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



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Annual Report of Integral Systems, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ending September 30, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the Report), I, Steven R. Chamberlain the Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to and for purposes of 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 the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                             
|---------------------------------------------
|/s/ Steven R. Chamberlain                    
|                                             
|Steven R. Chamberlain Chief Executive Officer



Date: December 12, 2003
## S IXTH 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________ Case No. 6D2 3

- 67 Lower Tribunal No. 2016

- CF

- 000508

- XX

_____________________________ G EORGE B EATO , Appellant ,

v. S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee

.

_____________________________ Appeal from the Circuit Court for Polk County

. Jalal A. Harb , Judge. May 28, 2 024
PER CURIAM

. AFFIRMED

. TRAVER , C

. J. , and WHITE and BROWNLEE , JJ., c oncur.

Howard L. “Rex” Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Steven G. Mason , Special Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Jonathan S. Tannen , Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

NOT FINAL U NTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF TIMELY FILED
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Judge Philip A. Brimmer

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02369-PAB-KMT

LARRY SIPES,

Plaintiff,

v.

ALLSTATE INDEMNITY COMPANY, an Illinois corporation,

Defendant.

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the Motion to Dismiss Counterclaims [Docket

No. 50] filed by defendant Allstate Indemnity Company (“Allstate”). In its motion,

Allstate requests that the Court dismiss its counterclaim for equitable or conventional

subrogation with prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2) and (c). In his response,

plaintiff Larry Sipes states that he does not object to Allstate’s request. Docket No. 52

at 2. 

A party seeking to dismiss his claims after an answer has been filed, as is the

case here, may do so only by Court order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2). “Absent ‘legal

prejudice’ to the [plaintiff], the district court normally should grant such a dismissal.”

Ohlander v. Larson, 114 F.3d 1531, 1537 (10th Cir. 1997). In the present case, the

Court finds no reason to deny Allstate’s motion to dismiss its counterclaim. Allstate’s

motion is unopposed and there has been no delay and no prejudice to plaintiff. See id. 

Accordingly, it is 

Case 1:11-cv-02369-PAB-KMT Document 134 Filed 05/23/13 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
2

ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Counterclaims [Docket No. 50] is

GRANTED. It is further

ORDERED that Allstate’s counterclaim for equitable or conventional subrogation

is dismissed with prejudice. 

DATED May 23, 2013.

BY THE COURT:

 s/Philip A. Brimmer 

PHILIP A. BRIMMER

United States District Judge

Case 1:11-cv-02369-PAB-KMT Document 134 Filed 05/23/13 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
<PAGE>

                                                                      Exhibit 21

                                 CONVERSE INC.

                             LIST of SUBSIDIARIES
                             --------------------

Converse Star I, Inc., a subsidiary of Converse Inc.
Incorporated in Massachusetts on March 26, 1985

Converse EMEA Ltd., a subsidiary of Converse Inc.
Incorporated in Delaware on January 29, 1990

Converse Europe, Inc., a subsidiary of Converse Inc.
Incorporated in Delaware on November 23, 1993

  Converse Germany, Inc., a subsidiary of Converse Europe, Inc.
  Incorporated in Delaware on March 21, 1994

  Converse Iberia, Inc., a subsidiary of Converse Europe, Inc.
  Incorporated in Delaware on July 8, 1994

  Converse Italy, Inc., a subsidiary of Converse Europe, Inc.
  Incorporated in Delaware on September 21, 1994

  Converse Scandinavia, Inc., a subsidiary of Converse Europe, Inc.
  Incorporated in Delaware on June 7, 1995

  Converse Benelux Holding Company, Inc., a subsidiary of Converse Europe, Inc.
  Incorporated in Delaware on November 23, 1993

     Converse Benelux, Inc., a subsidiary of Converse Benelux Holding Company,
     Inc.
     Incorporated in Delaware on November 23, 1993

     Converse France, Inc., a subsidiary of Converse Benelux Holding Company,
     Inc.
     Incorporated in Delaware on November 23, 1993

Converse Shelf, Inc., a subsidiary of Converse Inc.
Incorporated in Delaware on November 21, 1994

Converse Japan Corporation, a subsidiary of Converse Inc.
Incorporated in Delaware on May 2, 1996

Converse Mexico, Inc., a subsidiary of Converse Inc.
Incorporated in Delaware on October 23, 1996

Converse All Star do Brasil Industria e Comercio Ltda., a subsidiary of Converse
Inc.
Incorporated in Brazil

Calzado Deportivo de Reynosa, S.A. de C.V., a subsidiary of Converse Inc.
Incorporated in Mexico on January 25, 1984

Converse Export Co. Limited, a subsidiary of Converse Inc.
Incorporated in Barbados on December 28, 1984

Apex One, Inc., a subsidiary of Converse Inc.
Incorporated in New Jersey on July 8, 1988
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-01965-BNB 

JEREMY PINSON,

Applicant,

v.

BLAKE DAVIS,

Respondent.

ORDER ASSIGNING CASE

After review pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 8.2C, the Court has determined that

this case does not appear to be appropriate for summary dismissal. Therefore, this

case is being assigned to Chief Judge Wiley Y. Daniel, pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR

40.1C.1., and to Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland. See D.C.COLO.LCivR 8.2D. 

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that this case shall be assigned to Chief Judge Wiley Y. Daniel,

pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 40.1C.1., and to Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland.

DATED December 28, 2011, at Denver, Colorado.

BY THE COURT:

 s/ Boyd N. Boland 

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 1:11-cv-01965-WYD Document 12 Filed 12/28/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT 4.11

                       ASSIGNMENT AND ASSUMPTION AGREEMENT

         THIS AGREEMENT made as of the 22nd day of November, 1995

B E T W E E N:

                  YORK MEDICAL INC.

                  ("York")

                  - and -

                  CIMYM INC.

                  ("Cimym")

WHEREAS:

A.    Pursuant to a licensing agreement (the "Licensing Agreement") made the 3rd
      day of May, 1995 between York and Cimab S.A.  ("Cimab"),  Cimab granted to
      York a license to certain technology to which Cimab holds rights.

B.    By articles of amendment  dated  September  28, 1995 York changed its name
      from Yorkton Medical Inc. to York Medical Inc.

C.    Pursuant to the terms of the  Licensing  Agreement,  York agreed to assign
      its rights and obligations thereunder to Cimym.

D.    As  consideration  for  such  assignment,   Cimym  agrees  to  assume  the
      obligations of York under the Licensing Agreement.

      NOW THEREFORE  THIS  AGREEMENT  WITNESSETH  THAT in  consideration  of the
premises  and of the payment of one dollar  ($1.00) and other good and  valuable
consideration by Cimym to York, (the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereof
acknowledged by York) the parties hereto covenant and agree as follows:

1. York hereby grants, transfers,  assigns and sets over absolutely until Cimym,
its successors and assigns,  all York's right,  title and interest in and to the
Licensing Agreement and all of the rights, benefits and advantages whatsoever to
be derived therefrom from and after the date hereof.

2. Cimym agrees to assume and to observe and perform all of the  obligations  of
York under the Licensing  Agreement  and Cimym will  indemnify and save harmless
York from and against all actions,  suits, costs, losses,  charges,  damages and
expenses arising as a result of any default or non-observance or non-performance


<PAGE>


on the part of Cimym  of any of the  obligations  of York  under  the  Licensing
Agreement from and after the date hereof.

3. This  agreement  will be binding upon and enure to the benefit of each of the
parties hereto and its respective successors and assigns.

4. This agreement will be governed by and construed in accordance  with the laws
of the Province of Ontario.

5. The  parties  agree to provide  such  further  assurances  as are  reasonably
required by them to carry out the terms of this agreement.

                                           YORK MEDICAL INC.


                                           by:
                                              ----------------------------------

                                           CIMYM INC.


                                           by:
                                              ----------------------------------
EXHIBIT 99.2
                                                                    ------------



CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER'S CERTIFICATION TO U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the accompanying Form 10-QSB of ZAP for the three months
ended March 31, 2003, William Hartman, Chief Financial Officer of ZAP, hereby
certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to my knowledge, that:

(3)  such Form Type of ZAP for the three months ended March 31, 2003,fully
     complies with the requirements of Section 13 (a) or 15 (d) of the
     Securities Exchange of 1934; and

(4)  the information contained in such Form 10-QSB of ZAP for the three months
     ended March 31, 2003,fairly presents, in all material respects, the
     financial condition and results of operations of ZAP.





/s/  William Hartman
------------------------------------
William Hartman
Chief Financial Officer


May 12, 2003
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 192 (Thursday, October 2, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 57389]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-23378]


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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[File No. 500-1]


MB Tech, Inc., Order of Suspension of Trading

September 30, 2008.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is 
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of 
MB Tech, Inc., because it has not filed any periodic reports since the 
period ended June 30, 2006.
    The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the 
protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the 
securities of MB Tech, Inc.
    Therefore, it is ordered, pursuant to Section 12(k) of the 
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that trading in the securities of MB 
Tech, Inc., is suspended for the period from 9:30 a.m. EDT on September 
30, 2008, through 11:59 p.m. EDT on October 13, 2008.

    By the Commission.
Florence E. Harmon,
Acting Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-23378 Filed 9-30-08; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
**Exhibit 99.4**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTEREDCHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS**

We consent to the incorporation byreference in Registration Statements No. 333-12130 on Form F-3 and No. 333-12780and 333-12802 on Form S-8 and to the use of our reports dated March 10, 2011relating to the financial statements of BCE Inc., the reconciliation of CanadianGAAP to United States GAAP (which report includes an explanatory paragraphrelating to changes in accounting principles), and to BCE Inc.’s internalcontrol over financial reporting appearing in and incorporated by reference inthe annual report on Form 40-F of BCE Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2010. 

*(signed) Deloitte & Touche LLP**1***Independent Registered CharteredAccountants 

Montréal, Canada March 10, 2011 

______________________________ 1 Chartered accountant auditor permit no 9335

 

1

----
Case 1:11-cv-02407-MSK-KLM Document 21 Filed 05/14/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 7
Case 1:11-cv-02407-MSK-KLM Document 21 Filed 05/14/12 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 7
Case 1:11-cv-02407-MSK-KLM Document 21 Filed 05/14/12 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 7
Case 1:11-cv-02407-MSK-KLM Document 21 Filed 05/14/12 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 7
Case 1:11-cv-02407-MSK-KLM Document 21 Filed 05/14/12 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 7
Case 1:11-cv-02407-MSK-KLM Document 21 Filed 05/14/12 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 7
Case 1:11-cv-02407-MSK-KLM Document 21 Filed 05/14/12 USDC Colorado Page 7 of 7
II

Calendar No. 246

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 2199

[Report No. 107–103]

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

SEPTEMBER 25, 2001

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Governmental Affairs

NOVEMBER 29, 2001

Reported by Mr. LIEBERMAN, without amendment

AN ACT

To amend the National Capital Revitalization and Self-Government Improvement Act of 1997 to permit any Federal

law enforcement agency to enter into a cooperative agreement with the Metropolitan Police Department of the

District of Columbia to assist the Department in carrying out crime prevention and law enforcement activities

in the District of Columbia if deemed appropriate by

the Chief of the Department and the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia, and for other purposes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 2199 RS

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘District of Columbia

3 Police Coordination Amendment Act of 2001’’.

4 SEC. 2. PERMITTING ADDITIONAL FEDERAL LAW ENFORCE5 MENT AGENCIES TO ENTER INTO COOPERA6 TIVE AGREEMENTS WITH METROPOLITAN

7 POLICE DEPARTMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF

8 COLUMBIA.

9 Section 11712(d) of the National Capital Revitaliza10 tion and Self-Government Improvement Act of 1997 (D.C.

11 Code, sec. 4–192(d)) is amended by adding at the end the

12 following:

13 ‘‘(33) Any other law enforcement agency of the

14 Federal government that the Chief of the Metropoli15 tan Police Department and the United States Attor16 ney for the District of Columbia deem appropriate to

17 enter into an agreement pursuant to this section.’’.

Calendar No. 246

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 2199

[Report No. 107–103]

AN ACT

To amend the National Capital Revitalization and

Self-Government Improvement Act of 1997 topermit any Federal law enforcement agency toenter into a cooperative agreement with the Metropolitan Police Department of the District ofColumbia to assist the Department in carryingout crime prevention and law enforcement activities in the District of Columbia if deemed appropriate by the Chief of the Department and theUnited States Attorney for the District of Columbia, and for other purposes.

NOVEMBER 29, 2001

Reported without amendment
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

JORDAN GERALD LEE JACKSON,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 13-30032

D.C. No. 4:12-cr-00067-SEH

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Montana

Sam E. Haddon, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 17, 2013** 

Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.

Jordan Gerald Lee Jackson appeals from the district court’s judgment and

challenges the 30-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for

assault resulting in serious bodily injury, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1153 and

113(a)(6). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

FILED

DEC 30 2013

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Jackson contends that the district court erred by failing to meaningfully

consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors, basing its sentence on

inferences not supported by the record, and failing to meaningfully consider and

address Jackson’s individual circumstances or his argument that his criminal

history is overrepresented. The court did not procedurally err, United States v.

Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 991-93 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc), and Jackson’s withinGuidelines sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the section 3553(a)

sentencing factors and totality of the circumstances, including Jackson’s criminal

and substance abuse history and the seriousness of the instant offense. See Gall v.

United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).

AFFIRMED.

2 13-30032
## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 01-3723

___________ Gary Barfield, * * Appellant, * * v. * * Appeal from the United States Dr. Duong Ly, East Arkansas * District Court for the Eastern Regional Unit, ADC; Bernard * District of Arkansas. Williams, Infirmary Manager, East * Arkansas Regional Unit, ADC; Max * [UNPUBLISHED] Mobley, Deputy Director of Health * Services, Arkansas Department of * Correction, * * Appellees. *

___________ Submitted: March 6, 2002 Filed: March 8, 2002

___________ Before WOLLMAN, FAGG, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Gary Barfield challenges the district court's dismissal of Barfield's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 lawsuit after holding a pretrial evidentiary hearing. After careful consideration of all the evidence, the district court concluded there was no evidence from which a jury could find the correctional officials acted with deliberate-2- indifference to Barfield's serious medical needs. Based on our de novo review, see Randle v. Parker , 48 F.3d 301, 303 (8th Cir. 1995) (standard of review), we agree with the district court and thus affirm the order of dismissal. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
**Exhibit 32.1**

** **

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906**

**OFTHE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Intraware, Inc. (the “Company”) for theperiod ended November 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Form 10-Q”), I Peter H. Jackson,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 to my knowledge:

 

(1)           The Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C.78m or 78o(d)); and

 

(2)           The information contained in the Form 10-Q fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company.

 

Dated:    January 11, 2008

 
| /s/  PETER H. JACKSON                            |   |
|------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Peter H.  Jackson                                     |
| *Chairman,  Chief Executive Officer and President of* |
| *Intraware,  Inc.*                                         |
| *(Principal  Executive Officer)*                           |

** **

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906**

**OFTHE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Intraware, Inc. (the “Company”) for theperiod ended November 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Form 10-Q”), I Wendy A. Nieto,Chief Financial Officer and Executive Vice President, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350,as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

 

(1)           The Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C.78m or 78o(d)); and

 

(2)           The information contained in the Form 10-Q fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company.

 

Dated:    January 11, 2008

 
| /s/  WENDY A. NIETO            |   |
|------------------------------------------|--------|
| Wendy A.  Nieto                     |
| *Chief  Financial Officer and Executive* |
| *Vice  President of Intraware, Inc.*     |
| *(Principal  Financial Officer)*         |

 

----
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 31.1

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER CERTIFICATION

I, Charles Smith, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of National Healthcare
Technology, Inc.

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make
the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly
report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that
material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered
by this report based on such evaluation; and

c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal
quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report)
that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors
(or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; and

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over
financial reporting.


Date: February 16, 2004

                  /s/ Charles Smith
                  Charles Smith
                  Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer