alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 32


                            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 on Form 10-KSB of Heritage Worldwide,  Inc.
(the  "Company")  for the fiscal  year ended  June 30,  2005,  as filed with the
Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  each of
the undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350:

     (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: September 23, 2005                           /s/ Alain Sereyjol-Garros
                                                   -------------------------
                                                   Alain Sereyjol-Garros
                                                   Chief Executive Officer


Date: September 23, 2005                           /s/ Claude Couty
                                                   -------------------------
                                                   Claude Couty
                                                   Chief Financial Officer
                                                   and General Manager
United Insurance Warrant Certificate



 

 







 SUBSCRIPTION FORM 
 To Be Executed by the Registered Holder in Order to Exercise Warrants 
 The undersigned Registered Holder irrevocably elects
to exercise                      Warrants represented by this Warrant Certificate, and to purchase the shares of Common Stock issuable upon
the exercise of such Warrants, and requests that Certificates for such shares shall be issued in the name of 
  
  
  
 (PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT NAME AND ADDRESS) 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 (SOCIAL SECURITY OR TAX IDENTIFICATION NUMBER)

 and be delivered to ____________________________________________________________________________________ 
 (PLEASE PRINT OR TYPE NAME AND ADDRESS) 
  
  
  
 and, if such number of Warrants shall not be all the Warrants evidenced by this Warrant Certificate, that a new Warrant Certificate for the balance of such Warrants be registered in the name of, and delivered to, the Registered Holder at
the address stated below: 
  

					
	Dated: __________________________	 		 	 
		 		 	(SIGNATURE)
			
	 	 		 	  
		 		 	(ADDRESS)
			
	 	 		 	  
			
	 	 		 	  
		 		 	(TAX IDENTIFICATION NUMBER)

 ASSIGNMENT 
 To Be Executed by the Registered Holder in Order to Assign Warrants 
 For Value Received, ________________________________
hereby sell(s), assign(s), and transfer(s) unto 
  
  
  
 (PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT NAME AND ADDRESS 

 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 (SOCIAL SECURITY OR TAX IDENTIFICATION NUMBER) 
 and to be
delivered to ____________________________________________________________________________________ 
 (PLEASE PRINT OR TYPE NAME AND ADDRESS)

 ___________________________ of the Warrants represented by this Warrant Certificate, and hereby irrevocably constitute and appoint
_________________________________ Attorney to transfer this Warrant Certificate on the books of the Company, with full power of substitution in the premises. 
  

					
			
	Dated: __________________________	 		 	  
		 		 	(SIGNATURE)
			
		 		 	Note: The signature to this assignment must correspond with the name as written upon the face of the certificate in every particular, without alteration or enlargement or any change
whatever.

  

									
	Signature(s) Guaranteed:	 		 	
					
	By	 	 	 		 		 	
		 	THE SIGNATURE(S) MUST BE GUARANTEED BY AN ELIGIBLE GUARANTOR INSTITUTION (BANKS, STOCKBROKERS, SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATIONS AND CREDIT UNIONS WITH MEMBERSHIP IN AN APPROVED SIGNATURE GUARANTEE
MEDALLION PROGRAM, PURSUANT TO S.E.C. RULE 17Ad-15).	 		 		 	

 THE SIGNATURE TO THE ASSIGNMENT OF THE SUBSCRIPTION FORM MUST CORRESPOND TO THE NAME WRITTEN UPON THE FACE OF THIS
WARRANT CERTIFICATE IN EVERY PARTICULAR, WITHOUT ALTERATION OR ENLARGEMENT OR ANY CHANGE WHATSOEVER, AND MUST BE GUARANTEED BY A COMMERCIAL BANK OR TRUST COMPANY OR A MEMBER FIRM OF THE AMERICAN STOCK EXCHANGE, NEW YORK STOCK EXCHANGE, PACIFIC STOCK
EXCHANGE OR CHICAGO STOCK EXCHANGE.
#### TRANS PACIFIC INTERACTIVE, INC. v. U.S. TELEMETRY CORPORATION; U.S. Telemetry Network, Inc.; U.S. Telemetry-Bakersfield, LLC; Datex Spectrum, LLC; Thomas L. Siebert, K. Steven Roberts, Robert S. Miller, Don M. Clarke, James K. Gable, Charles M. Bruce, John J. Broussard, Henry (Hank) Mills, Clay M. Allen, and Stephen D. Gavin.

No. 2011-C-0205.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 8, 2011.

In re Gavin, Stephen D.; Patton Boggs LLP; —Defendant(s); Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 507714; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2010 CA 0507.

Granted.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-7371

PATRICIA HARRISON HAWLEY,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

WENDY HOBBS, Warden,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, Senior

District Judge. (1:07-cv-00258-TSE)

Submitted: April 24, 2008 Decided: June 9, 2008

Before TRAXLER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Patricia Harrison Hawley, Appellant Pro Se. Josephine Frances

Whalen, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond,

Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Patricia Harrison Hawley seeks to appeal the district

court’s order denying relief on her 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000)

petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or

judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this

standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that

any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court

is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by

the district court is likewise debatable. See Miller-El v.

Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S.

473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001).

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Hawley

has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, 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 the court and argument

would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
##### 



Exhibit 32
 *
  (i)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and(ii)
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.
   
  
   
 *
    
    This certification, required by Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, other than as required by Section 906, is
not deemed to be filed with the Commission or subject to the
rules and regulations promulgated by the Commission under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or to the liabilities of Section 18 of said
Act.
#### George IGBINOGHENE and Sebastian Busari. v. ST. PAUL TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY.

No. 2011-CC-0124.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 4, 2011.

*453PER CURIAM.*

bln this application, relator, Standard Fire Insurance Co., seeks review of a judgment of the district court denying its Motion to Dismiss and/or Declinatory Exception of Insufficiency of Service of Process and Citation.

It is undisputed plaintiffs did not request service within ninety days of filing their May 18, 2007 petition for damages, as required by La.Code Civ. P. art. 1201(C). However, relying on La.Code Civ. P. art. 1672(C), plaintiffs argue they demonstrated good cause for their failure to request service timely. In support, plaintiffs submit they were engaged in ongoing settlement negotiations with relator, and agreed to relator’s requests for extension of time to file responsive pleadings.

Many of the actions relied upon by plaintiffs appear to be of questionable relevance, as they occurred in 2008 and 2009, well outside of the ninety-day period for requesting service of the May 18, 2007 petition. Moreover, it is clear relator’s actions do not constitute an express written waiver of citation and service as contemplated in La.Code Civ. P. art. 1201(C). *See Filson v. Windsor Court Hotel,*04-2893 at p. 8 (La.6/29/05), 907 So.2d 728, 729 (“the mere act of filing an answer and participating in discovery does not constitute an express written waiver of citation and service as contemplated by La. C.C.P. art. 1201(C)”). Similarly, relator’s actual knowledge of the filing of plaintiffs’ suit does not obviate the need for service. *See Naquin v. Titan Indemnity Co.,*00-1585 at p. 8 (La.2/21/01), 779 So.2d 704, 710 (“it is well-accepted that even a defendant’s actual knowledge of a legal action cannot supply the want of citation because proper citation is the foundation of all actions”).

In the absence of a proper showing of good cause for plaintiffs’ failure to request service in a timely manner, we find the district court erred in denying relator’s motion to dismiss. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is reversed. Judgment is rendered in favor of relator, granting its motion and dismissing plaintiffs’ suit without prejudice pursuant to La.Code Civ. P. art. 1672(C).

*

 Chief Justice Kimball not participating in this opinion.
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





Pursuant
to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of
section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each of the
undersigned officers of Cenveo, Inc., a Colorado corporation (the ‘‘Company’’),
does hereby certify, to the best of such officer’s knowledge, that:









The
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the three and six month periods ended June 27,
2009 (the ‘‘Form 10-Q’’) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of
section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information
contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.







Date:
August 5, 2009


/s/ Robert
G. Burton, Sr.


Robert G.
Burton, Sr.


Chairman
and Chief Executive Officer





Date:
August 5, 2009


/s/ Kenneth P.
Viret


Kenneth
P. Viret


Senior
Vice President and


Chief
Financial 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 Cenveo, Inc. and will be retained by
Cenveo, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.
 
 The
foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63
of title 18, United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-Q
or as a separate disclosure document.
Exhibit 32

Written Statement of
the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial OfficerPursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350

Solely for the purposes of complying
with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, we, the undersigned Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of WidePoint
Corporation (the Company), hereby certify, based on our knowledge, that the
Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2006 ( the
Report), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
the Company.

/s/ STEVE L. KOMAR Steve L.
KomarChief Executive Officer

/s/ JAMES T. MCCUBBIN  James T.
McCubbinChief Financial Officer

Date: March 15, 2007
* Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions

that have no precedential value and merely decide particular

cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes

needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal

profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published. 

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 95-40059

 Conference Calendar 

__________________

PETE VARDAS, JR.,

 Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

TEXAS DEPARTMENT CRIMINAL

JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION, 

Pardons and Parole Division,

 Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas 

USDC No. 6:94-CV-363

- - - - - - - - - -

June 30, 1995

Before JONES, WIENER, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Pete Vardas, Jr., filed a motion to dismiss without

prejudice his civil rights complaint, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, under

Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1), and the district court granted the

motion. On appeal Vardas argues the merits of his underlying

Eighth Amendment claim, but fails to challenge the basis of the

dismissal. Issues not raised or briefed are considered

abandoned. Evans v. City of Marlin, Tex., 986 F.2d 104, 106 n.1

(5th Cir. 1993).
No. 95-40059

-2-

To the extent that he argues for the first time on appeal

that the district court and Texas Department of Criminal Justice

officials conspired to violate his civil rights, this court will

not address issues not considered by the district court. 

"[I]ssues raised for the first time on appeal are not reviewable

by this court unless they involve purely legal questions and

failure to consider them would result in manifest injustice." 

Varnado v. Lynaugh, 920 F.2d 320, 321 (5th Cir. 1991).

The appeal is without arguable merit and thus frivolous. 

Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). Because

the appeal is frivolous, it is DISMISSED. 5th Cir. R. 42.2. All

motions are DENIED.
News United States Air Force
 AF names candidate bases, criteria for choosing next F-35A sitesPublished April 12, 2016
                        
                        By Secretary of the Air Force Public Affairs
                **WASHINGTON (AFNS) --**
                Air Force officials announced April 12 that Davis-Monthan Air Force Base, Arizona; Homestead Air Reserve Base, Florida; Naval Air Station Joint Reserve Base Fort Worth, Texas; and Whiteman AFB, Missouri, are candidate bases for the first Reserve-led F-35A Lightning II location.The preferred and reasonable alternatives are expected to be selected in the fall and the F-35As are slated to begin arriving at the first Reserve-led F-35A location by the summer of 2023.The Air Force also released basing criteria that will be used to select candidate bases for two Air National Guard squadrons, which are planned to receive their first aircraft in the summer of 2022.“The Air Force is committed to a deliberate and open process to address F-35 basing,” said Jennifer A. Miller, the deputy assistant secretary of the Air Force for installations. “As we progress through the basing process, we will share information so interested communities are aware of what to expect.”The basing criteria for the Air National Guard bases include mission requirements (weather, airspace and training range availability), capacity (sufficient hanger and ramp space, and facility considerations), environmental requirements, and cost factors.The Air Force will evaluate Guard installations with runways of at least 8,000 feet and operational A-10 Thunderbolt IIs, F-16 Fighting Falcons or F-15 Eagles against the approved criteria to identify candidate bases for the F-35A.After identifying candidate bases, the Air Combat Command and Air National Guard will conduct site surveys at each location as applicable. Site survey teams will assess each location against operational requirements, potential impacts to existing missions, infrastructure and manpower, and then develop cost estimates to bed down the F-35A.Based on the results of these efforts, the Air Force plans to identify candidate installations for the Air National Guard locations this summer before selecting the preferred and reasonable alternatives and beginning the environmental impact analysis process later this year.ACC 



F-35 



basing 



Air Force Reserves 



reserves 



Air National Guard 



ANG
Order entered December 3, 2018

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05 - 18 - 01317 - CV THE ESTATE OF MAX D. HOPPER, DECEASED On Appeal from the Probate Court No. 1

Dallas Coun ty, Texas Trial Court Cause No. PR - 11 - 03238 - 1



### O RDER Before the Court is court reporter Jackie Galindo’s November 28, 2018 request for a ninety

- day extension of time to file the record

. We GRANT the request to the extent we ORDER the record be filed no l ater than December 31, 2018. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 35.3(c).

/s/ DAVID EVANS JUSTICE
NO. 07-01-0492 -CR IN THE COU RT OF APP EALS FOR THE SEVENT H DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMA RILLO PANE L D FEBRUA RY 14, 2002

______________________________ TROY LEE HARMS, Appellant

v. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

_________________________________ FROM THE 108 TH DISTRICT COURT OF POTTER COUN TY; NO. 34,541-E; HON. ABE LOPEZ, PRESIDING

_______________________________ ABATEMENT AND REMAND

_______________________________ Before BOYD, C.J., QUINN and REAVIS, JJ. Appellant, Troy Lee Harms, appea ls from a judgm ent revoking his com munity sup erv is ion, adjudicating h is guil t, and sentenci ng him to prison for fi fteen years. Sentence w as pronounced in open court on November 15, 2001. Thus, the appe llate record was dueby January 14, 2002. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 35.2(a). Thoug h t he reporter ’s record has been received, the clerk’srecord h as not. Furtherm ore, ac cording tothe co urt clerk, the record has not been developed because: 1) shehas not received an order from2

the trial court to develop sam e; 2) she has not received paym ent nor an affidavit of inabili ty to pay from appellant; and 3) appellant has not m ade arrangem ents to pay for sam e. Accordingl y, we now

abate this appeal and remand the cause to the 108th Di strict Court of Potter County (t rial court) for furt her proceedi ngs. Upon rem and, the trial court sha ll imm ediately cause notice of a hearing to be given and, thereafter, con duct a hearing to determ ine the following: 1. whet her appellant desires to prosecute the appeal; 2. whet her appellant is indigent; 3. w het her

cou nse l hasbee n ap poin ted to p ros ecu te t his a ppe al; 4. if counsel has not been appointed, w hether appellant is entitled to appointed counsel; and 5. whet her the appellant is entitled to the preparation of a free clerk’s record. The trial court shall cause the hearing to be transcribed. Fur the rm ore , th e tr ial c our

t sh all execute findings of fact and conclusions of law addressing the aforem entioned issues and disclosing the nam e, address, state b ar num ber, and telephon e and fax num bers of counsel app o inted, if an y. The d istrict co urt sha ll also cause to be de veloped 1)a supplemental clerk’s record containing the findings of f act and con clus ionsof l aw and all orders of the district court issued as a res ul t of its h earing on t his m atter, and 2) a reporter’s record transcribing the evidenc e and argum ents presented at the aforem entioned hearing. Additionally, the district court s hall cause the supplemental clerk’s record to be filed with the clerk of this court on or before March 18, 2002. Sh ould3

further time be ne eded by the trial court to performthese tasks, t hen sam e m ust be requested before Ma rch 14, 2002. It is so ordered. Pe r C ur i am Do not publish.
News United States Air Force
 Two missions, one fightPublished July 6, 2016
                        
                        By By Master Sgt. Anika K. Jones
                        
                        
                        386th Air Expeditionary Wing Public Affairs
                **SOUTHWEST ASIA (AFNS) --**
                The 737th Expeditionary Airlift Squadron and the 386th Expeditionary Aircraft Maintenance Squadron have two different missions, yet work together every day to ensure the single mission of the C-130 Hercules can equip and prepare our forces to stay in the fight another day.“The professionalism of total force Airmen,” said Maj. Kenneth Jensen, 386th EAMXS maintenance operations officer. “It’s amazing to watch members of many Air National Guard units, the active duty, Reserve and contractors come together to seamlessly achieve the mission every day.”This rotation, the Alaska and Ohio Air National Guard have been filling the task for the 737th EAS. This could possibly be Alaska ANG’s last C-130 deployment as they transition to the C-17 Globemaster III, while this is Ohio’s first deployment back with the C-130H after transitioning to the C-27J Spartan for a short stint.“They have represented their states and the Air National Guard wonderfully. It is difficult for guard members to leave their full-time civilian jobs to deploy, but they always do their duty with no complaints,” said Lt. Col. Michael Cummings, the 737th EAS commander. “Their dedication to the mission, their professionalism and their sacrifice has made me extremely proud of these people.”Members of the 737th EAS and 386th EAMXS are faced with challenges such as older aircraft, extreme environmental conditions with temperatures reaching up to 140 degrees, and being separated from their loved ones.“I’m most proud of our team for enduring the challenges that come with operating in a deployed location,” Jensen said.The maintenance crews overcome these challenges to make sure the aircrews have safe and working aircraft to carry out the air tasking orders. Whether it’s an all-weather airdrop that has an accuracy of 15 yards within target from an altitude of 18,000 feet, a tactical assault landing on unimproved fields or an endurance of enemy fire to get the equipment and supplies to ground forces, these two units work together to get the mission accomplished.Cummings said they would see severe degradation to the mission of defeating Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant terrorists without C-130H operations, maintenance and support personnel.Support from the 737th EAS and 386tg AMXS has and will continue to play a crucial part in delivering decisive airpower and securing basic freedoms.AFCENT 



total force 



reserves 



ANG 



Alaska ANG 



Ohio ANG