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 Quarterly Report of National Healthcare Technology,  Inc.
on Form  10-QSB  for the  period  from  January  27,  2005  (Inception)  through
September 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the
date hereof (the "Report"),  the undersigned,  in the capacities and on the date
indicated below, 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:

      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 operation of the
      Company.

                                            /s/  Jon Carlson
                                            -----------------------------------
                                            Name:  Jon Carlson
                                            Title: Chief Executive Officer/
                                                   Chief Financial Officer
                                            Dated: November 18, 2006
I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 2077

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide for the disclosure

to State and local law enforcement agencies of the identity of individuals

claiming tax benefits improperly using social security numbers of other

individuals.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JUNE 6, 2001

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon introduced the following bill; which was referred to

the Committee on Ways and Means

A BILL

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide

for the disclosure to State and local law enforcement

agencies of the identity of individuals claiming tax benefits improperly using social security numbers of other

individuals.

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 ‘‘ID Theft Loophole

5 Closure Act’’.
2

•HR 2077 IH

1 SEC. 2. DISCLOSURE TO STATE AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCE2 MENT AGENCIES OF IDENTITY OF INDIVID3 UALS CLAIMING TAX BENEFIT USING IM4 PROPER SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS.

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subsection (m) of section 6103 of

6 the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to disclosure

7 of taxpayer identity information) is amended by adding

8 at the end the following new paragraph:

9 ‘‘(8) INDIVIDUALS CLAIMING TAX BENEFIT

10 USING IMPROPER SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS.—If

11 any State or local law enforcement agency has rea12 sonable cause to believe, based upon information be13 lieved to be reliable, that an individual may have vio14 lated a law of such State by claiming a tax benefit

15 on any income tax return under this title using a

16 TIN of any person who is not such individual, such

17 individual’s spouse, or a dependent (as defined in

18 section 152) of such individual, the Secretary may

19 (upon written request from the head of such agency)

20 disclose the name, TIN, and mailing address of such

21 individual to officers and employees of such agency

22 exclusively for use in locating such individual.’’

23 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by

24 this section shall take effect on the date of the enactment

25 of this Act.

Æ
#### Mabel B. Diven, Claimant, *v.*State of New York, Defendant.

(Claim No. 34035.)

Court of Claims,

February 4, 1957.

*Norman J, French*for claimant.

*Jacob K. Javits, Attorney-General (Timothy F. O’Brien*of counsel), for defendant.

Richard S. Uf,t.t,eb,, J.

Claimant was the owner of a farm containing approximately 170 acres. This farm, just outside the city limits of Elmira, New York, faced upper Lake Street, and the lands involved by the taking were located some distance easterly of the buildings and on the west slope of East Hill.

On November 2, 1955 the State appropriated 18.946 acres by filing a copy of the map in the Chemung County Clerk’s office. *283Service of this map was made on the claimant on November 28, 1955.

By the appropriation the State has divided the farm in half. The claimant still has the right to cross the new highway for farm purposes. This right is limited, however, and every possible use is not available to claimant.

The value of the land to the east of the new highway has been diminished by this restriction and this was recognized by the State’s witness. The same witness, however, did not favor any consequential damage to the land west of the new highway even though the farm was severed and its value as a unit is lessened.

Claimant’s expert witness testified that the best available use of the property taken was for a residential subdivision. It was shown that all the necessary facilities were available but the proof as to the cost of development left much to be desired. The court does not rule out such possibility but does consider it remote.

Neither party provided the court with a before and after value of the farm as a unit. Since the damage here is both direct and consequential the court should express an opinion as to those values.

The farm consisted of a large manor house, four tenant houses, a greenhouse, various sheds and outbuildings in addition to the 170 acres of land. None of the buildings were taken by the appropriation.

It is the opinion of the court that the fair and reasonable market value of the entire farm before the appropriation was $90,000 and that the fair and reasonable value after the appropriation was $75,190.

Claimant has been damaged in the amount of $14,810. That such award is for direct and consequential damages and includes an allowance for any fencing which may be required in the future.

Interest is awarded from November 2, 1955 to May 28, 1956, and from August 15, 1956 to the date of entry of judgment.

Claimant had originally asked for damages for the appropriation of parcel 320 of map 317 of the Ehnira-Horseheads Connection Pt. 2. This claim was withdrawn and upon consent was dismissed.

This claim has not been assigned.

The court has viewed the premises.

Submit findings.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 14**  **- 7047** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

– Appellee ,
v. RONALD DAWSON, a/k/a Tree , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Raleigh
. Louise W. Flanagan , District Judge. ( 5:06

- cr - 00061

- FL

- 1; 5:08

- cv - 00298

- FL )

Submitted : November 14, 2014 Decided: December 1, 2014

Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and FLOYD , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Ronald Dawson, Appellant Pro Se. Edward D. Gray, Jennifer P. May

- Parker, Assistant United States Attorneys, Banumathi Rangarajan, Seth Morgan Wood, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee
. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Ronald Dawson seeks to appeal the district court’s order s denying relief on his filing, which was construed as a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 ( 2012 ) motion , and his motion for reconsideration . The order s are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (B) (20 12 ). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a

con stitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (20 12 ). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional clai ms is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Dawson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, w e deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argu m ent because the facts and legal3 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
174 La. 76

#### KAPLAN STATE BANK v. FARMERS’ SUPPLY CO., Inc.

No. 30994.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 1, 1932.

H. Purvis- Carmouche, of Crowley, for appellant.

J. E. Kibbe, Jr., and Nugier & Gordy, all of Abbeville, for appellee.

BRUNOT, J.

This is a suit to annul a tax sale of the property involved; for the recognition of the *764plaintiff: as the owner thereof; for possession of the property; for the cancellation of the tax deed from the conveyance records of the parish of Vermilion in so far as the tax deed affects the plaintiff’s title; and for judgment against the defendant for $900, with legal interest thereon from judicial demand.

There was judgment annulling the tax sale and ordering it erased from the conveyance records of Vermilion parish, in so far as it affects the plaintiff’s title to the property; decreeing the plaintiff to he the lawful owner of the property; ordering that it be put in possession thereof, and awarding the plaintiff judgment against the defendant for $240, with legal interest thereon from judicial demand, and for costs.

The defendant perfected ,an appeal from the judgment, but it has not followed up the appeal, nor filed a brief in the ease, nor made any appearance before this court. A similar situation was presented in the case of Bynum v. Lieber, 155 La. 760, 99 *So.*590. In that case we held that, where the finding below is sustained by evidence, and appellant has not pointed out any- error therein, the judgment will not be disturbed, but will be presumed to be correct, in the absence of error patent on the face of the record. There is no error patent on the face of this record, and the judgment is not only supported by proof, but it appears to be in accord therewith.

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment appealed from is affirmed, at appellant’s cost.
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 National Healthcare Technology, Inc.
on Form 10-QSB/A for the period from January 27, 2005 (Inception) through March
31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated
below, 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:

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 operation of the Company.


                                          /s/ JON CARLSON
                                          --------------------------------------
                                          Jon Carlson
                                          CEO, CFO
                                          Dated: February 20, 2007
#### Frank Lacoparra et al., Appellants, v Concetta Bellino et al., Respondents.

[745 NYS2d 693]

Motion by the appellants for leave to reargue an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County, dated July 9, 2001, which was determined by decision and order of this Court, dated December 10, 2001, or, in the alternative, for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals from the decision and order of this Court.

Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed in opposition thereto, it is

Ordered that the branch of the motion which is for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals is denied; and it is further,

Ordered that the branch of the motion which is for leave to reargue is granted, and upon reargument, it is,

*481Ordered that the decision and order dated December 10, 2001 (289 AD2d 300), in the above-entitled case is recalled and vacated, and the following decision and order is substituted therefor:

In an action for reformation of a deed, the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Sherwood, J.), dated July 9, 2001, as granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

To reform a written instrument based upon mutual mistake or fraud, the proponent of reformation must show, by clear and convincing evidence, “not only that mistake or fraud exists, but exactly what was really agreed upon between the parties” *(Backer Mgt. Corp. v Acme Quilting Co.,*46 NY2d 211, 219; *see Chimart Assoc. v Paul,*66 NY2d 570, 574). In support of their motion for summary judgment, the defendants sustained their initial burden of demonstrating that the disputed parcel was not omitted from the subject deed due to a mutual mistake or fraud. In opposition to the motion, the plaintiffs failed to come forward with clear and convincing evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the parties actually reached an agreement to include the disputed parcel in the deed, or whether, as a result of fraud, the deed did not express the true intentions of the parties. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment (see *Chimart Assoc. v Paul, supra; Backer Mgt. Corp. v Acme Quilting Co., supra; K.I.D.E. Assoc. v Garage Estates Co.,*280 AD2d 251; *Schultz v Hourihan,*238 AD2d 818; *Romeo v Tsunis Hotel Partners,*218 AD2d 646).

The plaintiffs’ remaining contentions are without merit. Ritter, J.P., S. Miller, Krausman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM 10-KSB AND
IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                         231,313
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,336,021
<ALLOWANCES>                                   229,000
<INVENTORY>                                  1,004,352
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             4,361,943
<PP&E>                                       3,902,324
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,348,581
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               9,475,797
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,424,490
<BONDS>                                      2,141,620
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         3,311
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,820,692
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 9,475,797
<SALES>                                     15,945,627
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            15,945,627
<CGS>                                        8,123,075
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                6,790,925
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             233,140
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,189,402
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (229,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,418,402
<DISCONTINUED>                               (652,943)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   765,459
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.24
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.23
        

</TABLE>
#### ROSEN v. CITY OF LAKE WORTH.

Supreme Court of Florida. Division B.

March 12, 1954.

Rehearing Denied April 27, 1954.

Tobias Simon, Miami Beach," for appellant.

John R. Day, Lake Worth, for appellee.

DREW, Justice.

On July 3, 1952, the Circuit Court of Palm Beach County entered a final decree in a county tax foreclosure suit pursuant to the provisions of Section 194.47 et seq., Florida Statutes 195R F.S.A. It was on’ this date that a new, original fee simple title to the subject lands located in the City of Lake Worth, Florida, became vested in the: county for the purposes specified in the Act. See Section 194.53, Florida Statutes 1951, F.S.A.

On February 5, 1953, appellant purchased said lands from the county. His deed was recorded February 5th.

On November 5, 1952, after title vested in the county and before the same was purchased by appellant, the City of Lake Worth filed an improvement lien against the property. Inasmuch as the' record does not show the kind of improvement or the date of its installation, we construe this allegation of the complaint as conceding that both dates were subsequent to the date of the final decree.

The appellant urged, unsuccessfully, in the lower court in suit to quiet title that the lands ' were not sub j ect to a municipal improvement lien during the period of ownership of the lands by the county. He again urges the same position here.

The statutes have so clearly and unequivocally delineated the procedure and the'rights "a'nd’status of parties acquiring rights — or being cut off from rights — that *741there is little left for construction. On this particular question, there is nothing to be construed. The very keystone of the Act is its various provisions fixing rights, status, etc., *as of the date of the final decree.*For instance see particularly Section 194.55(5), Florida Statutes 1951,- F. S.A., regarding distribution of the proceeds and Section 194.53, Florida Statutes 1951, F.S.A., and numerous other provisions of this law, all of which lead inescapably to the conclusion that the only rights that are affected are those existing at the date of the final decree. The fact that Cities, Districts, etc., may not levy general taxes after title vests in the county is because of the provisions of the Act, Section. 194.-55(6), and.this language dpes not embrace Special Assessments.

We are no't confronted here with the question of municipal improvement liens on lands owned by the county and held or used for county purposes.

Affirmed.

ROBERTS, C. J., and THOMAS and HOBSON, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 189 (Monday, September 29, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 56614-56615]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-22877]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration


Manufacturer of Controlled Substances; Notice of Registration

    By Notice dated April 28, 2008 and published in the Federal 
Register on May 2, 2008 (73 FR 24313), Lin Zhi International Inc., 687 
North Pastoria Avenue, Sunnyvale, California 94085, made application by 
renewal to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to be registered 
as a bulk manufacturer of the basic classes of controlled substances 
listed in schedules I and II:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Drug                               Schedule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             ...........................
Tetrahydrocannabinols (7370)...............  I
3,4-Methylenedioxymetham-phetamine (MDMA)    I
 (7405).
Cocaine (9041).............................  II
Oxycodone (9143)...........................  II
Hydrocodone (9193).........................  II
Methadone (9250)...........................  II
Dextropropoxyphene, bulk (non-dosage forms)  II
 (9273).
Morphine (9300)............................  II
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The company plans to manufacture the listed controlled substances 
as bulk reagents for use in drug abuse testing.

[[Page 56615]]

    No comments or objections have been received. DEA has considered 
the factors in 21 U.S.C. 823(a) and determined that the registration of 
Lin Zhi International Inc. to manufacture the listed basic classes of 
controlled substances is consistent with the public interest at this 
time. DEA has investigated Lin Zhi International Inc. to ensure that 
the company's registration is consistent with the public interest. The 
investigation has included inspection and testing of the company's 
physical security systems, verification of the company's compliance 
with state and local laws, and a review of the company's background and 
history. Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823, and in accordance with 
21 CFR 1301.33, the above named company is granted registration as a 
bulk manufacturer of the basic classes of controlled substances listed.

     Dated: September 22, 2008.
Joseph T. Rannazzisi,
Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug 
Enforcement Administration.
[FR Doc. E8-22877 Filed 9-26-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
EXHIBIT
32.2




CERTIFICATION




Pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. §1350, as
adopted), the undersigned, Mark R. Doede, President, Chief Operating Officer and
Chief Financial Officer of Integral Vision, Inc. (the “Company”), hereby certifies
that, to the best of his knowledge:




1.The
Company's Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2007
(the “Periodic
Report”), to which this Certification is attached as Exhibit 32.2
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:
            December 20, 2010/S/ Mark R. DoedeMark
      R. DoedePresident,
      Chief Operating Officer,and
      Chief Financial Officer
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-01731-CMA-MJW

AMANDA SULLIVAN, individually, and as Personal Representative of the Estate of

Kiera Sullivan, a minor, deceased, 

Plaintiff,

v.

DELTA ENTERPRISE, CORP.,

Defendant.

MINUTE ORDER 

Entered by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe

It is hereby ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Amend the Scheduling Order

(Docket No. 60) is GRANTED for good cause shown. The Scheduling Order (Docket

No. 11) shall be amended as follows:

1. Discovery cutoff: February 8, 2013;

2. Dispositive motions deadline: February 22, 2013;

3. Expert witness disclosures: Plaintiff will disclose affirmative experts on or before

November 5, 2012. Defendant will disclose its experts on or before December 5, 2012. 

Plaintiff will disclose rebuttal experts on or before December 18, 2012.

Further, the final pretrial conference scheduled for December 12, 2012 at 10:00

a.m. is VACATED. The final pretrial conference is RESET for February 27, 2013 at

10:00 a.m.

Date: October 2, 2012

Case 1:11-cv-01731-CMA-MJW Document 66 Filed 10/02/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1