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

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

Each of the undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, in his capacity as an officer of Force Protection, Inc. (the "Company"), that, to his knowledge, the Annual Report of the Company on Form 10-K for
the period ended December 31, 2009 (the "Form 10-K"), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C.
§ 78m or 78o(d)) and that the information contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. This
written statement is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission as an exhibit to the Form 10-K. A signed original of this statement 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.

Date: March 8, 2010

/s/ MICHAEL MOODY Michael Moody Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and PresidentDate: March 8, 2010

/s/ CHARLES MATHIS Charles Mathis Chief Financial Officer


This
exhibit shall not be deemed "filed" for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 or otherwise subject to the liabilities of that Section, nor shall it be
deemed incorporated by reference in any filings under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, whether made before or after the date hereof and irrespective of any general
incorporation language in any filings.

---



QuickLinks
#### STATE ex rel. John W. SIMMONS v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 2009-KH-2510.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 4, 2011.

In re Simmons, John W.; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. I, No. 286-384.

Denied. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8; *State ex rel. Glover v. State,*93-2330 (La.9/5/95), 660 So.2d 1189.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Consolidated Balance Sheet at September 30, 1998 (Unaudited) and the
Consolidated Statement of Operations for the Nine Months Ended September 30,
1998 (Unaudited) and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial
statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                             877
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   20,836
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (1,031)
<INVENTORY>                                     22,775
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                48,006
<PP&E>                                          24,629
<DEPRECIATION>                                (10,066)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  67,037
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           32,816
<BONDS>                                         13,830
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            59
<OTHER-SE>                                      30,266
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    67,037
<SALES>                                        111,520
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               119,671
<CGS>                                           78,994
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   84,785
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0<F1>
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,085
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (3,233)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (1,206)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,027)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,027)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.35)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.35)
<FN>
<F1>Provision for doubtful accounts and inventory provision included in total
costs.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 99.1

                  CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the Annual Report of Globus International Resources Corp.
(the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ended September 30, 2002, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof December 30,
2002, I, Yury Greene, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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/ YURY GREENE
--------------------------
Yury Greene
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
December 30, 2002
```

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 23 (Thursday, February 4, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 5790]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-2384]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9110-5]

Good Neighbor Environmental Board; Notification of Public 
Advisory Committee Teleconference

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notification of Public Advisory Committee Teleconference.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-
463, notice is hereby given that the Good Neighbor Environmental Board 
(GNEB) will hold a public teleconference on February 25, 2010 from 1 
p.m. to 3 p.m. Eastern Standard Time. The meeting is open to the 
public. For further information regarding the teleconference and 
background materials, please contact Dolores Wesson at the number 
listed below.
    Background: GNEB is a Federal advisory committee chartered under 
the Federal Advisory Committee Act, PL 92463. GNEB provides advice and 
recommendations to the President and Congress on environmental and 
infrastructure issues along the U.S. border with Mexico.
    Purpose of Meeting: The purpose of this teleconference is to 
continue discussion on the Good Neighbor Environmental Board's 
Thirteenth Report.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: If you wish to make oral comments or submit 
written comments to the Board, please contact Dolores Wesson at least 
five days prior to the meeting.
    General Information: Additional information concerning the GNEB can 
be found on its Web site at http://www.epa.gov/ocem/gneb.
    Meeting Access: For information on access or services for 
individuals with disabilities, please contact Dolores Wesson at (202) 
564-1351 or e-mail at [email protected]. To request accommodation 
of a disability, please contact Dolores Wesson at least 10 days prior 
to the meeting to give EPA as much time as possible to process your 
request.

    Dated: January 29, 2010.
Dolores Wesson,
Designated Federal Officer.
[FR Doc. 2010-2384 Filed 2-3-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```
##### 



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
  
    
    the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended
September 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on December 13, 2006 (the Report), fully complies with
the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934; and
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
of the Company for the periods presented therein.
  /s/ UMANG GUPTAUmang GuptaChief Executive Officer and Chairman of theBoard(Principal Executive Officer)
580 A.2d 1085

#### IN THE MATTER OF WILLIAM N. LEVY, AN ATTORNEY AT LAW.

October 23, 1990.

ORDER

The Disciplinary Review Board having filed a report with the Court, recommending that WILLIAM N. LEVY of CHERRY HILL, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1966, be publicly reprimanded for participating in an illegal undertaking by representing the borrower in a usurious transaction, in violation of *DR*1-102(A)(6) and *DR*7-102(A)(7) and (8), and good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that the report and recommendation of the Disciplinary Review are adopted and WILLIAM N. LEVY is hereby publicly reprimanded; and it is further

ORDERED that the entire record of this matter be made a permanent part of respondent’s file as an attorney at law of this State; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent shall reimburse the Ethics Financial Committee for appropriate administrative costs incurred in the prosecution of this matter.
___________

No. 95-1861

___________

Bill Herron, *

 *

Appellant, *

 *

v. *

 *

Macarthur Woodruff; Bill *

Armontrout; Donald Cline; Henry *

Jackson; Dale Riley; Dick Moore; *

George Lombardi; Bobby Whiteside;*

William L. Webster; John *

Ashcroft; Cavanaugh, Sgt., C.O. *

I; Arthur W. Dearixon, *

 * Appeal from the United States

Appellees. * District Court for the

 * Western District of Missouri.

-------------------- *

 * [UNPUBLISHED]

Bill Herron, *

 *

Appellant, *

 *

v. *

 *

Bill Armontrout; Donald Cline; *

Henry Jackson; Macarthur *

Woodruff; Dick Moore; George *

Lombardi; Dale Riley; Bobby *

Whiteside; William Webster; *

John Ashcroft; COI Cavanaugh; *

Arthur W. Dearixon, *

 *

Appellees. *

___________

 Submitted: April 19, 1996

 Filed: May 2, 1996

___________

Before BEAM, LOKEN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________
 The Honorable Scott O. Wright, United States District Judge 1

for the Western District of Missouri.

-2-

PER CURIAM.

In this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, Missouri inmate Bill Herron appeals

the district court's rulings on his motions for relief from certain

1

judgments, and his motion to disqualify the district court judge. We

affirm. 

We do not believe the district court judge abused his discretion in

declining to recuse himself on grounds that he displayed hostility towards

Herron and entered rulings adverse to Herron. See A.J. v. Kierst, 56 F.3d

849, 861-62 (8th Cir. 1995). We further conclude that the district court

properly denied Herron's motions for relief from the July 1989 and August

1991 judgments dismissing his wrongful-transfer, retaliation, failure-toinvestigate, and medical-needs claims. We note that the grounds asserted

in these motions were merely a restatement of those asserted in an April

1992 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) motion, which the district court

denied. See Latham v. Wells Fargo Bank, 987 F.2d 1199, 1204 (5th Cir.

1993) (per curiam) (absent truly extraordinary circumstances, basis for

second Rule 60(b) motion must be something other than that offered in first

such motion). Although Herron complains that the district court failed to

docket and consider a Rule 60(b) motion tendered in June 1990, we note that

this motion also advanced the same unsuccessful grounds for relief from the

July 1989 judgment as Herron raised in the April 1992 motion.

Appellees note Herron has repeatedly--and unsuccessfully--challenged

his December 10, 1986 transfer to a more restrictive level of

administrative segregation, and move this court to impose sanctions against

him pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 38. Based on Herron's

repeated attempts to relitigate an
-3-

issue that has already been decided against him, we agree his appeal is

frivolous. Thus, we grant appellees' motion for sanctions and assess

$3,190 against Herron, representing attorney's fees and double costs. We

also enjoin Herron from filing any further pleadings concerning his

December 10, 1986 transfer.

Accordingly, we affirm and impose the sanctions detailed above.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
Prepared by R.R. Donnelley Financial -- Amendment to Consulting Agreement dated 09/01/2003




 EXHIBIT 10.31 
  
 September 1, 2003 
  
 Malcolm Thompson 
 c/o Photon Dynamics, Inc. 
 17 Great Oaks Boulevard 
 San Jose, CA 95119 
  
 Dear Malcolm: 
  
 This letter confirms our agreement to modify the amount of consulting fees payable to you by the Company pursuant to that certain Consulting
Agreement dated [August 19], 2003, by and between Photon Dynamics, Inc. and you (the “Consulting Agreement”). The first sentence of Section 3 of the Consulting Agreement is hereby amended and restated in its entirety as follows: “The
Company will pay you as consulting fees $2,000 for the equivalent of each day of consulting services rendered during the Consulting Period (“Consulting Fees”).” This amendment shall be effective as of September 1, 2003. 
  
 All other provisions of the Consulting Agreement shall remain in full force and effect and
unmodified by this amendment. Capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein shall have the meaning ascribed to them in the Consulting Agreement. 
  
 Sincerely, 
  

	PHOTON DYNAMICS, INC.
		
	Signature:	 	 /s/ Richard Okumoto


		
	Print Name:	 	 Richard Okumoto


		
	Title:	 	 Chief Financial Officer


	
	ACCEPTED AND AGREED:
	
	 /s/ Malcolm J Thompson


	MALCOLM THOMPSON
#### FREEPORT-McMORAN ENERGY, LLC v. CEDYCO CORPORATION.

No. 2011-C-0442.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 29, 2011.

In re Freeport-McMoran Energy, LLC; —Plaintiff; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. B, No. 2008-06702; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2010-CA-0367.

Denied.

VICTORY and KNOLL, JJ., would grant.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 23-0327

STATE OF MONTANA, 

Plaintiff and Appellee, 

v. 

STEVEN ERIC WALKS,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, 

and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including September 3, 2024, within which to prepare, 

file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

July 26 2024

07/26/2024

Case Number: DA 23-0327
```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 78 (Thursday, May 11, 1995)]
[House]
[Page H4868]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

  REMOVAL OF NAME OF MEMBER AS COSPONSOR OF H.R. 1143, H.R. 1144, AND 
                               H.R. 1145

  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that 
Mr. Bryant of Texas be removed from the list of cosponsors of the 
following bills introduced by myself: H.R. 1143, H.R. 1144, and H.R. 
1145.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania?
  There was no objection.
  

                          ____________________
```
#### The HERTZ CORPORATION v. R & R PROPERTIES, L.L.C.

No. 2012-C-0438.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 13, 2012.

In re R & R Properties, L.L.C.; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 654-731; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. ll-CA-50.

Denied.
Exhibit 31.2I, Douglas J. Kelley, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Fentura Financial, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor 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 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 of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presentedin this report; 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)) for the registrant and we have: (a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, ismade known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;  (b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and  (c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial 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 hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; 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 theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions): (a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  (b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting        Dated:  May 11, 2007 /s/ Douglas J. Kelley   Douglas J. Kelley   Chief Financial Officer
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATIONOF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER**

**PURSUANTTO SECTION 906 OF THE**

**SARBANES-OXLEYACT OF 2002**

 

In connectionwith the Quarterly Report of Jos. A. Bank Clothiers, Inc. (the “Company”)on Form 10-Q for the period ended July 30, 2005 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,David E. Ullman, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuantto 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 ofthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

 

(1)           The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)           The information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the issuer.

 
| September 6, 2005 | /s/ DAVID E. ULLMAN |
|------------------------|-------------------------------|
|                   | David E. Ullman          |
|                   | Chief Financial Officer       |

 

----
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 14

- 00002

- CR

Gabriel Paul Salas a/k/a Gabriel P.

Salas

v.

The State of Texas §

§

§

§

§ From the 297th Distr ict Court

o f Tarrant County (1327362D )

February 20, 2014

P er C uriam

(nfp)



### JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that

the appeal should be dismissed. It is ord ered that the appeal is dismissed

.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

PER CURIAM
H. R. 1335 

One Hundred Tenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE FIRST SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Thursday, 

the fourth day of January, two thousand and seven 

An Act 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 508 East 

Main Street in Seneca, South Carolina, as the ‘‘S/Sgt Lewis G. Watkins Post 

Office Building’’. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. S/SGT LEWIS G. WATKINS POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

(a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States Postal 

Service located at 508 East Main Street in Seneca, South Carolina, 

shall be known and designated as the ‘‘S/Sgt Lewis G. Watkins 

Post Office Building’’. 

(b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 

document, paper, or other record of the United States to the facility 

referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference 

to the ‘‘S/Sgt Lewis G. Watkins Post Office Building’’. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
#### Western Union Telegraph Co. v. A. McHenry.

*(No.*3563.)

Appeal from Johnson County.

*(Transferred from Austin. J*

Stemmons & Field, counsel for appellant.

Poindexter & Paddleeord, counsel for appellee.

Opinion by

White, P. J.

*28October 31, 1885.

§ 9. *Exceptions to pleading and evidence, not presented in trial court, will not be considered on appeal; errors cured by verdict; case stated.*McHenry sued the telegraph company to recover $500 damages for failure to transmit and deliver a message. Defendant filed a general demurrer and special exceptions, and a special answer. On the trial, the demurrer and exceptions were not called to the attention of the court, and the court made no ruling thereon. No objection was made by the defendant to any evidence adduced. There was a verdict for plaintiff for $500, and judgment accordingly. All the errors assigned relate to the sufficiency of the petition and the admissibility of evidence. It is too late for appellant to complain of such errors for the first time in this court. As to the petition, the verdict cures all defects, imperfections or omissions, or statement of the cause of action, whether of substance or of form, if the issues joined be such as require proof of the facts imperfectly stated, which is the case here. [De Witt v. Miller, 9 Tex. 239; McClellan v. State, 22 Tex. 405; Carter v. Wallace, 2 Tex. 206; Murphy v. Stell, 43 Tex. 123.] In this case, the petition was, perhaps, defective in allegations which would entitle the plaintiff to recover the special damages claimed, and evidence of such damage was not, perhaps, admissible under the allegations. But appellant, having waived exceptions to the petition, and having failed to object to the evidence in proof of special damage, cannot be heard to insist upon such exceptions and objections for the first time on appeal.

Affirmed.