCOME (LOSS) PER SHARE - BASIC

Weighted average common shares  - Basic                                        12,946,624                 12,946,624
                                                                 =========================    =======================

Net income (loss) per share - Basic                                        $       (0.31)               $       0.10
                                                                 =========================    =======================

                                                                 NET INCOME (LOSS) PER SHARE - DILUTED
Shares used in this computation:
  Weighted average common shares  - Basic                                      12,946,624                 12,946,624
  Dilutive effect of shares under employee stock plans                                  -                    674,525
                                                                 -------------------------    -----------------------
  Weighted average common shares - Diluted                                     12,946,624                 13,621,149
                                                                 =========================    =======================

Net income (loss) per share - Diluted                                      $       (0.31)               $       0.10
                                                                 =========================    =======================
</TABLE>




                                                                       Page 21
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 Olympic Cascade Financial Corporation
(the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2005 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Mark Goldwasser, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:

      (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.



                                      /s/ Mark Goldwasser
                                      -------------------------------
                                      Mark Goldwasser
                                      Chief Executive Officer
                                      May 10, 2005
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Public Company Accounting Reform and
Investor Protection Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted), Daniel L.
Scharre, the Chief Executive Officer of Larscom Incorporated (the Company),
and Donald W. Morgan, the Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby
certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:

1.The Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30,
2003, to which this Certification is attached as Exhibit 32.1 (the Periodic
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 Periodic Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition of the Company at the end of the
period covered by the Periodic Report and results of operations of the
Company for the period covered by the Periodic Report.

Dated: August 13, 2003

|                        |  |                        
|----------------------- |  | -----------------------
|/s/ Daniel L. Scharre   |  | /s/ Donald W. Morgan   
|                        |  |                        
|Daniel L. Scharre       |  | Donald W. Morgan       
|Chief Executive Officer |  | Chief Financial Officer
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTEDPURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of deCODE genetics, Inc.(the “Registrant”) for the quarter ended September 30, 2005 as filed withthe securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), theundersigned, Kari Stefansson, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officerof the Registrant, and Lance Thibault, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer ofthe Registrant, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,that: (1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and (2) that theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.

 

 
| Dated: November 9, 2005 | /s/ Kari Stefansson         |   |
|------------------------------|-----------------------------|--------|
|                         | Kari Stefansson             |
|                         | Chairman, President, Chief  |
|                         | Executive Officer           |
|                         |                        |
|                         |                        |
| Dated: November 9, 2005 | /s/ Lance  Thibault         |   |
|                         | Lance Thibault              |
|                         | Chief Financial Officer and |
|                         | Treasurer                   |

 

1

----
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

 v. Case No. 06-cr-160-01-SM

Kyshawn Ross

O R D E R

Defendant's assented-to motion to continue the trial (document no. 8) is granted.

Trial has been rescheduled for the February 2007 trial period. Defendant shall file a Waiver

of Speedy Trial Rights not later than November 1, 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 the

defendant the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation taking into account the

exercise of due diligence under the circumstances.

Case 1:06-cr-00160-SM Document 9 Filed 10/24/06 Page 1 of 2
2

Final Pretrial Conference: January 30, 2007 at 9:30 AM 

Jury Selection: February 7, 2007 at 9:30 AM

SO ORDERED.

October 24, 2006 _________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

Chief Judge

cc: Helen Fitzgibbon, Esq.

 Jonathan Saxe, Esq. 

 U. S. Probation

 U. S. Marshal

Case 1:06-cr-00160-SM Document 9 Filed 10/24/06 Page 2 of 2
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2143 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  2d Session

                               H. R. 2143

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

            To make the repeal of the estate tax permanent.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
107th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 2143

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
            To make the repeal of the estate tax permanent.

    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 ``Permanent Death Tax Repeal Act of 
2002''.

SEC. 2. ESTATE TAX REPEAL MADE PERMANENT.

    (a) In General.--Section 901 of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief 
Reconciliation Act of 2001 is amended--
            (1) in subsection (a) by striking ``shall not apply--'' and 
        all that follows and inserting ``(other than title V) shall not 
        apply to taxable, plan, or limitation years beginning after 
        December 31, 2010.'', and
            (2) in subsection (b) by striking ``, estates, gifts, and 
        transfers''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) shall 
take effect as if included in section 901 of the Economic Growth and 
Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001.

            Passed the House of Representatives June 6, 2002.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
```
H. Res. 861 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

December 12, 2007. 

Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 

shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 

4351) to amend the Internal Revenue Code to provide individuals temporary relief from the alternative minimum tax, 

and for other purposes. All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived except those arising under clause 

9 or 10 of rule XXI. The bill shall be considered as read. All 

points of order against provisions of the bill are waived. The 

previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill 

to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one 

hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman 

and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and 

Means; and (2) one motion to recommit. 

SEC. 2. During consideration of H.R. 4351 pursuant to 

this resolution, notwithstanding the operation of the previous 
2 

•HRES 861 EH 

question, the Chair may postpone further consideration of the 

bill to such time as may be designated by the Speaker. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
#### The BOARD OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION OF DADE COUNTY, Florida, a body corporate and politic under the laws of the State of Florida, Petitioner, v. The TOWN OF BAY HARBOR ISLANDS, Florida, a municipal corporation, respondent.

Supreme Court of Florida. Division A.

Sept. 28, 1954.

*787Boardman & Bolles, Edward F. Board-man and Von Arx & Von Arx, Miami, for petitioner.

Lewis Horwitz, Miami Beach, for respondent.

MATHEWS, Justice.

It is true that the condemnation of lands for school purposes, standing alone, is one vested in the discretion of school authorities. Other questions, covered by Section 230.33, F.S., as amended, F.S.A., besides condemnation of lands, are involved in this case. The questions of sites and agreement or contractual relationship by the school authorities on the one hand, and the Town of Bay Harbor Islands, a municipal corporation, on the other are involved. The injunction suit by the respondent was instituted after the alleged agreement or contract.

It does not appear that the Circuit Judge has abused his discretion in allowing an amendment to the bill of complaint, in denying the motion to dismiss the bill of complaint as amended, or in granting the temporary injunction against petitioner.

The petition for certiorari should be and the same is hereby denied, without prejudice to the rights of the parties to prosecute this suit to a conclusion.

ROBERTS, C. J., and TERRELL, SE-BRING and MATHEWS, JJ., concur.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Flagstar Bank, FSB

v. Case No. 09-mc-013-JM

FREESTAR Bank, N.A.

O R D E R

Defendant moves for reconsideration of my May 13, 2009

Order. For reasons set forth, the motion is denied.

1. The emails of 9/4/07 and 9/5/07.

Defendant offered no arguments with respect to these emails

in its motions of March 16th, to quash the subpoena. Making an

argument for the first time in a motion for reconsideration is

not favored. The First Circuit has

repeatedly held that once the ball has ended, the district

court has substantial discretion in deciding whether to

strike up the band again in order to allow the losing party

to argue new material or a new theory. (Citations omitted).

Appeal of Sun Pipe Line Co., 831 F.2d 22, 25 (1st Cir. 1987). 

Here, the original motion was wholly unsupported by any argument. 

Furthermore, contrary to defendant’s assertion, the content of

communications is not irrelevant. “Communications from attorney

Case 1:09-mc-00013-JM Document 19 Filed 06/17/09 Page 1 of 3
1The motion for reconsideration of that order is untimely.

2

to client are privileged only if they constitute legal advice, or

tend directly or indirectly to reveal the substance of a client

confidence.” United States v. Defazio, 899 F.2d 626, 635 (7th

Cir. 1990; Judson Atkinson Candies, Inc. v. Latini-Hokberger

Dkimantic, 529 F.3d 371, 388 (7th Cir. 2008). As the First

Circuit stated:

The dimensions of the privilege itself are reasonably

well honed. The privilege protects only those

communications that are confidential and are made for

the purpose of seeking or receiving legal advice.

In re Keeper Records (Grand Jury Subpoena Addressed to XYZ

Corp.), 348 F.3d 16, 22 (1st Cir. 2003).

If there is some aspect of the emails that is privileged,

defendant has not pointed it out.

2. April 13, 2006 letter

While I did erroneously frame the three-part Rice test as

disjunctive in my May 7th Order1, my May 13th Order is not based

upon the Rice test. Instead, it is clear that I did not find

that the letter or the handwritten note related to legal advice. 

Again, not until the motion for reconsideration did defendant

give any hint at what portion of the April 13th letter it alleged

related to legal advice. Revealing the fact of a conversation

Case 1:09-mc-00013-JM Document 19 Filed 06/17/09 Page 2 of 3
3

does not waive the privilege as to the content of the

conversation.

The motion for reconsideration (document no. 15) is denied.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________________

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: June 17, 2009

cc: Holly J. Kilibarda, Esq.

 Robert A. Kearney, Esq.

 Stephen David Coppolo, Esq.

 William C. Saturley, Esq.

Case 1:09-mc-00013-JM Document 19 Filed 06/17/09 Page 3 of 3
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

September 25, 2013

No. 04-13-00520-CV

THE STATE OF TEXAS FOR THE BEST INTEREST AND PROTECTION OF B.C. 

AS A MENTALLY ILL PERSON,

From the Probate Court No 1, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013MH2178

Honorable Polly Jackson Spencer, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

After one 18-day extension of time, Appellant's brief was due to be filed on or before 

September 17, 2013. Neither the brief nor a second motion for extension of time has been filed. 

It is therefore ORDERED that appellant show cause in writing within 10 days from the date of 

this order why this appeal should not be dismissed for want of prosecution. See TEX. R. APP. P. 

38.8(a).

_________________________________

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

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

court on this 25th day of September, 2013.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
174 La. 41

#### STATE v. ARMBRUSTER et al.

No. 31567.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 1, 1932.

Peyton .R. Sandoz, of New Orleans, for the State.

Henry W. Robinsom of New Orleans, for appellee.

BRUNOT, J.

This is a proceeding by rule upon the defendants, a commercial partnership, operating under the trade-name of Independent Oil Refining Company, for the recovery of taxes, delinquency penalty, and attorney’s fees amounting to $512.82, alleged to be due by defendant as a dealer in gasoline or motor fuel.

After a hearing upon the rule in the court below, the judge held that the commodity sought to be taxed was a low-grade distillate, not subject to the tax levied under Act No. 6 of the Extra Session of 1928, as amended by Act No. 8 of 1930; and for that reason he dismissed the suit, but upon the motion of the state and because the issue presented by the pleadings requires judicial interpretation of legislative acts, he granted the state an appeal to this court.

The appellee has filed here an exception to the jurisdiction of this court ratione materise, basing, the exception upon the ground that the sum claimed by the state is less than the minimum jurisdiction of this court.,

In this matter, whether or not the tax claimed is authorized by law is the issue.. The payment of the tax is resisted upon the

ground that the commodity sought to be taxed is not taxable.' To determine whether or not it is taxable requires an interpretation of Act No. 6 of the Extra Session of 1928, as amended by Act No. 8 of 1930. Where the legality of the tax' is an issue, this court has appellate jurisdiction regardless of the amount involved. Section 10, article 7 of the Constitution of 1921. The exception to the jurisdiction of the court ratione materias is not well founded, and the motion to dismiss the appeal, based on said exception, is overruled.

ST. PAUL, J., dissents.
19

A.14. Survey of Terms of Bank Lending to Farmers, Selected Quarters 

Percent except as noted 

USDA Farm Production Region

NE LS CB NP AP SE DL SP MN PA 

Proportion of farm loans 

 outstanding, 2004 Q3 survey, 

 region share of national 

 total 2.9 8.8 27.0 22.4 8.5 4.8 5.2 8.7 5.4 6.2 

 

Sample coverage, 2004 Q3 

 survey, sample share of total 

 regional loans 12.0 2.9 15.1 31.6 18.2 12.5 10.5 5.4 8.7 24.8 

 

Avg. loan size, 2005 Q1 survey 

(thousands of dollars) 39.5 42.8 62.7 46.4 79.3 97.0 146.8 38.1 37.8 42.1 

 

Survey date Weighted average interest rate during sample week

 

2001: Q1 9.3 9.1 9.4 9.7 8.4 7.8 9.5 9.0 9.8 8.8 

 Q2 8.2 8.7 8.3 8.8 7.4 8.1 8.3 9.2 8.6 7.9 

 Q3 8.3 9.8 7.9 8.2 6.3 7.6 8.7 8.8 7.8 7.2 

 Q4 6.9 7.9 6.3 7.0 5.2 6.3 8.7 7.6 6.1 5.2 

 

2002: Q1 6.9 7.8 6.7 7.2 5.2 5.5 7.3 7.4 6.8 4.9 

 (.12) (.37) (.26) (.22) (.63) (1.14) (.39) (.45) (.26) (.25) 

 Q2 6.8 7.4 6.4 7.2 5.0 5.9 7.6 7.5 6.5 5.1 

 (.14) (.29) (.27) (.21) (.48) (1.03) (.23) (.34) (.36) (.26) 

 Q3 6.0 6.9 4.8 5.6 4.4 4.9 6.6 5.3 5.6 4.3 

 (.14) (.03) (.51) (.40) (.69) (.68) (.22) (.96) (.36) (.33) 

 Q4 5.7 6.9 5.1 5.5 4.6 5.2 6.7 7.6 6.4 4.5 

 (.35) (.45) (.47) (1.01) (.56) (.62) (.68) (.35) (.47) (.62) 

 

2003: Q1 5.3 7.0 5.6 5.7 4.4 5.6 6.7 7.4 6.1 4.5 

 (.15) (.26) (.31) (.73) (.65) (.63) (.54) (.66) (.35) (.40) 

 Q2 6.0 6.7 5.3 6.5 4.6 6.1 7.3 5.7 6.4 5.2 

 (.29) (.17) (.37) (.34) (.71) (.63) (.45) (.71) (.36) (.50) 

 Q3 6.0 6.9 4.7 5.6 4.5 4.8 6.7 5.5 5.6 4.3 

 (.15) (.04) (.49) (.39) (.73) (.69) (.27) (.99) (.35) (.26) 

 Q4 6.5 6.5 4.0 5.1 4.6 5.2 6.7 7.5 5.4 4.2 

 (.59) (.22) (.30) (.71) (.54) (.83) (.54) (.58) (.39) (.42) 

 

2004: Q1 5.8 7.0 5.2 5.7 4.3 5.9 6.4 6.3 5.7 3.8 

 (.21) (.15) (.44) (.25) (.48) (.64) (.37) (.23) (.37) (.41) 

 Q2 4.8 6.3 5.2 6.2 4.6 6.4 6.9 6.2 6.4 4.1 

 (.19) (.05) (.66) (.32) (.45) (.31) (.57) (.19) (.40) (.24) 

 Q3 6.2 6.6 4.8 5.5 4.8 5.2 6.1 6.7 6.7 4.9 

 (.79) (.14) (.58) (1.15) (.38) (.75) (.41) (.45) (.29) (.08) 

 Q4 6.2 6.4 5.2 5.4 5.1 6.0 7.5 6.4 7.0 5.2 

 (.48) (.07) (.45) (.88) (1.01) (.81) (.30) (.22) (.30) (.10) 

 

2005: Q1 6.2 7.4 6.4 6.3 5.3 6.0 7.2 7.5 7.1 6.0 

 (.19) (.16) (.14) (.71) (.60) (.67) (.34) (.59) (.17) (.15) 

 Notes. NE is Northeast, LS is Lake States, CB is Cornbelt, NP is Northern Plains, AP is Appalachia, SE is Southeast, DL is 

Delta States, SP is Southern Plains, MN is Mountain States, and PA is Pacific. The numbers in parentheses are standard errors. They 

are calculated from 100 replications of a bootstrap procedure (resampling of banks) in each region.