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





INVISA, INC.


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 Invisa, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Edmund C. King, Acting President and Acting Chief Operating Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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; 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/Edmund C. KingEdmund C. KingActing PresidentMarch 14, 2011
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 Supreme Realty Investments, Inc. (now
      known
      as Home System Group, the “Company”) on Form 10-KSB/A for the year ending
      December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
      date hereof (the “Report”), I, Li Wei Qiu, 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 contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
                respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
                Company.




/s/
                  Li Wei QiuLi
                Wei QiuChief
                Executive Officer




__________________




A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
      authenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
      in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required
      by Section 906, has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the
      Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
      upon request.
#### COMMONWEALTH of Kentucky, Appellant, v. Emma Ferguson HOPE, Appellee.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

March 23, 1973.

Ed W. Hancock, Atty. Gen., Robert W. Willmott, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Frankfort, Dan Cornette, Greenville, for appellant.

B. R. Paxton, Central City, for appellee.

CULLEN, Commissioner.

The circuit court entered judgment dismissing an information that charged Emma Ferguson Hope with a second-offense violation of the local option law, which carried a potential maximum penalty of a fine of $200 and imprisonment in the county jail for 120 days (a misdemeanor). KRS 242.990. The ground for dismissal was that the offense was one which could be prosecuted only by indictment, under Section 12 of the Kentucky Constitution and RCr 6.02. The Commonwealth has appealed.

Under our cases, a statutory misdemeanor is not required by our Constitution to be prosecuted by indictment unless the prescribed punishment is “infamous,” and punishment is not considered “infamous” if it consists only of a fine and imprisonment in the county jail, even at hard labor. Lakes v. Goodloe, 195 Ky. 240, 242 S.W. 632; Eisner v. Commonwealth, Ky., 375 S.W.2d 825.

It is true, as pointed out in *Eisner,*supra, that the Supreme Court- has held that under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, an of*208fense punishable by confinement at hard labor is an “infamous crime.” That does not present any problem in this case, however, because here, as in *Eisner,*the defendant is a woman and therefore not subject under KRS 431.140 to confinement at hard labor.

There is no statutory restriction, as distinguished from a constitutional one, on prosecution of offenses by information, because RCr 6.02 removed the statutory limitation formerly imposed by KRS 455.080.

The appellee’s reliance on Crabtree v. Commonwealth, Ky., 278 S.W.2d 732, is misplaced, because that case held merely that where a criminal case originally prosecuted in an inferior court was not within the jurisdiction of that court because the maximum potential punishment was in excess of the punishment that the court could impose, the circuit court could not acquire jurisdiction through an appeal to it of the inferior court’s judgment. That case is not in point because here the prosecution originated in the circuit court.

The Commonwealth mentions in its brief that the circuit court overruled its motion to amend the information to include as a defendant a mobile home in which the local option violation by the appellee was charged to have occurred; however, the Commonwealth makes no complaint of error in that ruling and therefore no issue concerning it is before us.

The judgment is reversed with directions to reinstate the prosecution.

• PALMORE, C. J., and MILLIKEN, OSBORNE, REED, STEINFELD and STEPHENSON, JJ., sitting.

All concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 227 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 227

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
   To authorize the transfer of certain funds to improve security at 
United States embassies and other diplomatic facilities worldwide, and 
                          for other purposes.

    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 ``Embassy Security Funds Transfer Act 
of 2013''.

SEC. 2. TRANSFER OF CERTAIN FUNDS FOR IMPROVEMENT OF SECURITY AT UNITED 
              STATES EMBASSIES AND OTHER DIPLOMATIC FACILITIES 
              WORLDWIDE.

    (a) Transfer Authority.--Funds appropriated by title VIII of the 
Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs 
Appropriations Act of 2012 (division I of Public Law 112-74; 125 Stat. 
1265) under the headings ``Diplomatic and Consular Programs'' and 
``Embassy Security, Construction, and Maintenance'' may be transferred 
between such headings.
    (b) Availability.--
            (1) In general.--Any funds transferred to a heading under 
        subsection (a) shall be merged with funds in the heading to 
        which transferred, and shall, except as provided in paragraph 
        (2), be available subject to the same terms and conditions as 
        the funds with which merged.
            (2) Duration of availability.--Any funds transferred under 
        subsection (a) shall be available for the same period for which 
        such funds were originally appropriated.
    (c) Notification Procedures.--Any transfer of funds under 
subsection (a) shall be subject to the regular notification procedures 
of the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the House of 
Representatives.

            Passed the Senate February 4, 2013.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
113th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                                 S. 227

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

   To authorize the transfer of certain funds to improve security at 
United States embassies and other diplomatic facilities worldwide, and 
                          for other purposes.
```
#### C. B. McFARLAND, Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH of Kentucky, Appellee.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Nov. 19, 1971.

Paul E. Braden, Corbin, for appellant.

John Breckinridge, Atty. Gen., Mark F. Armstrong, Asst. Atty. Gen., Frankfort, for appellee.

CULLEN, Commissioner.

C. B. McFarland has been granted a belated appeal, pursuant to order of a federal court, from a judgment of September 20, 1968, sentencing him to a term of two years in the penitentiary on a conviction of knowingly receiving stolen property.

The evidence was that McFarland and a codefendant sold to one farmer four little pigs that had been stolen from another *122farmer. The defendant’s story was that they had purchased the pigs from one Eddy Moore, a stranger to them, on an occasion when they pulled Moore’s car from a ditch.

There is in the record an order reciting that on the day the case was set for trial (and was tried), “Counsel for the defendant * * * filed the affidavit of the defendants that a material witness is absent.” The order further states: “There is nothing but the affidavit and it doesn’t comply with Rule 9.04 of the Criminal Rules of Procedure * * * and the Court being sufficiently advised, overrules the motion for continuance * * The affidavit is not in the record.

The appellant’s sole contention is that the trial court erred in overruling the motion for a continuance. He states in his brief that Eddy Moore was the alleged absent material witness.

There is nothing in the record to show that the affidavit complied with the requirements of RCr 9.04 with respect to showing the materiality of the evidence ex-' pected to be obtained, that due diligence was used to obtain the evidence, the facts the affiant believed the witness would prove, and that the affiant believed those facts to be true. In the transcript of McFarland’s testimony on the trial, reference is made to the fact that McFarland had caused a subpoena to be issued for Eddy Moore four days before the day of the trial, but the officers could not find him. That testimony is not an acceptable or sufficient substitute for the required affidavit.

In the absence of the affidavit from the record, there is no basis on which this court could determine that there was error in the denial of the continuance. See Pennington v. Commonwealth, Ky. 371 S.W.2d 478; Abdon v. Commonwealth, 237 Ky. 21, 34 S.W.2d 742; Litteral v. Commonwealth, 223 Ky. 402, 3 S.W.2d 775.

The judgment is affirmed.

All concur.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18
- 6519

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. KARYEA WILLIAMS , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Greenville

. Timothy M. Cain , District Judge. ( 6:13

- cr - 00816

- TMC

- 1 ; 6:16

- cv - 02957

- TMC )

Submitted : September 18, 2018 Decided: September 21, 2018

Before WILKINSON and THACKER , Circuit Judges , and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

. Karyea Williams , Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Karyea Williams seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on 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) (2012). 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) (2012). 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 c laims 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 procedu ral 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 Williams has not made the requisite showing. According ly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMIS SED
<PAGE>

                      SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
                             Washington, D.C. 20549



                                    FORM 8-K


                                 CURRENT REPORT

         Pursuant to Section 13 OR 15(d) of the Securities Act of 1934


                               September 25, 2000
                Date of Report (date of earliest event reported)



                                 BANCTEC, INC.
             (Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)



          Delaware                         0-9859                75-1559633
(State or other jurisdiction of          (Commission          (I.R.S. Employer
incorporation or organization)           File Number)        Identification No.)


                             2701 E. Grauwyler Road
                              Irving, Texas 75061
          (Address of principal executive offices, including zip code)


                                 (972) 579-6000
              (Registrant's telephone number, including area code)
<PAGE>

ITEM 5.  Other Events.

On September 25, 2000, and effective September 15, 2000, the Registrant amended
certain provisions of its Credit Agreement dated July 1999.  The parties to the
amendment are Banctec, Inc. (the "Borrower"), several banks and other financial
institutions, ABN AMRO Bank, N.V., as Co-Agent, and The Chase Manhattan Bank
(formerly, Chase Bank of Texas, N.A.), as administrative agent and syndication
agent, collectively called "the Lenders".  Pursuant to the amendment, less
stringent financial covenants are required of the Borrower for the quarters
ended June 30, 2000, September 30, 2000 and December 31, 2000.  In addition, the
Lenders waived any covenant violation or event of default which has occurred or
would occur by virtue of such violation. These matters were agreed to in
consideration for an increase in the guarantee to the Lenders by the Borrower's
primary owners, Welsh, Carson, Anderson & Stowe ("WCAS") from $10.0 million to
$35.0 million, and for the Borrower's receipt of $15.0 million in cash proceeds
from a preferred stock issuance to WCAS.

                                       2
<PAGE>

SIGNATURE
---------


  Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the
registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the
undersigned hereunto duly authorized.


                                        BANCTEC, INC.



                                        By: /s/ Evelyn Henry Miller
                                           -----------------------------
                                            Evelyn Henry Miller
                                            Senior Vice President and
                                            Chief Financial Officer

Date:  September 25, 2000

                                       3
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. JEROME ALEXANDER.

September 5, 1985.

Petition for certification denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Cash Plus I
Financial Statements for the nine months ended September 30, 1998 and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                       6,865,705
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   93,989<F1>
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0<F2>
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0<F2>
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               6,959,694
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           47,966
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     6,911,728<F3>
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 6,959,694
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,432,550<F4>
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               785,753<F5>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                            (3,123,898)<F2>
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 3,770,695<F6>
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0<F6>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0<F6>
<FN>
<F1>Includes all receivables included in "other assets" on the Balance Sheet.
<F2>The Partnership's properties were sold on January 30, 1998 to unaffiliated
third parties.  The total selling price of the fourteen properties sold was
$138,000,000, of which the Partnership received $31,247,100, less closing costs
of $1,061,415.  For financial reporting purposes, the Partnership realized a
gain of $2,937,806 on the sale.  Additionally, on April 29, 1998, the General
Partners sold the Partnership's MBS portfolio for $3,583,068.  For financial
reporting purposes, the Partnership recognized a gain of $186,092 on the sale.
<F3>Deficit of the General Partners of ($282,567) and equity of Limited Partners of
$7,194,295.
<F4>Includes all revenue of the Partnership.
<F5>Includes all expenses of the Partnership.
<F6>Net income allocated $12,936 to the General Partners and $3,757,759 to the
Limited Partners.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Robert L. Bailey hereby certify, in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, in my capacity as an
officer of PMC-Sierra, Inc. (PMC), that, to my knowledge, this Quarterly Report of PMC on Form 10-Q for the period ended October 2, 2005, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and that the information contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of PMC.



|                       |  |     |  |                                      
|---------------------- |  | --- |  | -------------------------------------
|Date: November 3, 2005 |  | By: |  | /s/ Robert L. Bailey                 
|                       |  |     |  | Robert L. Bailey                     
|                       |  |     |  | President and Chief Executive Officer
EXHIBIT 23.1

            Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

The Board of Directors
Central Jersey Bancorp (formerly Monmouth Community Bancorp):

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements No.
333-100893 and No. 333-122468 on Form S-8 of Central Jersey Bancorp of our
report dated March 18, 2005 relating to the consolidated balance sheets of
Central Jersey Bancorp and subsidiary as of December 31, 2004 and 2003, and the
related consolidated statements of income, changes in shareholders' equity, and
cash flows for the years then ended, which report appears in the Annual Report
on Form 10-KSB of Central Jersey Bancorp for the year ended December 31, 2004.

                                        KPMG, LLP

Short Hills, New Jersey
March 30, 2005
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 23.9


                   CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS
                   -----------------------------------------

     As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation
by reference in Devon Energy Corporation's Registration Statement on Form S-3 of
our report dated March 19, 1999 included in the PennzEnergy Company Form 10-K
for the year ended December 31, 1998 and to all references to our Firm included
in this Registration Statement.

                                                             ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP

Houston, Texas
November 15, 2000
Exhibit 10.37

 

LEASE AGREEMENT

 

1. BASIC CONDITIONS

 

THE PARTIES IN THIS AGREEMENT ARE:

 

LOGIC INTERNATIONAL CONSULTING GROUP, the “Landlord” (in this lease the term “Landlord” means either the owner or his agent.) AND U.S. RARE EARTHS, INC. the “Tenant/s”

 

2. PREMISES TO BE RENTED

 

Address: 711 Fifth Avenue (16th Floor), New York, NY 10022

 

3. TERM

 

The landlord hereby leases to the Tenant the premises described above for a term of FOUR MONTHS, from January 1, 2013 to April 30, 2013.

 

4. RENT

 

a)    The monthly rent is $3,750.00, making a total amount under the lease of $15,000.00.

 

b)    The rent is payable on the 1st day of the month.

 

c)     Rent payments shall be paid to: LOGIC INTERNATIONAL CONSULTING GROUP .

 

5. UTILITIES

 

Utilities costs are included in the monthly lease payments and Tenant will not incur additional utility costs associated with this lease.

 

6. USE OF PROPERTY

 

The Tenant shall use the premises solely for business purposes.

 

7. FAILURE TO PAY RENT

 

If the Tenant fails to pay the rent when due, the Landlord may give the Tenant a 5-day notice to pay the rent with the late fee or to vacate. If the rent remains unpaid at the end of this 5-day period, the Landlord may institute eviction proceedings pursuant to law and/or other remedies provided by law including, but

 











 

not limited to, suit to collect unpaid rent, damages and reasonable attorney’s fees.

 

8. EXTENSION OF LEASE

 

At the end of the initial lease period, the tenancy will convert to a month-to-month lease. In continuing, the Tenant agrees to pay the monthly rental and to keep and fulfill all the other covenants and conditions herein.

 

9. TERMINATION OF LEASE

 

At the end of the initial lease period, the Tenant may terminate any lease extension by providing Landlord written notice of termination at least thirty days prior to end of lease extension.

 

10. TIMELY DEPARTURE

 

When the Tenant vacates the premises after giving proper notice, he shall leave on the day specified, remove all personal belongings, and leave the premises as clean as he found them.

 

WHEREFORE We, the undersigned, agree to be bound by all the terms of this agreement:

 

	
/s/ Diane M. Cassidy
    	
 
    	
Jan 1, 2013
    
	
Landlord: Diane M. Cassidy, Partner
    	
 
    	
Date
    
	
LOGIC   INTERNATIONAL 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
CONSULTING   GROUP
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
/s/ Mike Parnell
    	
 
    	
Jan 1, 2013
    
	
Tenant: Mike Parnell, COO
    	
 
    	
Date
    
	
U.S. RARE   EARTHS, INC.