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



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 on
Form 10-K of Harris Interactive Inc. (the
Company) for the fiscal year ended June 30,
2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof (the Report), I, Robert E. Knapp,
Vice Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to
my knowledge, the Report fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and the information
contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
the Company.

A signed original of this written statement
required by Section 906 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.



| |            |                    
| | ---------- | -------------------
| | Signature: | /s/ ROBERT E. KNAPP

| |                                          
| | -----------------------------------------
| |                                          
| | Robert E. Knapp                          
| | Vice Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

Dated: September 8, 2004
#### In the Matter of William Sawyer, Appellant, v Brion D. Travis, as Chair of the Board of Parole, Respondent.

[787 NYS2d 910]

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Kavanagh, J.), entered March 17, 2004 in Albany County, which, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, granted respondent’s motion to dismiss the petition for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.

On July 9, 2003, petitioner appeared before the Board of Parole and his request for parole release was denied. Supreme Court granted respondent’s motion to dismiss the proceeding for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Petitioner appeals. The Attorney General has advised this Court that petitioner has been granted conditional release and was released to parole supervision on November 5, 2004, rendering any challenge to the denial of his parole request moot *(see Matter of Eastman v New York State Bd. of Parole,*247 AD2d 740 [1998]). In any event, were we to reach the merits we would find that Supreme Court properly dismissed the proceeding inasmuch as petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding prior to perfecting his administrative appeal *(see Matter of Boddie v New York State Div. of Parole,*293 AD2d 884 [2002], *appeal dismissed*98 NY2d 752 [2002]; *Matter of Lee v New York State Dept, of Parole,*252 AD2d 703 [1998], *Iv denied*92 NY2d 815 [1998]).

Cardona, RJ., Crew III, Carpinello, Mugglin and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, as moot, without costs.
II 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1948

To provide that service of the members of the organization known as the 

United States Cadet Nurse Corps during World War II constituted 

active military service for purposes of laws administered by the Secretary 

of Veterans Affairs. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

NOVEMBER 24, 2003

Mr. REID (for himself and Mr. DASCHLE) introduced the following bill; which 

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL

To provide that service of the members of the organization 

known as the United States Cadet Nurse Corps during 

World War II constituted active military service for purposes of laws administered by the Secretary of Veterans 

Affairs.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘United States Cadet 

5 Nurse Corps Equity Act of 2003’’. 
2

•S 1948 IS 

1 SEC. 2. SERVICE DEEMED TO BE ACTIVE MILITARY 

2 SERVICE. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—For purposes of section 

4 401(a)(1)(A) of the GI Bill Improvement Act of 1977 (38 

5 U.S.C. 106 note), the Secretary of Defense is deemed to 

6 have determined that qualified service of a person con7 stituted active military service. 

8 (b) DETERMINATION OF DISCHARGE STATUS.—(1) 

9 The Secretary of Defense shall issue an honorable dis10 charge under section 401(a)(1)(B) of the GI Bill Improve11 ment Act of 1977 to each person whose qualified service 

12 warrants an honorable discharge. 

13 (2) Such discharge shall be issued before the end of 

14 the one-year period beginning on the date of the enact15 ment of this Act. 

16 SEC. 3. PROHIBITION OF RETROACTIVE BENEFITS. 

17 No benefits may be paid to any person as a result 

18 of the enactment of this Act for any period before the date 

19 of the enactment of this Act. 

20 SEC. 4. DEFINITION. 

21 For purposes of this Act, the term ‘‘qualified service’’ 

22 means service of a person as a member of the organization 

23 known as the United States Cadet Nurse Corps during 

24 the period beginning on July 1, 1943, and ending on De25 cember 15, 1945.

Æ
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-6357

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

HAKIM ABDULAH RASHID, a/k/a Rodney Buchanan,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. 

(4:10-cr-00941-RBH-1)

Submitted: June 26, 2014 Decided: June 30, 2014

Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Hakim Abdulah Rashid, Appellant Pro Se. Alfred William Walker 

Bethea, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South 

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Hakim Abdulah Rashid seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order directing him to submit his filing in the proper 

form. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final 

orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory and 

collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 

54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-

46 (1949). The order Rashid 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 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Exhibit 10.22

AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE
WATER PIK TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
1999 INCENTIVE PLAN

This Amendment No. 1 ("Amendment") is entered into, and shall be effective as of November 1, 2003, by Water Pik Technologies, Inc., a
Delaware corporation (the "Company"). This Amendment amends the Water Pik Technologies, Inc. 1999 Incentive Plan, which was adopted by the Board of Directors of the Company in connection with
the Company's spin-off from Allegheny Teledyne Incorporated on November 29, 1999, and was approved by the Company's stockholders on May 4, 2000. The Water Pik
Technologies, Inc. 1999 Incentive Plan, including any and all addendums and amendments through November 1, 2003, the date of this Amendment, is collectively referred to in this Amendment
as, the "Plan." Capitalized terms used in this Amendment which are not defined in this Amendment shall have the meanings set forth in the Plan. The Plan is amended as follows:

1.     The
second sentence of Section 1.02 of Article I "Adoption and Term" of the Plan shall be replaced in its entirety by a new second sentence of
Section 1.02 of Article I of the Plan to read as follows:



2.     Except
as modified by the foregoing paragraph of this Amendment, all other provisions of the Plan shall remain unchanged and in full force and effect.

This
Amendment has been signed and delivered as of November 1, 2003.

|                             |                                                                                          |  | 
|---------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 
|WATER PIK TECHNOLOGIES, INC. |                                                                                          | 
|By:                          | /s/MICHAEL P. HOOPISName: Michael P. Hoopis
Title: President and Chief Executive Officer |  | 
|                             |                                                                                          |  | 
|By:                          | /s/RICHARD D. TIPTONName: Richard D. Tipton
Title: Secretary                             |  | 

---
# Exhibit 32.1

# CERTIFICATON OF CHIEF
EXECUTIVE OFFICER

# Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§ 1350, as adopted pursuant to§ 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the filing with
the Securities and Exchange Commission of the Quarterly Report of Hemagen Diagnostics,
Inc. on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2006, (the Report), I,
William P. Hales, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§ 1350, 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/ William P. Hales
William P. HalesPresident and Chief
Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)

May 10, 2006

A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Hemagen Diagnostics, Inc. and will
be retained by Hemagen Diagnostics, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.

24
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 OurPets Company (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), the undersigned, being the Chairman,
President and 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) | I have reviewed this Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009 of OurPets Company.
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | This Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (3) | The financial statements, and other financial information included in this Report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows of the Registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this Report.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                            
|------------------------------------------------------------
|/S/    STEVEN
TSENGAS                                       
|BY STEVEN TSENGAS                                           
|Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer

Dated:
March 31, 2010

This certification is made solely for the purpose of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, subject to the
knowledge standard contained in that statute, and not for any other purpose. A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to OurPets Company and will be retained by OurPets Company and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 211 (Tuesday, November 2, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 67348]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-27747]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting Notice

Time and Date: Wednesday, November 3, 2010, 10 a.m.-11 a.m.

Place: Hearing Room 420, Bethesda Towers, 4330 East West Highway, 
Bethesda, Maryland.

Status: Commission Meeting--Open to the Public.

Matter To Be Considered

    Briefing Matter: Notice of Accreditation Requirements for Third 
Party Conformity Assessment Bodies to Test Children's Sleepwear.
    A live Webcast of the Meeting can be viewed at http://www.cpsc.gov/webcast.
    For a recorded message containing the latest agenda information, 
call (301) 504-7948.

Contact Person for More Information: Todd A. Stevenson, Office of the 
Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West 
Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814, (301) 504-7923.

    Dated: October 27, 2010.
Todd A. Stevenson,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-27747 Filed 10-29-10; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6355-01-P
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Ventana Medical Systems, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the Company), on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending September 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), Christopher
M. Gleeson, President, Chief Executive Officer, and Director of the Company, and Lawrence L. Mehren, Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Secretary of the Company, do each hereby certify pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350), that to their 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 result of operations of the Company.
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

October 23, 2007

|                                                                       
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                       
|/s/    CHRISTOPHER M.
GLEESON                                          
|Christopher M. Gleeson President, Chief Executive Officer, and Director

October 23, 2007

|                                                                               
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                               
|/s/    LAWRENCE L.
MEHREN                                                      
|Lawrence L. Mehren Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Secretary
#### A. S. Bayne et al. *v.*A. F. Smith.

Mortgage — Insolvency — Statutes of 1856.

A mortgage not made in contemplation of insolvency and without a design to prefer some creditors to the exclusion of others does not come within the provision of the acts of 1856.

APPEAL PROM LARUE CIRCUIT COURT.

February 7, 1867.

Opinion' op the Court by

Judge Williams :

As said by this court in Terrell et al. *v.*Jennings, 1 Metc. 450, a mortgage which is not made in contemplation of insolvency is valid and not prohibited by the Act of March 10, 1856, unless such mortgage be made in contemplation of insolvency and with a design to prefer some creditor to the exclusion of others, does not come within the provisions of the statute, which makes it inure to the benefit of all the mortgagor’s creditors.

*14*Winter smith & Murray, for appellant.*

*Read & Ilowell, for appellees.*

In this case the property mortgaged was more than ample to-pay the mortgage and all other debts of the mortgagor; besides he seems to have had a considerable amount of choses in action which he left in Hammon’s hands for collection, with orders to pay the money, when collected, on his debts, instead of defrauding or delaying his creditors or preferring some to the exclusion of others; his ability and intention to pay all is manifest. It was error to adjudge that the mortgage inured to the benefit of all the mortgagor’s creditors, wherefore the judgment is *reversed.*
##### 



EXHIBIT 99.5 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 CryptoLogic Inc. (the Company) on Form 40-F for the year
ended December 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the Report), I, Lewis N. Rose, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. §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. Date: March 24, 2005 /s/ LEWIS N. ROSELewis N.RoseChief Executive Officer




---



##### 



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 CryptoLogic Inc. (the Company) on Form 40-F for the year
ended December 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the Report), I, Jenifer Cua, Interim Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:  3.
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934; and  4.
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company. Date: March 24, 2005 /s/ JENIFER CUAJenifer CuaInterim Chief Financial Officer
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-23-00925-CR

Pedro MALDONADO MORALES,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 227th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2022CR9135

Honorable Christine Del Prado, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Irene Rios Justice

Beth Watkins, Justice

Delivered and Filed: November 8, 2023

DISMISSED

Appellant Pedro Maldonado Morales entered into a plea bargain with the State, pursuant 

to which he pleaded nolo contendere to the charged offense. The trial court imposed a sentence on 

October 3, 2023 in accordance with the agreement and signed a certificate stating this “is a pleabargain case, and the defendant has NO right of appeal.” See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2). This court 

must dismiss an appeal “if a certification that shows the defendant has the right of appeal has not 

been made part of the record.” Id. The clerk’s record includes the written plea bargain agreement 

which includes a waiver of the right to appeal those matter that were raised by written motion filed 
04-23-00925-CR

- 2 -

and ruled on before trial. See id. 25.2(a)(2). The record establishes the punishment assessed by the 

court does not exceed the punishment recommended by the prosecutor and agreed to by the 

defendant. See id. 25.2(a)(2). The record also appears to support the trial court’s certification that 

appellant does not have a right to appeal. See Dears v. State, 154 S.W.3d 610 (Tex. Crim. App. 

2005) (holding court of appeals should review clerk’s record to determine whether trial court’s 

certification is accurate).

On October 24, 2023, we ordered appellant to file a response establishing an amended 

certification showing he has the right to appeal has been made part of the appellate record. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d), 37.1. We advised appellant that if a supplemental clerk’s record was 

required to show he has the right to appeal, he was required to request a supplemental record from 

the trial court clerk and file a copy of the request with this court. Finally, we admonished appellant 

that a failure to satisfactorily respond to this order within the time provided would result in the 

dismissal of this appeal. 

On October 30, 2023, appellant’s counsel filed a response to our order agreeing appellant 

entered into a plea bargain with the State, appellant pleaded nolo contendere in accordance with 

the plea bargain, the trial court imposed a sentence in accordance with the agreement, and the 

signed certificate stated appellant had no right of appeal.

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal. See id. 25.2(d); see also Ex Parte Torres, 483 S.W.3d 

35 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016) (addressing Padilla v. Kentucky ineffective assistance claim via habeas 

appeal). 

PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH