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


Exhibit 32


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


I, Victor Sun, sole director and officer of Avic Technologies Ltd. (the
"Company") do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my
knowledge:

         1. This Annual Report on 10-KSB of the Company for the period ended
         December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
         (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: March 19, 2004


-----------------------------
Victor Sun, Sole Director and Officer
(acts as chief executive officer and principal accounting officer)
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-21-00277-CR

AERIAL MONIQUE SIMON,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 19th District Court

McLennan County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2019-413-C1

ABATEMENT ORDER

Appellant’s brief was due January 27, 2022. After three extensions of time to file a 

brief were granted, appellant’s brief was due April 29, 2022. Appellant requested another 

30 days to file a brief which was denied by the Court because the Court could not, in good 

conscience, grant appellant over five times the amount of time permitted to file a brief. 

Appellant’s brief was ordered to be filed by May 27, 2022.

On May 27, 2022, appellant requested yet another extension of time, to June 10, 

2022, to file her brief because counsel discovered that counsel did not receive sealed 
Simon v. State Page 2

exhibits with counsel’s copy of the reporters record, and has requested permission from 

the trial court to receive a copy of these sealed exhibits. Counsel “believes the trial court 

will sign an order permitting him to receive the sealed exhibits in the next week,” and 

“anticipates that [counsel] will be able to review the exhibits quickly and file a brief 

shortly thereafter.”

Counsel has had ample time to discover that exhibits were missing from the 

reporter’s record. 

Accordingly, this appeal is ABATED to the trial court to determine, at the same 

time the trial court is considering whether trial counsel is permitted to have access to the 

sealed exhibits,

1 no later than 14 days from the date of this ORDER, whether appellant is 

receiving affective assistance of counsel, and if not, whether to appoint new or additional 

counsel to represent appellant effectively. A supplemental clerk’s record containing the 

trial court’s written determination must be filed within 21 days from the date of this 

Order.

PER CURIAM

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Johnson, and 

Justice Smith

Appeal abated

Order issued and filed June 2, 2022

[RWR]

1 We take no position upon the issue of whether the procedure counsel has decided to use is the proper 

procedure to obtain access to sealed exhibits in the appellate record.
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>


                                                                    Exhibit 27.1

                                 Worldtex, Inc.
<ARTICLE>                      5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE  CONTAINS SUMMARY  FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED FROM WORLDTEX,
INC.  FORM 10-Q FOR THE  PERIOD  ENDED  JUNE 30,  1999 AND IS  QUALIFIED  IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                  1,000

<S>                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                  6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                      DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                           JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                                      10,830
<SECURITIES>                                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                                               54,425
<ALLOWANCES>                                                 2,128
<INVENTORY>                                                 59,964
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                           127,412
<PP&E>                                                     153,483
<DEPRECIATION>                                              43,391
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                             327,761
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                       44,594
<BONDS>                                                    205,783
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                            0
<PREFERRED>                                                      0
<COMMON>                                                       147
<OTHER-SE>                                                  65,603
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                             327,761
<SALES>                                                    151,624
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                           151,624
<CGS>                                                      124,579
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                              124,579
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                 0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                               303
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                           9,958
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                              3,500
<INCOME-TAX>                                                 1,425
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                          2,075
<DISCONTINUED>                                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                  0
<CHANGES>                                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                                                 2,075
<EPS-BASIC>                                                  .15
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                  .15


</TABLE>
National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center

Houston, Texas 77058

Biographical Data

GARY E. PAYTON (MAJOR, USAF)

PAYLOAD SPECIALIST

PERSONAL DATA: Born June 20, 1948, in Rock Island, Illinois. Married. One

child.

EDUCATION: Graduated from high school in Rock Island, Illinois, in 1966; attended

Bradley University, Peoria, Illinois; and after one year entered the USAF Academy,

Colorado Springs, Colorado. Received a bachelor of science degree in astronautical

engineering, USAF Academy, 1971; and a master of science degree in astronautical

and aeronautical engineering, Purdue University, Lafayette, Indiana, 1972. Graduated

from pilot training at Craig Air Force Base, Alabama, in 1973, and became an

instructor pilot there.

EXPERIENCE: 1976 to May 1980, Cape Canaveral AFS, Florida. Spacecraft test

controller.

May 1980 to present, Los Angeles AFS, California. Selected for the USAF Manned Space Flight Engineer Program in

February 1980.

He has accumulated 1,080 hours in T-37, T-38 and T-39 aircraft.

SPACE FLIGHT EXPERIENCE: Payton flew on STS-51C Discovery (January 24-27, 1985) which launched from

and returned to land at the Kennedy Space Center, Florida. STS-51C was the first dedicated Space Shuttle Department

of Defense mission. At the conclusion of the mission, Payton had traveled over 1.2 million miles in 48 Earth orbits, and

logged more than 73 hours in space.

JANUARY 1985

This is the only version available from NASA. Updates must be sought direct from the above named individual.
#### P.T. & L. CONSTRUCTION CO., INC. v. MASON-CONNOR, INC.

June 27, 1978.

Petition for certification denied.
#### ELIZABETH BENYOLA v. JOSEPH SCALA.

June 27, 1978.

Petition for certification denied.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Tariq Wyatt, Appellant.

[788 NYS2d 362]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward McLaughlin, J., at hearing; Michael R. Ambrecht, J., at plea and sentence), rendered June 18, 2003, convicting defendant of assault in the first degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of nine years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly denied defendant’s suppression motion. The police had an objective credible reason for approaching defendant to request information, when, at a crime-ridden location, they observed him pass two other men and repeatedly stare back at them with an “angry,” “menacing” look *(see generally People v De Bour,*40 NY2d 210, 223 [1976]). The officer’s articulable reason for requesting information was not simply that defendant had an angry expression, but that the officer had witnessed what appeared to be a street encounter that carried a potential for violence. The officer’s question, about whether defendant had any problem with the other two men, was within the proper scope of a request for information, since it was nonthreatening and did not focus on any criminality by defendant *(see People v Hollman,*79 NY2d 181, 190-191 [1992]).

When defendant then failed to respond to the officer’s question, glared angrily at the officer and began to reach for his back pocket, the encounter escalated and the officer was justified in placing his hand on defendant’s back pocket to prevent defendant from possibly drawing a weapon. This was not a *442“frisk,” but a minimal self-protective measure *(see People v Campbell,*293 AD2d 396 [2002], *lv denied*98 NY2d 695 [2002]). When the officer felt a hard object that, given the surrounding circumstances, suggested the presence of a weapon, the officer was justified in squeezing it, whereupon he discerned that it was a firearm *(see People v Ortiz,*186 AD2d 505 [1992], *lv denied*81 NY2d 845 [1993]).

Accordingly, the court properly denied defendant’s motion to suppress the weapon recovered from his person. There is no basis for suppression of his statement at the precinct, and the two subsequent lineup identifications.

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur— Friedman, J.P., Marlow, Nardelli, Sweeny and Catterson, JJ.
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2042 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2042

    For the relief of Rocco A. Trecosta of Fort Lauderdale, Florida.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            February 2, 2004

  Mr. Graham of Florida introduced the following bill; which was read 
          twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    For the relief of Rocco A. Trecosta of Fort Lauderdale, Florida.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. COMPENSATION OF BACK PAY.

    (a) In General.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall pay, out of 
any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to Mr. Rocco A. 
Trecosta of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, the sum of $10,000 for 
compensation for back pay not received as an employee of the Department 
of Defense Overseas Dependent Schools for service performed during the 
period beginning April 14, 1966, through June 30, 1975. Payment under 
this subsection is made after the transmission of the applicable report 
of the United States Court of Federal Claims under section 2509 of 
title 28, United States Code.
    (b) No Inference of Liability.--Nothing in this section shall be 
construed as an inference of liability on the part of the United 
States.
    (c) Full Satisfaction of Claims.--The payment authorized under 
subsection (a) shall be in full satisfaction of all claims of Rocco A. 
Trecosta against the United States for back pay in connection with his 
service in the Department of Defense Overseas Dependent Schools.
    (d) Limitation on Agents and Attorneys Fees.--No more than 10 
percent of the payment authorized by this Act may be paid to or 
received by any agent or attorney for services rendered in connection 
with obtaining such payment, any contract to the contrary 
notwithstanding. Any person who violates this subsection shall be 
guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be subject to a fine in the amount 
provided in title 18, United States Code.
                                 <all>
```
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 214 (Friday, November 5, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 68352]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-27948]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER11-1894-000]


Yahoo Creek Wind Park, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial 
Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 
Authorization

October 28, 2010.
    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of 
Yahoo Creek Wind Park, LLC's application for market-based rate 
authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such 
application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR 
part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of 
liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the 
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 
385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a 
copy of that document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with 
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of 
liability, is November 18, 2010.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet 
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an 
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the 
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the 
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in 
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in 
the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link 
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification 
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with 
any FERC Online service, please e-mail <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#f6b0b3a4b5b9989a9f9893a5838686998482b690938495d8919980"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="460003140509282a2f282315333636293432062023342568212930">[email protected]</span></a>, or 
call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-27948 Filed 11-4-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### J. Sackaris & Sons, Inc., Respondent, v Terra Firma Construction Management & General Contracting, LLC, et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants. (And a Third-Party Action.)

[787 NYS2d 659]

In an action, inter aha, to foreclose a mechanic’s lien, the defendants Terra Firma Construction Management & General Contracting, LLC, and United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company, also known as St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company, appeal, as limited by their brief, from stated portions of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (O’Connell, J.), dated August 5, 2002, which, inter alia, denied their motion to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

*538Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

The appeal from the order must be dismissed because the right of direct appeal therefrom terminated with entry of judgment in the action (see *Matter of Aho,*39 NY2d 241, 248 [1976]). The issues raised on the appeal from the order are brought up for review and have been considered on the appeal from the judgment (see CPLR 5501 [a] [1]; *J. Sackaris & Sons v Terra Firma Constr. Mgt. & Gen. Contr,*14 AD3d 538 [2005] [decided herewith]). Adams, J.P., Santucci, Mastro and Spolzino, JJ., concur.
NASA 

National Aeronautics and 

Facts

Space Administration 

Dryden Flight Research Center 

P.O. Box 273

Edwards, California 93523 

Voice 661-276-3449 

FAX 661-276-3566 

pao@dfrc.nasa.gov FS-2002-09-051 DFRC 

F-16XL-1 Testbed Aircraft

NASA's F-16XL-1 over the desert. NASA photo 

EC97 44354-3 

NASA Dryden Flight Research Center's 

F-16XL-1 aircraft (tail number 849) testbed aircraft 

supported several flight research projects during the 

1990s. The XL-1 aircraft was upgraded with a new 

Digital Flight Control System (DFCS) in 1997. The 

DFCS utilized an electronic flight control system 

coupled with a digital computer, replacing the 

F-16XL-1's original analog computer. The DFCS 

modification was equivalent to the U.S. Air Force 

F-16 upgrade known as Block 40. The aircraft's flyby-wire flight control system remained intact. 

The DFCS upgrade allowed NASA's 

F-16XL-1 the flexibility needed to perform experiments which required major new flight control functions or capabilities. The initial flight test objectives 

for the modified aircraft verified that the DFCS functioned properly and that the performance and handling 

qualities were acceptable throughout the flight envelope. 

The added flexibility of the DFCS increased 

the versatility of this aircraft as a testbed for aerodynamic research and investigation of other advanced 

technologies. The aircraft's instrumentation system 

monitored control system operations, and was capable 

of supporting additional measurements. 

The digital flight control system was compatible with a Research Flight Control System (RFCS) 

which could be installed when necessary. RFCS 

capability provided a flexible, reliable and safe means 

to modify the aircraft control system. The RFCS 

computer significantly increased computational speed 

and computer memory. 

The XL-1 aircraft was previously used in 

NASA's Cranked-Arrow Wing Aerodynamics Project, 

or CAWAP, which provided aerodynamic data for 

NASA's High Speed Civil Transport (HSCT) research 

program. The unique cranked-arrow wing shape provided 

better low-speed lift and handling characteristics than the 

modified "double-delta" wing used on the Concorde 

supersonic transport (SST). 

The XL-1 participated in NASA's 1995 sonic 

boom study, in which the aircraft flew 200 feet behind 

a NASA SR-71 to probe the boundary of the SR-71's 

supersonic shock wave. These tests measured and 

recorded the shape and intensity of the shock waves. 

The studies helped HSCT engineers to better understand supersonic shock waves in order to reduce sonic 

boom intensity near populated areas. 

NASA's XL-1 aircraft is in flyable storage at 

Dryden.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-10467

Summary Calendar

ISMAEL HERNANDEZ PADILLA,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

LYNN PRIDE-RICHARDSON; CRAIG WATKINS, Dallas District Attorney;

DANIEL F. SOLIS, State Appointed Attorney,

Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:12-CV-486

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, OWEN, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Ismael Hernandez Padilla, Texas prisoner # 356764, moves for permission

to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on his appeal of the district court’s dismissal

of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. The district court denied his motion to proceed

IFP, certifying that the appeal was not taken in good faith. By moving in this

court for IFP status, Padilla is challenging the district court’s certification. See

Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997). Padilla, however, does not

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

May 3, 2013

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

* 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.

 Case: 12-10467 Document: 00512229636 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/03/2013
No. 12-10467

address the district court’s reasons for its certification decision. Padilla’s motion

for leave to proceed IFP on appeal is therefore DENIED. Padilla’s appeal is

without arguable merit and is thus frivolous. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215,

219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). Because the appeal is frivolous, it is DISMISSED. See

5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

As we recognized on November 6, 2012, Padilla has accumulated at least

three strikes for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Padilla v. Watkins, 491

F. App’x 484, 485 (5th Cir. 2012). We have not applied the § 1915(g) bar here

because Padilla filed this appeal before the bar was imposed. See Banos v.

O’Guin, 144 F.3d 883, 885 (5th Cir.1998). However, we reiterate that Padilla is

barred from proceeding IFP in any civil action or appeal filed in a court of the

United States while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he “is

under imminent danger of serious physical injury.” § 1915(g).

2

 Case: 12-10467 Document: 00512229636 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/03/2013
## This page has permanently moved.

### If redirect does not occur in 5 seconds, click the following link: https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/research/experiments/explorer/Investigation.html?#id=7595
FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

August 5, 2010

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JESUS ENRIQUE

BUSTILLOS-LOPEZ,

Defendant - Appellant.

Nos. 10-2057 & 10-2058

(D.C. Nos. 2:09-CR-02364-JEC-1 & 

2:08-CR-01398-JAP-4)

ORDER

Before KELLY, MURPHY and GORSUCH, Circuit Judges.

This matter is before the court on the “Parties’ Joint Motion for Remand to

the District Court for Resentencing.” The motion is granted. 

This matter is remanded to the district court with instructions to vacate the

defendant-appellant’s sentences and for resentencing in accordance with the

parties’ joint motion. 

 The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

Entered for the Court

ELISABETH SHUMAKER, Clerk of Court

by:

Christine Van Coney

Counsel to the Clerk

Appellate Case: 10-2057 Document: 01018472082 Date Filed: 08/05/2010 Page: 1
EXHIBIT (32)





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. § 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Annual Report of Peoples Bancorp of North Carolina, 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”), each of the undersigned certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best knowledge of the undersigned:








(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.





Dated:  March 25, 2011

/s/ Tony W. WolfeTony W. WolfeChief Executive OfficerDated:  March 25, 2011

/s/ A. Joseph Lampron, Jr.A. Joseph Lampron, Jr.Chief Financial Officer