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



CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Dynacq Healthcare, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended May
31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Chiu M. Chan, 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.
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



July 8, 2005



/s/ Chiu M. Chan

Chiu M. Chan

Chief Executive Officer



This certification is made solely pursuant to the requirement of Section 1350 of 18 U.S.C., and is not for any other purpose.
1 ... S eeTe x. R. App . P. 47. 4. 

## COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICTOFTEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 2 - 08 - 15 5- CV DAV I D S COT L YN D AP P E L L ANT V . LEA A LI EN E CO X A PPELL EE

----- ----- FR O M THE 3 67TH DI STRI CT CO URT O F DENTO N CO UN TY

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

### M E M ORANDU M OP I NI ON 1 

### AND J UDGME NT

----- ----- -- O n J u l y 3 1 , 2 0 0 8 , th i s c o u rt i s s u e d a n o rd e r a ffir m i n g th e tri a l c o u r t ’s or dersust ai ni n g a c o n t estt o appel l ant ’ s af f i davi tofi nabi l i t y t o pay becau se, a fte r re v i e w i n g th e re c o rd fro m th e tri a l c o u rt ’ s h e a ri n g o n th e c o n te s t, w e concl uded t hat t he t r i al cour tdi d not abuse i t s di scr et i on becau se t he evi dence s u p p o r t e d t h e t r ia l c o u r t ’s o r d e rs u s t a in in g t h e c o n t e s t . A p p e lla n ts u b s e q u e n t ly f i l e d a m ot i on f orr e he a r i ng t ha t w a s d e ni e d w i t ho uto pi ni on o n Se pt e m be r17,2 ... S eeS u p re m e C o u rt o f T e x ., O rde r R eg a rd in g Fe e s Ch a r

g e d i n Civil Cases i n the S uprem e C ourtand the C our ts of A ppeal s and Before the Judi ci al Pa n e l o n Multi

d i s tr i c tL iti g a tion , M i s c . Doc k e tNo. 07- 9138 ( Aug. 28, 2007 ) (l i s ti n g fe e s i n c o u rts o f a p p e a l s ). 2 2 0 0 8 . A l so o n S e p tem b e r 1 7 , 2 0 0 8 , w e n o ti fi e d a p p e l l a n t, i n ac c o rda n c e w i th r ul e of appel l at e pr ocedu r e 42 . 3( c) , t hat w e w oul d di sm i ss t hi s appeal unl ess th e $ 1 7 5 fi l i n g fe e w a s p a i d o n o r b e fo re S e p te m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 0 8 . S eeTe x. R. A p p . P . 4 2 .3 (c ). A p p e l l a n t h a s n o t p a i d th e $ 1 7 5 fi l i n g fe e . S eeTex. R. A pp. P . 5 , 1 2 .1 (b ). Beca us e app el l ant has f ai l ed t o com pl y w i t h a r equ i r em entoft he r ul es of a pp e l l a t e p r oc e du r e a nd t he Te xa s Su pr e m e Cou r t ’ s o r de ro fAug us t28, 2007 , 2
w e d i s m i s s th e a p p e a l . S eeT e x . R . A p p . P . 4 2 .3 (c ), 4 3 .2 (f). A ppel l ant shal l pay al l cost s of t hi s appeal , f orw hi ch l et execut i on i ssue. S eeTe x. R. App . P. 43. 4. P E R CU R I AM PA N EL: HO LM A N , G A RD N ER, an d W A LKER, JJ. DEL I VERE D: Oct ob e r9, 2008
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. CHARLES E. WASHINGTON.

February 6, 1987.

Petition for certification denied.
---

## Erwin D'Hoore



---

Journal Contributor Erwin D'Hoore  writes:

I still remember the moment when, on the midday news bulletin, I heard that for the first time a man had travelled in space and circled the earth once. A man with a then unfamiliar name : Gagarin.

Erwin D'HooreI then started collecting newspaper articles and other documentation on the subject of space flight, which turned out very helpful during my school years in the 60's when space travel was a hot topic.

I became a computer programmer in the early 70's and now work as a consultant.

As a long standing member of the British Interplanetary Society, I have an extensive library and, with all that resource, I give occassionaly lectures about space exploration to interested children in schools.

I was born in 1950 in Belgium where I still live.

March 2006

Editor's Note: In February 2006, Erwin made his very first anaglyph and, since then, has contributed a large number of beautiful creations, many from adjacent frames of the panoramas taken by the astronauts.  The anaglyphs are sprinkled thru the various Image Libraries.  Befitting his contribution, here is a stereo portrait.

Erwin D'Hoore in stereo
- CHANNEL_01
- CHANNEL_02
- CHANNEL_03
- channel_04
- CHANNEL_05
- CHANNEL_06
- channel_07
- channel_08
- channel_09
- channel_10
- channel_11
- channel_12
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. EDWARD WALKER.

April 28, 1987.

Petition for certification denied.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-6081

LARRY ARNOLD YOUNG,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

D. THOMPSON, Correctional Officer; DURANKO, S.I.S. Technician; 

D. SHAW, Lieutenant; UNKNOWN MAIL ROOM PERSONNEL; D. YOST, 

I.S.O.,

Defendants – Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern 

District of West Virginia, at Elkins. John Preston Bailey, 

Chief District Judge. (2:10-cv-00066-JPB-JSK)

Submitted: May 26, 2011 Decided: June 1, 2011

Before KING, SHEDD, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Larry Arnold Young, Appellant Pro Se. Rita R. Valdrini, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for 

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Larry Arnold Young seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and 

denying his motion for entry of default judgment. This court 

may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1291 (2006), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 

28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2006); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. 

Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). The 

order Young seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an 

appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we 

dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 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
# Sitemap

## September 13, 2007

- Home
- Sitemap
- 2007
- 09
- September 13, 2007

            - AMS Wildfire Imaging Components
            - The Prius of Space
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Dynacq Healthcare, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended May 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Chiu M. Chan, 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, to the best of 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.

July 15, 2008



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ Chiu M. Chan       
|Chiu M. Chan           
|Chief Executive Officer

This certification is made solely pursuant to the requirement of Section 1350 of 18 U.S.C., and is not for
any other purpose.
(logo)Prudential

 

 

**PrudentialAsset Resources**

PGIMReal Estate Finance

2100Ross Avenue, Suite 2500, Dallas TX 75201

Tel214-777-4500

 

Abusiness of Prudential Financial, Inc.

 

WellsFargo Bank, National Association

CommercialMortgage Servicing

MACD1086

550South Tryon Street, 14th Floor

Charlotte,North Carolina 28202

Attention:Asset Manager

 

RE:         **WFRBS 2014-C22**

Period: **January 1, 2019 to December 31, 2019(the “Reporting Period”)**

 

**AnnualCompliance Statement**

 

 

I,Joni Brown-Haas, in my capacity as President and Managing Director ofPrudential Asset Resources, Inc. (the “Company”) hereby certify with regard tothe Company’s role as Sub-Servicer under the Sub-Servicing Agreement, (the“Agreement”) dated as of September 1, 2014, pertaining to the above-referencedcertificates, that:

 

(i)      areview of the activities of the Company under the Agreement during the periodnoted above, and of the performance of the Company under the Agreement duringthe relevant period has been made under my supervision, and

 

(ii)    to thebest of my knowledge, based on such review, the Company has fulfilled all itsobligations under the Agreement throughout the relevant period, and

 

(iii)   to the best of myknowledge, based on such review, the Company has fulfilled its obligationsunder its sub-servicing agreement in all material respects, and

 

(iv)    the Company hasmaintained an effective internal control system over the servicing of mortgageloans including the Loans serviced by the Company, and

 

(v)    theCompany has not received any notice regarding qualification, or challenging thestatus of the Lower Tier REMIC or the Upper Tier REMIC as a REMIC, from the IRSor any other governmental agency or body.

 

 

Effectiveas of February 21, 2020

 

/s/Joni Brown-Haas

JoniBrown-Haas

Presidentand Managing Director

PrudentialAsset Resources, Inc.
#### STEVEN GORRIE v. ROBERT WINTERS, ET AL.

March 2, 1987.

Petition for certification denied. (See 214 *N.J.Super.*103)
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. CLAUDE WALKER.

April 28, 1987.

Petition for certification denied.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

BRET MAYO, )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D17-3142

)

KERRY MAYO o/b/o N.G.M., )

)

Appellee. )

)

Opinion filed December 7, 2018.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hendry 

County; James D. Sloan, Judge.

Fred R. Kahle of The Kahle Law Firm, P.A., 

Labelle, for Appellant.

No appearance for Appellee.

BLACK, Judge.

Bret Mayo appeals the order entered in circuit court Case No. 17-DR-179 

finding him in indirect criminal contempt for violating the terms of an injunction. For the 
- 2 -

reasons expressed in this court's decision in Mayo v. Mayo, No. 2D17-3140 (Fla. 2d 

DCA Dec. 7, 2018), we reverse.1 

Reversed.

CASANUEVA and BADALAMENTI, JJ., Concur. 

1

It is noted that Kerry Mayo, the petitioner, did not initiate a contempt 

proceeding in circuit court Case No. 17-DR-179. Rather, Ms. Mayo only filed a petition 

in the related circuit court case, Case No. 17-DR-180. Nonetheless, the court ordered 

Mayo to show cause why he should not be held in contempt for violating the injunctions 

entered in Case No. 17-DR-179 and Case No. 17-DR-180. The court and the parties 

proceeded with the evidentiary hearing as to both circuit court cases, and following the 

hearing the court entered contempt orders in both circuit court cases. Because this 

deficiency was not raised by Mayo on appeal, it cannot serve as a basis for this court's 

reversal.
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. GREGORY T. WILSON.

May 19, 1987.

Petition for certification denied.
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. ROBERT KASSNER.

January 20, 1987.

Petition for certification denied.
#### RODGER E. LOTZ v. ORANGE MEMORIAL HOSPITAL.

May 28, 1987.

Petition for certification denied.
* Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be

published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-40577 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee

v. BRIAN KEITH AKERS Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 4:07-CR-54-1
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BARKSDALE, and ELROD, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Brian Keith Akers appeals from his conviction and sentence for being a felon in possession ofa firearm. He first argues that the district court erred in denying his motions for acquittal because the evidence presented at trial failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he possessed the firearm. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to thejury’s verdict, a rational trier offact could have found that the Government proved beyond a reasonable doubt that United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D February 2, 2009 Charles R. Fulbruge III ClerkNo. 08-40577

2 Akers had possession of the firearm. United States v. Lankford, 196 F.3d 563, 575 (5th Cir. 1999). Akers alsocontends that the district court erred by including two Indiana sentences for being a habitual traffic violator in his criminal history score because his status as a habitual traffic violator could have been based upon minor traffic infractions, which are never counted towards the criminal history
score under U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2(c)(2). We review the district court’s application of the Sentencing Guidelines de novo. United States v. Lamm, 392 F.3d 130, 131 (5th Cir. 2004). The challenged Indiana sentences were for felony offenses and were therefore properly counted pursuant to § 4A1.2(c). Akers also argues that the district court was required to prove the facts underlying hissentence utilizing the beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard. This court has specifically rejected identical arguments from other defendants. See United States v. Valles, 484 F.3d 745, 759–60 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 127 S. Ct. 3025 (2007); United States v. Thompson, 454 F.3d 459, 467–68 (5th Cir. 2006). The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.
#### TOWNSHIP OF BRICK, ETC., ET AL. v. BLOCK 48-7, LOTS 34, 35, 36, KENLAV, ETC. AND ROBERT V. PASCHON, ET AL.

December 22, 1986.

Petition for certification denied. (See 210 *N.J.Super.*481)
# KSC-2010-5887

CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. -- Space shuttle Discovery awaits its move, called rollback, from Launch Pad 39A to the Vehicle Assembly Building (VAB) at NASA's Kennedy Space Center in Florida. Rollback was scheduled for 12:30 a.m., but was postponed until 10 p.m. so technicians could resolve an issue with a leveling system on the crawler-transporter. Once inside the VAB, Discovery's external fuel tank will be examined and foam reapplied where 89 sensors were installed on the tank's aluminum skin for an instrumented tanking test on Dec. 17. The sensors were used to measure changes in the tank as super-cold propellants were pumped in and drained out. Data and analysis from the test will be used to determine what caused the tops of two, 21-foot-long support beams, called stringers, on the outside of the intertank to crack during fueling on Nov. 5.                Discovery's next launch opportunity is no earlier than Feb. 3, 2011. For more information on STS-133, visit www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/shuttle/shuttlemissions/sts133/. Photo credit: NASA/Kim Shiflett

                    -  Facebook PinterestX
-  LinkedIn Emailhttps://www.nasa.gov/image-detail/amf-ksc-2010-5887/Copy URL to clipboard>DownloadShareTakenDecember 21, 2010ProducerKSCSize1920x1277pxPIA NumberKSC-2010-5887The National Aeronautics and Space Administration
NASA explores the unknown in air and space, innovates for the benefit of humanity, and inspires the world through discovery.
- About NASA's Mission
Join Us- Home
- News & Events
- Multimedia
- NASA+
- Missions
- Humans in Space
- Earth & Climate
- The Solar System
- The Universe
- Science
- Aeronautics
- Technology
- Learning Resources
- About NASA
- NASA en Español
Follow NASA-   
-   
-   
-   
- 
- More NASA Social Accounts
- NASA Newsletters
- Sitemap
- For Media
- Privacy Policy
- FOIA
- No FEAR Act
- Office of the IGBudget & Annual Reports
Agency Financial Reports
Contact NASA
Accessibility
-  									Page Last Updated:								  								Apr 20, 2023								 
-  									Page Editor:								   
-  								Responsible NASA Official:							  								Abigail Bowman
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-10868 Conference Calendar

RICHARD TERRANCE AYERS, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus JAMES A. COLLINS ET AL., Defendants,
STANLEY WILSON, Chaplain, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Robertson Unit, Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 1:96-CV-100-BA

- - - - - - - - - - April 10, 1998 Before JOLLY, JONES, and DUHÉ, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Richard Terrance Ayers, Texas prisoner No. 468361, appeals the summary-judgment dismissal of his civil rights claims against Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ) Chaplain Stanley Wilson. Ayers argues that the summary-judgment evidence shows that there are disputed material facts and that the district court erred in concluding that Chaplain Wilson had noNo. 97-10868 -2-

** The parties consented to proceed before the magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). constitutional duty to help Ayers resolve his problems with the TDCJ food service. Having reviewed the record and the briefs of the parties, we AFFIRM for essentially the reasons set forth by the magistrate judge. **
AFFIRMED.
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 Quarterly Report of Berkeley Technology Limited on
Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2008 as filed with the U.S.  Securities
and Exchange  Commission  (the  "Report"),  I, Arthur I.  Trueger,  as Executive
Chairman of the registrant,  certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted
by ss. 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
registrant.



Date:  May 15, 2008                              By:    /s/  Arthur I. Trueger

                                                        Arthur I. Trueger
                                                        Executive Chairman
# Mir Space Station views taken during STS-76 mission

STS076-734-084 (22 - 31 March 1996) --- A clear scene of the Sinai Peninsula and the Nile River Delta forms the backdrop for this 70mm scene of Russia's Mir Space Station, as photographed from the aft flight deck of the Space Shuttle Atlantis.  Atlantis docked with Mir on March 23, 1996, and remained linked until March 28, 1996.  Astronaut Shannon W. Lucid transferred from the STS-76 crew to the Mir-21 crew, which grew from two to three.  She will remain aboard Mir for approximately 140 days, as a cosmonaut guest researcher.

                    -  Facebook PinterestX
-  LinkedIn Emailhttps://www.nasa.gov/image-detail/amf-sts076-734-084/Copy URL to clipboard>DownloadShareTakenMarch 25, 1996ProducerJSCSize1904x1920pxPIA Numbersts076-734-084The National Aeronautics and Space Administration
NASA explores the unknown in air and space, innovates for the benefit of humanity, and inspires the world through discovery.
- About NASA's Mission
Join Us- Home
- News & Events
- Multimedia
- NASA+
- Missions
- Humans in Space
- Earth & Climate
- The Solar System
- The Universe
- Science
- Aeronautics
- Technology
- Learning Resources
- About NASA
- NASA en Español
Follow NASA-   
-   
-   
-   
- 
- More NASA Social Accounts
- NASA Newsletters
- Sitemap
- For Media
- Privacy Policy
- FOIA
- No FEAR Act
- Office of the IGBudget & Annual Reports
Agency Financial Reports
Contact NASA
Accessibility
-  									Page Last Updated:								  								Apr 10, 2023								 
-  									Page Editor:								   
-  								Responsible NASA Official:							  								Abigail Bowman
**Exhibit 11Nano-Proprietary, Inc.Computation of Income (Loss) Per Share**

|                                                    |   | Three Months ended June 30, |        | Six Months ended June 30, |
|---------------------------------------------------------|--------|-----------------------------|--------|---------------------------|
|                                                    |   | 2003                        |   | 2002                      |  | 2003 |   | 2002 |
|                                                    |   |                        |   |                      |   |   |   |   |
| Computation of loss per common share:                   |   |                        |   |                      |   |   |   |
|                                                    |   |                        |   |                      |   |   |   |
|    Net loss applicable to common  shares |   | $(696,056)                  |   | $(1,504,208)              |  | $(1,467,025) |  | $(2,894,400) |
|                                                    |   |                        |   |                      |   |   |   |   |
|    Weighted average number of common shares   |   | 85,552,973             |   | 63,648,286           |   | 82,661,901  |   | 62,924,823  |
|                                                    |   |                        |   |                      |   |   |   |   |
|    Net income (loss) per common share         |   | $(0.01)                     |   | $(0.02)                   |  | $(0.02) |   | $(0.04) |
|                                                    |   |                        |   |                      |   |   |   |   |
|                                                    |   |                        |   |                      |   |   |   |   |
| Computation of income ( loss ) per common               |   |                        |   |                      |   |   |   |   |
|    share assuming full dilution**             |   |                        |   |                      |   |   |   |   |
|                                                    |   |                        |   |                      |   |   |   |   |
|                                                    |   |                        |   |                      |   |   |   |   |

** No computation of diluted loss per common share is included for any period because suchcomputation results in an antidilutive loss per common share.