alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

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

         In connection with the annual report of Bakers Footwear Group, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending January 3, 2004 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Peter A. Edison, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, and I, Lawrence L. Spanley, Jr., Chief Financial Officer, Vice
President - Finance, Treasurer and Secretary of the Company, certify, pursuant
to Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code, 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.



Date:   April 1, 2004                  /s/ Peter A. Edison
                                       -----------------------------------
                                       Peter A. Edison
                                       Chairman of the Board and
                                       Chief Executive Officer
                                       Bakers Footwear Group, Inc.


Date:   April 1, 2004                  /s/ Lawrence L. Spanley, Jr.
                                       ---------------------------------
                                       Lawrence L. Spanley, Jr.
                                       Chief Financial Officer, Vice President -
                                       Finance, Treasurer and Secretary
                                       Bakers Footwear Group, Inc.




         A signed original of this written statement or other document
authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement has been
provided to Bakers Footwear Group, Inc. and will be retained by Bakers Footwear
Group, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

LEWIS T. BABCOCK, JUDGE

Criminal Case No. 11-cr-00420-LTB

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

1. LUIS MOY,

Defendant.

________________________________________________________________________

MINUTE ORDER

________________________________________________________________________

BY ORDER OF JUDGE LEWIS T. BABCOCK

This will confirm that the change of plea regarding Defendant Moy is set

Wednesday, May 16, 2012 at 10:30 a.m. in Courtroom C-401, Byron G. Rogers United

States Courthouse, 1929 Stout Street, Denver, Colorado. Defendant must be present.

Dated: April 10, 2012

Case 1:11-cr-00420-LTB Document 27 Filed 04/10/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 13**  **- 800**  **0**

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. DERRICK LEVON PLATT , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Florence
. R . Bryan Harwell , District Judge. ( 4:0 9

- cr - 0 1146

- RBH

- 1; 4:13

- cv - 0 2937

- RBH )

Submitted : February 20, 2014 Decided: February 26, 2014
Before DUNCAN, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges
.
Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
.
Derrick Levon Platt , Appellant Pro Se. Alfred William Walker Bethea, Jr. , Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina , for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CUR IAM: Derrick Levon Platt seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying as successive his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 ( 2012 ) motion. The order is 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 constitutional 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 demon strating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims 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 constitutio nal right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Platt has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability , deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the ap peal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately3 presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
#### Gordon BUTLER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ANDRESS MOTOR COMPANY, Inc., Defendant-Appellee.

No. 7447.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Second Circuit.

Jan. 31, 1950.

Louis Lyons, Bossier City, Attorney for Appellant.

Cook, Clark & Egan, Shreveport, Attorneys for Appellee.

KENNON, Judge.

In this case there was judgment in the City Court of Shreveport, Louisiana, 4th Ward, Caddo Parish, in favor of the An-dress Motor Company, Inc., and against Gordon Butler, rejecting the demands of Gordon Butler at his cost.

For the reasons assigned in opinion this day rendered in case No. 7448, the judgment of the City Court is affirmed, with costs. Andress Motor Co. v. Butler, La. App., 43 So.2d 913.
**Exhibit 31.1****CERTIFICATION**I, John S. Chen, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Sybase, Inc.;2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this quarterly report;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterlyreport;4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and we have:a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;b) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control overfinancial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regardingthe reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for externalpurposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presentedin 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; andd) Disclosed in this report any changes in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the period covered by this report that has materially affected, oris reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrols over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; andb) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal controls over financial reporting.Date: August 8, 2006           /s/ JOHN S. CHEN             John S. Chen
216 La. 757

#### MAGNOLIA PETROLEUM COMPANY v. STATE MINERAL BOARD et al.

No. 39650.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 9, 1949.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 13, 1950.

Boatner, Simon & Carroll, Shreveport,, for plaintiff-appellant.

Bolivar E. Kemp, Jr., Atty. Gen., Carroll Buck, 1st Asst. Atty. Gen., John L. Madden, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendant-appel-lee.

McCALEB, Justice.

This case was consolidated for all purposes with the suit of The Texas Company v. State Mineral Board et al., 216 La. 742, 44 So.2d 841. The decision in that matter controls here.

The judgment appealed from is affirmed.
#### ALL FLORIDA SURETY COMPANY, Appellant, v. SEABOARD SURETY COMPANY, a New York Corporation; Zaret Construction Co., a Florida Corporation, Harry Zaret and Lilyan Zaret, his Wife, Appellees.

Supreme Court of Florida. Division B.

June 25, 1954.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Chief Judge Marcia S. Krieger

Criminal Action No. 11-cr-00412-MSK

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

1. HILARIO QUINTERO-RODRIGUEZ,

 a/k/a “The Big Guy,”, a/k/a “Santa Claus,”

2. ABEL SANCHEZ-LEON,

 a/k/a Joel Lopez,

 A/k/a Raul Marez-Ortiez,

3. OCTAVIO QUEZADA-PEREZ,

 a/k/a “Tavi,”

4. FLODINA BELETSO GALLEGOS,

5. GUADALUPE RUIZ-GUARDADO,

 a/k/a “Lupe,”

6. JULIO MARES-RUIZ,

 a/k/a “Mariano,”

7. LUIS JORGE MARTINEZ-VALDIVA, and

8. ROBERT MASON BYAS,

 a/k/a “Robin,”

Defendants.

 

ORDER AND NOTICE OF CHANGE OF PLEA AND SENTENCING HEARINGS

 

THIS MATTER comes before the Court following the filing of a Notice of Disposition 

(#531) on May 4, 2013, by Defendant Julio Mares-Ruiz. The Court construes this Notice as a

motion to change his/her plea and to have the Court consider the terms of the parties’ plea

agreement.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:

1. Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(1)(F) and (I), the speedy trial clock is tolled

Case 1:11-cr-00412-REB-DW Document 544 Filed 05/07/13 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
1

 In criminal cases originating from the Grand Junction or Durango Jury Divisions of this Court, counsel

shall be prepared to advise the Court at the time of the change of plea hearing whether a written request to have the

sentencing hearing conducted at the courthouse in either Grand Junction or Durango will be filed. See

Administrative Order 2007-8.

pending determination of those matters. 

2. A Change of Plea hearing is set for July 23, 2013, at 10:30 a.m. and a Sentencing

hearing is set for October 15, 2013, at 3:00 p.m. in the United States District

Court for the District of Colorado, Courtroom A901, Alfred A. Arraj U.S.

Courthouse, 901 19th Street, Denver, Colorado.1

DATED this 7th day of May, 2013.

BY THE COURT:

Marcia S. Krieger

Chief United States District Judge

Case 1:11-cr-00412-REB-DW Document 544 Filed 05/07/13 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
#### SNYDER v. ERTELL.

Supreme Court of Florida.

June Term 1953.

Certiorari dismissed without opinion.
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

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

 

In connection with the Annual Report of Uni-Pixel, Inc. (the “Company”)on Form 10-KSB for the year ending December 31, 2008 as filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,James A. Tassone, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

·              The Reportfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C 78m or 78o(d)); and

·              Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 
| Date:  | March 6, 2009 | By:    | /s/ James A. Tassone                      |
|--------|--------------------|--------|-------------------------------------------|
|   |               |   | James A. Tassone, Chief Financial Officer |

 

*A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to Uni-Pixel, Inc. andwill be retained by Uni-Pixel, Inc. and furnished to the Securities andExchange Commission or its staff upon request. The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company forpurposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.*

 

----
#### Melvin Lee SMITH, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 44165.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Oct. 26, 1971.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 14, 1971.

Robert M. Jones, Dallas, for appellant.

Henry Wade, Dist. Atty., John B. Tolle and James S. Moss, Asst. Dist. Attys., Dallas, and Jim D. Vollers, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

OPINION

ONION, Presiding Judge.

This is an appeal from a robbery conviction where the punishment was assessed at 60 years by the court following a guilty verdict.

The sufficiency of the evidence is not challenged.

At the outset appellant does contend the court erred in permitting his in-court identification by the complaining witness Mildred Seabourn, a checker in the store where the robbery occurred, and by Mary Ann Jordan, wife of the store owner who was also employed there at the time of the alleged offense. It is his contention that their in-court identification was tainted by an “overly suggestive lineup.”

Prior to permitting such in-court identification the careful trial judge followed the procedure recommended by this court in Martinez v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 437 S.W.2d 842. After such separate hearing in the jury’s absence he dictated his findings into the record, noting that each witness had an adequate opportunity to observe the appellant during the course of the robbery and that their identification was based on such observations and not tainted by any lineup or display of photographs. The record clearly supports the findings of the trial judge. Ground of error #1 is overruled.

Next the appellant contends in his brief that

> “II

> “The Court erred in admitting evidence obtained by an illegal search and seizure.

> *217“HI

> “The Court erred in overruling appellant’s objections to leading questions by State’s counsel.”

These grounds of error are unbriefed and the appellant does not designate what portion of the record to which he even has reference. Error has not been properly assigned as required by Article 40.09, Sec. 9, Vernon’s Ann.C.C.P. This court with its tremendous caseload should not be required to search through a voluminous record hoping to discover the court’s actions to which appellant might possibly have reference. McElroy v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 455 S.W.2d 223; Erwin v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 463 S.W.2d 13; Frey v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 466 S.W.2d 576. Nothing is presented for review.

The judgment is affirmed.

ROBERTS, J., not participating.
##### 



EXHIBIT 12
 CAPSTEAD MORTGAGE CORPORATION
COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO COMBINED
FIXED CHARGES AND PREFERRED STOCK DIVIDENDS
(In thousands, except ratios)
(Unaudited)
 Nine MonthsEnded
    
    
    Year Ended December 31September 30, 2005
    
    
    2004
    
    
    2003
    
    
    2002
    
    
    2001
    
    
    2000Fixed charges
    
    $
    75,631
    
    
    $
    49,179
    
    
    $
    62,859
    
    
    $
    169,148
    
    
    $
    362,327
    
    
    $
    540,605Preferred stock dividends
    
    
    15,192
    
    
    
    20,259
    
    
    
    20,273
    
    
    
    20,362
    
    
    
    20,446
    
    
    
    24,260Combined fixed charges
and preferred stock
dividends
    
    $
    90,823
    
    
    $
    69,438
    
    
    $
    83,132
    
    
    $
    189,510
    
    
    $
    382,773
    
    
    $
    564,865Fixed charges
    
    $
    75,631
    
    
    $
    49,179
    
    
    $
    62,859
    
    
    $
    169,148
    
    
    $
    362,327
    
    
    $
    540,605Net income (loss)
    
    
    18,207
    
    
    
    41,805
    
    
    
    60,659
    
    
    
    96,123
    
    
    
    106,276
    
    
    
    (51,486
    )$
    93,838
    
    
    $
    90,984
    
    
    $
    123,518
    
    
    $
    265,271
    
    
    $
    468,603
    
    
    $
    489,119Ratio of earnings to
combined fixed charges
and preferred stock
dividends
    
    
    1.03:1
    
    
    
    1.31:1
    
    
    
    1.49:1
    
    
    
    1.40:1
    
    
    
    1.22:1
    
    
    
    0.87:1
#### MUTUAL BENEFIT HEALTH & ACCIDENT ASSOCIATION v. J. E. JORDAN.

7 Div. 263.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

May 22, 1935.

London, Yancey, Smith & Windham, of Birmingham, and Brewer Dixon, of Talla-dega, for appellant.

Harrison & Stringer, of Talladega, for ap-pellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed by agreement.
#### In the Matter of Janaug, Inc., Petitioner, against Dorothy J. Szlapka et al., Respondents.

Supreme Court, Special Term, New York County,

April 23, 1957.

*Gifford, Woody, Carter d> Hays*for petitioner.

*James H. Hatpin*and *Joseph M. O’Loughtin*for respondents.

Benedict D. Dineen, J.

This is a proceeding under article 78 of the Civil Practice Act to direct respondents to turn over the books, records and other property of the petitioner to the officers elected at a meeting held on March 12, 1957. The respondents claim to be officers of the corporate petitioner and that, as such officers, the property is lawfully in their custody. Petitioner contends that the respondents were removed as officers at a *85meeting of the stockholders. The petition alleges that notices signed by two of three directors were duly mailed on March 6, 1957, calling for a meeting of all the stockholders for March 12, 1957, and also for a directors’ meeting for the same day, but at a later time. These notices do not comply with sections 45 and 55 of the Stock Corporation Law, nor with the by-laws of the corporation, and such defect is apparent on the face of the petition. While the respondents are not entitled to custody and control of books, records and other property as individuals, yet as officers such custody may be retained in the absence of a showing of any other representatives or officers of the corporation being entitled to their custody. It is the duty of the officers of a corporation to protect and preserve the books and records of the corporation. Since the meeting of March 12, 1957, at which it is alleged the respondents were removed as officers, must be deemed a nullity for failure to comply with the statute, the respondents are officers charged with the duty of caring for the corporate records and at the same time are duty-bound not to hinder the corporation in any manner which would interfere with its business. The petition is dismissed.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1744 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1744

    To prohibit the application of certain restrictive eligibility 
 requirements to foreign nongovernmental organizations with respect to 
the provision of assistance under part I of the Foreign Assistance Act 
                                of 1961.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 28, 2007

 Mrs. Boxer (for herself and Ms. Snowe) introduced the following bill; 
which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To prohibit the application of certain restrictive eligibility 
 requirements to foreign nongovernmental organizations with respect to 
the provision of assistance under part I of the Foreign Assistance Act 
                                of 1961.

    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 ``Global Democracy Promotion Act''.

SEC. 2. ASSISTANCE FOR FOREIGN NONGOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS UNDER PART 
              I OF THE FOREIGN ASSISTANCE ACT OF 1961.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of law, regulation, or policy, 
in determining eligibility for assistance authorized under part I of 
the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2151 et seq.), foreign 
nongovernmental organizations--
            (1) shall not be ineligible for such assistance solely on 
        the basis of health or medical services, including counseling 
        and referral services, provided by such organizations with non-
        United States Government funds if such services do not violate 
        the laws of the country in which they are being provided and 
        would not violate United States Federal law if provided in the 
        United States; and
            (2) shall not be subject to requirements relating to the 
        use of non-United States Government funds for advocacy and 
        lobbying activities other than those that apply to United 
        States nongovernmental organizations receiving assistance under 
        part I of such Act.
                                 <all>
```