alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
*Exhibit 32.1*CERTIFICATIONPursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, each of the undersigned officers of Rent-Way, Inc. (the “Company”), does hereby certify, tosuch officer’s knowledge, that:The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2006, (the “Form 10-Q”) of theCompany fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities ExchangeAct of 1934 and the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.        Dated:   August 9, 2006 /s/ William S. Short   William S. Short   Chief Executive Officer           Dated:   August 9, 2006 /s/ John A. Lombardi   John A. Lombardi,   Chief Financial Officer   This certification is being furnished solely to accompany this Form 10-Q pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350 and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, asamended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company unless suchincorporation is expressly referenced herein.
EXHIBIT
32.1




CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C.
SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
connection with the Annual Report of Telkonet Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K
for the year ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Jason L. Tienor, Chief
Executive Officer of Telkonet, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:





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





(2) The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.








/s/
Jason L.
Tienor


Jason L.
Tienor


Chief
Executive Officer


March 31,
2010
**EXHIBIT32.2**

 

**WARRENRESOURCES, INC.**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

** **

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Warren Resources, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Qfor the period ending September 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission onthe date hereof (the “Report”), I, Timothy A. Larkin, Executive Vice President,Chief Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer of the Company,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of theSarbanes-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/ Timothy A. Larkin |   |
|-----------------------|--------|

 

Timothy A. Larkin

*Executive Vice President,*

*Chief Financial Officer*

*And Principal Accounting Officer*

 

November 4, 2009

 

----
II 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2125 

To amend part C of title XVIII of the Social Security Act to prohibit 

the comparative cost adjustment (CCA) program from operating in the 

State of Rhode Island. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 25, 2004 

Mr. REED introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to 

the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend part C of title XVIII of the Social Security Act 

to prohibit the comparative cost adjustment (CCA) program from operating in the State of Rhode Island. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON OPERATION OF MEDICARE 

4 COMPARATIVE COST ADJUSTMENT (CCA) 

5 PROGRAM IN RHODE ISLAND. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1860C–1(b) of the Social 

7 Security Act, as added by section 241 of the Medicare Pre8 scription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 
2 

•S 2125 IS 

1 2003 (Public Law 108–173), is amended by adding at the 

2 end the following: 

3 ‘‘(3) NO CCA AREAS WITHIN RHODE ISLAND.— 

4 A CCA area shall not include an MSA any portion 

5 of which is within the State of Rhode Island.’’. 

6 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

7 this section shall take effect as if included in the enact8 ment of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, 

9 and Modernization Act of 2003 (Public Law 108–173). 

Æ
* 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. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED October 1, 2004 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-10222 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus LEWIS HENRY ANTHONY, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:03-CV-1236-A USDC No. 4:00-CR-117-2-A

-------------------- Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and PICKERING, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Lewis Henry Anthony, federal prisoner # 29692-077, moves this court for a certificate of appealability (COA) following the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion as untimely. Anthony’s motion for bail pending appeal is DENIED.
See Calley v. Callaway , 496 F.2d 701, 702 (5th Cir. 1974). Anthony seeks to challenge his 2000 conviction for conspiracy, possession of stolen mail, and bank fraud. The district court determined that although the certificate of service for the 28No. 04-10222 -2-U.S.C. § 2255 motion indicated that it was filed within the oneyear limitations period set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d), Anthony had failed to submit further proof that his motion was timely filed. To obtain a COA, Anthony must make “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). When, as here, a district court dismisses a § 2255 motion on procedural grounds, a COA may not issue unless the prisoner shows that “jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.” See Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)(§ 2254 case). “A prisoner’s habeas application is considered ‘filed’ when delivered to the prison authorities for mailing to the district
court.” Sonnier v. Johnson , 161 F.3d 941, 945 n.2 (5th Cir. 1998)(quoting Spotville v. Cain , 149 F.3d 374, 378 (5th Cir. 1998)). “Timely filing may be shown by a declaration in compliance with 28 U.S.C. § 1746.” F ED . R. A PP . P. 4(c)(1) (prisoner appeal); see also Coleman v. Johnson , 184 F.3d 398, 401 (5th Cir. 1999)(noting that the rules regarding the timeliness of a notice of appeal have been extended to the filing of habeas petitions). The certificate of service for Anthony’s 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, which was given in compliance with 28 U.S.C.No. 04-10222 -3- § 1746, reflects that the motion was timely. Accordingly, we grant Anthony’s motion for a COA, VACATE the order dismissing the motion as untimely, and REMAND the case to the district court for further proceedings. See Whitehead v. Johnson , 157 F.3d 384, 388 (5th Cir. 1998). Anthony’s motion to amend his motion for a COA is DENIED.
COA GRANTED; VACATE AND REMAND; OUTSTANDING MOTIONS DENIED.
#### Jose Carlos PINEDA, Petitioner-Appellant, v. E.J. GALLEGOS, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 03-1073.

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

Aug. 22, 2003.

Jose Carlos Pineda, Florence, CO, for Petitioner-Appellant.

John W. Suthers, U.S. Attorney, Robert M. Russel, Office of the United States Attorney, Denver, CO, Respondent-Appellee.

Before KELLY, BRISCOE, and LUCERO, Circuit Judges.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

BRISCOE, Circuit Judge.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not ma*853terially assist the determination of this appeal. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

Petitioner Jose Carlos Pineda, a federal prisoner appearing pro se, appeals the dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition challenging his sentence. We exercise jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm.

Pineda was indicted in federal court in Texas on one count of illegal reentry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a)(1) and (b)(2). He allegedly pled guilty and was sentenced to 70 months’ imprisonment. Pineda, who is confined at a federal correctional facility in Colorado, filed his § 2241 petition in federal court in Colorado seeking a reduction in his sentence to 24 months or less because the sentence imposed was unconstitutional and in violation of the terms of his plea agreement. The district court dismissed the petition, concluding Pineda’s proper avenue of relief was to file a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion in the sentencing court.

We agree with the district court that § 2241 is not the appropriate vehicle for Pineda to challenge the length of his sentence. Generally speaking, “[a] petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 attacks the execution of a sentence rather than its validity and must be filed in the district where the prisoner is confined. A 28 U.S.C. § 2255 petition attacks the legality of detention, and must be filed in the district that imposed the sentence.” *Haugh v. Booker,*210 F.3d 1147, 1149 (10th Cir.2000) (internal quotation omitted). Section 2241 “is not an additional, alternative, or supplemental remedy to 28 U.S.C. § 2255.” *Bradshaw v. Story,*86 F.3d 164, 166 (10th Cir.1996). A defendant may file a petition under § 2241 only if he shows that § 2255 is “inadequate or ineffective” to challenge the validity of a judgment or sentence. *Id.*Because Pineda has not established the inadequacy or ineffectiveness of § 2255, we agree with the district court that his exclusive remedy for challenging the length of his sentence is to file a § 2255 motion with the sentencing court.

AFFIRMED.

*

 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order *853and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
#### Commonwealth *v.*Folie.

Gaming — Sufficiency of Indictment.

An indictment is sufficient if it specifically apprise the defendant of the particular charge against him.

APPEAL EROM GALLATIN CIRCUIT COURT.

June 6, 1866.

Opinion oe the Court by

Judge Marshall:

We do not know on what ground this indictment for unlatyful gaming in the premises of another was adjudged to be insufficient. *409It avers that on a day designated by date, in the county and State aforesaid, Folie did unlawfully engage in and play divers games of cards, being games of chance, in the premises of Van W. Keene and Vm. H. Lamaram, at each and all of which divers sums of money and property were bet, won, and lost, without the permission of the owner, controller, occupier, or tenant of said premises, contrary to the statute, etc.

The indictment is intended to charge the commission of the offense defined in the first section of the Act of January, 1856, entitled “An act to amend chapter 42 of the Revised Statutes, title gaming” (1 Stant. Rev. Stat. 571). We think it sufficiently describes and identifies the offense defined in the statute. No particular objection being made to the indictment we need only say that in our opinion it is sufficiently specific to apprise the defendant of the particular, charge against him and to enable him to make his defense if he has any.

Wherefore, the judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded, with directions to overrule the demurrer and for further proceedings.
FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

July 13, 2010

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

VICTOR L. KEMBLE,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 10-6149

(D.C. No. 5:09-CR-00286-M-1)

ORDER

This criminal appeal is before the court based on an “unopposed motion to dismiss

appeal” filed by an Assistant Federal Public Defender on behalf of Appellant-Defendant

Victor Lee Kemble. See Fed. R. App. P. 42(b); 10th Cir. R. 46.3(B). Attached to the

“motion to dismiss” is a signed statement by Defendant Kemble requesting dismissal of the

appeal. 

Upon consideration, Defendant’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED. The appeal is 

Appellate Case: 10-6149 Document: 01018456565 Date Filed: 07/13/2010 Page: 1
2

DISMISSED. The mandate shall issue forthwith.

Entered for the Court

Elisabeth A. Shumaker, Clerk

Kathleen T. Clifford

Attorney - Deputy Clerk

Appellate Case: 10-6149 Document: 01018456565 Date Filed: 07/13/2010 Page: 2
#### In the Matter of Chris Applewhite, Appellant, v Donald Selsky, as Director of Special Housing and Inmate Disciplinary Programs, Respondent.

[786 NYS2d 844]

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Bradley, J.), entered December 12, 2002 in Albany County, which dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of the Commissioner of Correctional Services finding petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging a determination finding him guilty of violating the prison disciplinary rules that prohibit interference with an employee -and making threats. The Attorney General has advised this Court by letter that the determination at issue has been administratively reversed and that all references thereto have been expunged from petitioner’s institutional record. Inasmuch *737as petitioner has received all the relief to which he is entitled, the matter is dismissed as moot *(see Matter of Thomas v Selsky,*296 AD2d 694 [2002]).

Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Carpinello, Lahtinen and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, as moot, without costs.
FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

Case No. 5D23-2880

LT Case No. 2021-DP-000120-A 

_____________________________

J.W., FATHER of K.W., a CHILD,

Appellant,

v.

DEPARTMENT of CHILDREN 

and FAMILIES, 

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County. 

Michael Kalil, Judge. 

Jennifer Cogdill, Fleming Island, for Appellant.

Sarah J. Rumph, of Children’s Legal Services, Department of 

Children and Families, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

Sara Elizabeth Goldfarb, Statewide Director of Appeals, and 

Laura J. Lee, Assistant Director of Appeals, of Guardian ad 

Litem, Tallahassee, for Guardian ad Litem Program.

April 1, 2024

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. 
2 

WALLIS, LAMBERT, and MACIVER, JJ., concur. 

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331. 

_____________________________
National Aeronautics and Space Administration

QUANTUM CODE CRUNCHERS

A Space Communications and Navigation (SCaN)
Binary Code Hacking Activity

| |GRADES 3-6] | NASASCaN aims to use quantum —_| |INSTRUCTIONS| | Convert the image on the left
communications to safely send and receive space _into binary code on the right by matching up each
data. Particles known as quantum qubits securely __ line and writing “O” to represent a white pixel and
transmit messages using combinations of “1” and “1” to represent a black pixel. The first three lines
“0” to represent the data as binary code. of binary code have been completed for you!

io
io
io
io
io
io
=)
io
io
io
io
io
io
io
oO

www.nasa.gov 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>               5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                          40,375
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,366,991
<ALLOWANCES>                                   276,000
<INVENTORY>                                  6,848,387
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            10,437,051
<PP&E>                                       7,800,750
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,775,680
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              15,781,765
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,534,097
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        78,519
<OTHER-SE>                                  10,032,672
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                15,781,765
<SALES>                                      3,698,853
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,698,853
<CGS>                                        2,156,769
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,156,769
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,427,458
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              71,504
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 44,624
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             44,624
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    44,624
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .01


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                          26,170
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   81,974
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,395
<INVENTORY>                                    108,651
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               289,163
<PP&E>                                         494,461
<DEPRECIATION>                                 243,946
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 678,220
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          113,476
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           280
<OTHER-SE>                                     403,955
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   678,220
<SALES>                                        173,458
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               173,458
<CGS>                                          131,860
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  160,836
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  (26)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (1,155)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 11,493
<INCOME-TAX>                                     4,700
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              6,793
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     6,793
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.24
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.24
        

</TABLE>
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-20-00289-CV

Estate of Rickey Ray Allen, Deceased

On Appeal from the

County Court at Law of Hill County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. PR14881

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on

appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed. The Court 

orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED. Costs of the appeal are adjudged 

against appellant.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

May 20, 2021
EXHIBIT
32.1
  SECTION
1350 CERTIFICATION
 
 In
connection with the annual report of China America Holdings, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the transition period ended September 30, 2009 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Shaoyin
Wang, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. SS. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
 
 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 result of operations of the Company.
  January
      13, 2010
                
                /s/ Shaoyin
      WangShaoyin
      WangChief
      Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, principal executive officer
      and principal financial and accounting 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 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.
| 1.     |                           | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 2 on Form 10-K/A to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Progress Energy, Inc. as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 28, 2011; and                                                                                                              |
|--------|--------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |
| 2.     |       | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report. |

| Date: May 24, 2011 | By:                                        | /s/ William D. Johnson |
|--------------------|-------------------------------------------------|------------------------|
|               | William D. Johnson                              |
|               | Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer |

----