alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# 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 June 30, 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. HalesWilliam P. Hales
President and Chief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)

August 21, 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 15.1**

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

The Board of Directors 

Sify Technologies Limited 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement (No. 333-165248) on Form S-8 of Sify Technologies Limited andsubsidiaries (the ‘Company’) of our report dated August 13, 2012 with respect to the consolidated statement of financial position of Sify Technologies Limited as of March 31, 2012 and March 31, 2011 and related consolidatedstatements of income, comprehensive income, changes in equity and cash flows for the years ended March 31, 2012 and March 31, 2011 and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of March 31, 2012, which reportappear in the March 31, 2012 annual report on Form 20-F of Sify Technologies Limited. 

/s/ ASA &Associates                                        

**ASA & Associates**

**Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

Chennai, India 

August 13, 2012
* 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. 97-50392

Summary Calendar

 

FRANK IVY,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. A-95-CV-824

- - - - - - - - - -

January 30, 1998

Before DUHE’, DeMOSS and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Frank Ivy, federal prisoner # 52524-080, appeals the

district court’s grant of summary judgment for the defendant in

this 28 U.S.C. § 1331 civil action for return of seized property. 

Ivy argues that the DEA should be liable for the loss of his

property; that the district court abused its discretion in not

ruling on his oral motion for return of property; and that the

district court was not limited to consideration of equitable

relief but that the district court had jurisdiction to award
No. 97-50392

-2-

monetary damages pursuant to Bivens, the Administrative Procedure

Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. § 702, and the Federal Tort Claims Act

(FTCA), 28 U.S.C. § 2675. He also argues that the district court

erred in holding that his state law remedies were adequate. We

have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons

given by the district court. Ivy v. United States, No. A-95-CA824-JN (W.D. Tex. Feb. 21, 1997).

AFFIRMED.
#### Aulick *v.*Aulick.

Concealment of Will — Specific Execution of Contract.

A petition to compel a specific execution of a contract to divide an estate, without reference to a will, where the evidence and circumstances of the ease develop the knowledge of the suppression of the truth and a suggestion of what was not the truth, wholly incompatible with candor and fair dealing, will be dismissed.

APPEAL PROM PENDLETON CIRCUIT COURT.

June 28, 1866.

Opinion oe the Court by

Judge Marshall :

Charles A. Aulick made his will about a year before his death;' immediately upon his decease this will was found, opened, and taken possession of by two of his sons to whom he had devised nothing.

They concealed the will, and soon after procured all the children save F. F. Aulick to sign a writing to divide the estate according to law, independent of any will which might thereafter be discovered, which contract recites that it has been suggested that their father had left a will *“ the contents of which are unlcnown.”*

It becoming known that the two sons had possession of the will, a motion was made in the County Court to have it recorded, and a rule against those who had it in custody to produce it for that purpose, which they were compelled to do, and the appellants resisted the recording. After it was ordered to record by the County Court, F. F. Aulick arrived from Missouri, where he had for several years lived, and without informing him of such will and recording in the County Court of Pendleton, his signature to said writing was obtained.

Appellants then filed this petition to compel a specific execution of the contract, and the Circuit Court on final hearing very properly dismissed their petition. The evidence and circumstances of this case develop knowledge of the will, the concealment both of its knowledge and the will, a suppression of the truth, and a suggestion of what was not the truth, wholly incompatible with candor and fair dealing and the rights of appellees.

Wherefore, the judgment is affirmed.
National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration

Mary W. Jackson Building NASA Headquarters

Washington, DC 20546-0001

August 24, 2023 

Reply to Attn of: General Law Practice Group

TO: Distribution

FROM: Agency Counsel for Ethics

SUBJECT: Determination Regarding Attendance by NASA employees at the Space Policy 

Institute, George Washington University Dinner on September 13, 2023. 

On September 13, 2023, the Space Policy Institute (SPI), George Washington University 

(GWU), a nonprofit organization under 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, will host a 

dinner at the DACOR Bacon House, 1801 F Street NW, Washington, DC, from 6:30 p.m. to 

9:30 p.m. The guest speaker is Julie Kearney, Chief, Space Bureau, Federal Communication 

Commission. 

Approximately 100 people have been invited to attend. Attendees will have a diversity of 

views or interests and will include representatives from the legislative branch, representatives 

from industry, employees of Federal agencies, academia, and international space agency DC 

representatives. The estimated cost of the event, including all food and beverages, is $103 per 

person. SPI is in control of the organizing, planning and invitations for this event. 

Attendance at this event will allow NASA attendees to exchange information regarding 

various NASA programs. I find that the event meets the requirements of a “widely attended 

gathering” as defined in 5 C.F.R. § 2635.204(g)(2). 

I further determine that there is an Agency interest in having NASA personnel attend the 

event because it will provide an opportunity for the invited persons to exchange ideas and 

views pertaining to NASA’s policies, programs, and operations. NASA employees, including 

NASA employees in non-career positions who are required to sign the ethics pledge under 

Executive Order 13989, who do not have a significant role in a matter affecting the interests 

of the sponsor may accept an invitation for free attendance to the event. In those 

circumstances, I find that the Agency’s interest in attendance outweighs any concern that the 

individual may be, or may appear to be, improperly influenced in the performance of their 

duties. 

However, NASA employees who have a significant role in any pending matter affecting the 

interests of the SPI/GWU, such as procurement duties, program management, or negotiating 

or administering a Space Act Agreement, should seek a separate determination from their 

local ethics counselor as to whether they may accept the invitation. Attendees are reminded 

to exercise any COVID-19 precautions appropriate to their individual situation. 

Adam F. Greenstone
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER



Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)



The undersigned executive officer of FC BANC CORP.. (the
Registrant) hereby certifies that the Registrants Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2004 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained
therein fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.



/s/ John R. ChristmanName:

John R. ChristmanTitle:

President and Chief Executive Officer




Date: August 13, 2004



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to FC BANC CORP.. and will be retained by FC BANC CORP.. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2022 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2022

To designate the Federal building located at 250 West Cherry Street in 
   Carbondale, Illinois the ``Senator Paul Simon Federal Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 22, 2004

 Mr. Durbin (for himself and Mr. Fitzgerald) introduced the following 
bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment 
                            and Public Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To designate the Federal building located at 250 West Cherry Street in 
   Carbondale, Illinois the ``Senator Paul Simon Federal Building''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF FEDERAL BUILDING.

    The Federal building located at 250 West Cherry Street in 
Carbondale, Illinois shall be known and designated as the ``Senator 
Paul Simon Federal Building''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCE.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper or other 
record of the United States to the Federal building referred to in 
section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the Senator Paul Simon 
Federal Building.
                                 <all>
```
#### T. J. McClures *v.*Jas. F. Greens.

Usury — Notes Taken Up on Renewal — Evidence.

Notes taken up upon renewal are competent evidence on a question of usury.

APPEAL PROM GRANT CIRCUIT COURT.

January 30, 1867.

Opinion op the Court by

Judge Peters:

Both the appellees in their answer to the cross-petition admit that the note for $40 was executed for the interest charged on the note for $150 for the years 1863 and 1864, and E. J. Green in his answer says “ that there is about $15 of usurious interest in said $150 sold, transferred and delivered to plaintiff herein as aforesaid;” for this last sum of $15 of usurious interest included in the note for $150, a deduction was made and a credit allowed;, but for that included in the note for $40 no deduction was made.. The legal interest on the note for $150 for the years 1863 and 1864, by compounding it at the end of one year, would be $18.54,. which taken from $40 would leave $21.46, for which appellants were entitled to a credit at the date of said note, viz.: 28th of April,. 1864, and for the failure to allow it the judgment must be reversed.

But in our opinion the court below also erred in refusing to-permit appellants to read the notes which they had taken up on the several renewals as they alleged as evidence to the jury; their allegations on that subject are direct and very specific. J. E. Green in his answer says he does not know whether they are the same or not, but wholly fails to say that he has no knowledge or information on the subject sufficient to form a belief in relation thereto; and E. J. Green fails to respond to the charge as to the rate of interest promised and inserted in the notes at each renewal^ *93•and virtually admits the notes filed by appellants were the same taken up by them at each renewal; but says other debts due him from appellants formed a part of the consideration of said notes. 'The answers, therefore, do not contain any such denials of the facts alleged as to require extraneous proof of the identify of the notes to authorize them to be read on the trial as evidence.

For the foregoing errors the judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded, with directions to order a new trial, and for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ENACTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of FC Banc Corp. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Coleman J. Clougherty, President & Principal Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as enacted 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/ Coleman J. Clougherty

---

Coleman J. Clougherty

President & Principal Executive Officer



November 14, 2005



24
DISMISS and Opinion Filed February 23, 2018 

# S

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-17-00898-CV
ECKITY CAPITAL MARKETS, LLC, Appellant V. JASON MICHAEL SPENCER, Appellee

On Appeal from the 134th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC-16-01927



### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Bridges, Evans, and Whitehill Opinion by Justice Whitehill Before the Court is appellant’s motion to dismiss the appeal. Appellant informs the Court
that it no longer wishes to pursue the appeal. Accordingly, we grant appellant’s motion and dismiss
the appeal. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.1(a)(1).

170898F.P05 /Bill Whitehill/ BILL WHITEHILL JUSTICE–2– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT

ECKITY CAPITAL MARKETS, LLC, Appellant

No. 05-17-00898-CV V.

JASON MICHAEL SPENCER, Appellee On Appeal from the 134th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC-16-01927. Opinion delivered by Justice Whitehill. Justices Bridges and E vans participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appe al is DISMISSED

.
It is ORDERED that appellee JASON MICHAEL SPEN CER recover his costs of this appeal from appellant ECKI TY CAPITAL MARKETS, LLC.

Judgment entered February 23, 2018.
null

2007-03-07

156.57849

eng - Argued: 2007-03-07. Docket number: 2006-5105_5108Pt2
<PAGE>   1


                        REDHOOK ALE BREWERY, INCORPORATED

                    COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS (LOSS) PER SHARE





<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                            Three Months Ended          Nine Months Ended
                                                               September 30,               September 30,
                                                          ----------------------    ------------------------
                                                             1997         1996           1997         1996
                                                          ---------    ---------      ---------    ---------
<S>                                                    <C>          <C>            <C>          <C>      
Primary and fully-diluted earnings per common share:
  Weighted average common shares outstanding......        7,686,686    7,685,312      7,686,244    7,684,855

  Weighted average common equivalent shares outstanding:
    Series B convertible redeemable preferred stock.....          -    1,289,872              -    1,289,872
    Stock options, net ...........................                -      166,574              -      171,500
                                                          ---------    ---------      ---------    ---------
Average number of common and
    common equivalent shares outstanding .........        7,686,686    9,141,758      7,686,244    9,146,227
                                                          =========    =========      =========    =========

Net Income (Loss) ................................        $(265,768)    $887,171      $(682,790)  $2,938,443
                                                          =========    =========      =========    =========

Net Income (Loss) per Share ......................           $(0.03)       $0.10         $(0.09)       $0.32
                                                          =========    =========      =========    =========
</TABLE>
National Aeronautics and

Space Administration

(2) NASA contracts sourced in the state in FY21; see FY21 NASA Economic Impact Report (3) Categories are not additive. For more information on FY21 Sample Obligations, please visit: NASA Acquisition Internet Service (NAIS)

(1) For more information please visit: Value of NASA 

NASA Overall State Impact(1)

• Jobs Supported 250

• Economic Output $42,277,000

• State Tax Revenue $1,517,000

Moon to Mars Campaign State Impacts

• Jobs Supported 2

• Economic Output $299,000

• State Tax Revenue $12,000

Investments in Climate Change Research & 

Technology State Impacts

• Jobs Supported 28

• Economic Output $4,549,000

• State Tax Revenue $169,000

Sample Obligations(3)

Business $1,056,840 

• Other Than Small Business $365,148 

• Small Business $691,692 

 – 8(A) Program $0 

 – Economically Disadvantaged Women 

 Owned Small Business $124,279 

 – Historically Underutilized Business 

 (HUBZone) $0 

 – Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small

 Business $37,250 

 – Small Business Innovative Research $124,279 

 – Small Disadvantaged Business $332,254 

 – Veteran Owned Small Business $245,225 

 – Woman Owned Small Business $124,279 

 – Small Business Only $322,188 

Educational $5,946,778 

Government $0 

Non-profit Institutions $0 

Leading State-based NASA Business 

Contractors

3D Systems, Inc. $365,148 

R. E. White & Associates, LLC $207,975 

Integrated Support Systems, Inc. $135,318 

Advent Innovations Ltd. Co. $124,279 

Stevens Aerospace and Defense Systems, LLC $120,470 

Leading State-based NASA Education Funding 

Clemson University $2,159,826 

College of Charleston $2,749,953 

University of South Carolina $1,036,999 

Space Grant Consortium 

College of Charleston $950,000 

SOUTH CAROLINA

FY21 State Procurement Investments (2) $14.1 M
For more information about the

Economic Impact Report

for your state, go to:

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

NASA Headquarters

300 E Street, SW

Washington, DC 20546

www.nasa.gov/centers

www.nasa.gov

James Webb Space Telescope

Cycle 1 Hours of Access

NASA Astronauts

(Former)

Charles Bolden

John Casper

Catherine “Cady” Coleman

Frank Culbertson

Ronald McNair

There are 9 NASA Federal jobs and 149* contractors in the state 

of South Carolina. 

For every NASA federal job located in South Carolina, an 

additional 26.8** jobs are supported in the state economy. For 

every million dollars’ worth of economic output generated by 

NASA federal jobs, an additional $8.6** million worth of output 

is sustained throughout the state economy. 

* Indirect effects are the purchases of goods and services by 

government agencies and private sector contractors, as well as by 

the industries that supply them.

** Multiplier based on IMPLAN Input Output (I-O) model. To learn more, 

please visit: https://blog.implan.com/understanding-implan-multipliers

SOUTH CAROLINA

250

NASA Jobs

Supported

Seven South Carolina 

suppliers contributed to 

NASA’s Artemis program. 

An example of the state’s 

contributions is producing 

space grade electronic 

devices for SLS.

South Carolina 

Institutions

212.5

Hours
(January 6, 2005)

#### Wanda Irizarry, Appellant, v Ashar Realty Corp., Respondent.

[787 NYS2d 312]

*324Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Sallie Manzanet, J.), entered September 11, 2003, which denied plaintiffs motion to vacate a judgment of dismissal entered May 6, 2003, unanimously reversed, on the law, the facts and in the exercise of discretion, without costs, plaintiff’s motion granted and the complaint reinstated on the condition that plaintiffs attorney pays defendant’s attorney $2,500 within 20 days of service of a copy of this order with notice of entry.

In this action for personal injuries allegedly sustained when plaintiff slipped and fell on a piece of cardboard on defendant’s property, plaintiff only provided a bill of particulars and responses to other discovery demands when defendant moved for an order of preclusion. Despite two preliminary conference orders, defendant was required to engage in a second round of motion practice to get plaintiff to respond to demands for various medical authorizations, reports and a supplemental bill of particulars. In that latter motion, defendant sought either an order to compel disclosure or dismissal of the complaint. Notwithstanding plaintiff’s earlier disclosure and her counsel’s representations that the outstanding disclosure had been provided defendant, albeit belatedly, the IAS court granted defendant’s request to dismiss the complaint. Since “[dismissal is the most drastic sanction ... we look to whether the party seeking disclosure clearly demonstrates that the failure to disclose was willful, contumacious or manifested bad faith” *(Tsai v Hernandez,*284 AD2d 116, 117 [2001]). While plaintiff was tardy in providing disclosure, the record evidence before us does not demonstrate that defendant established the predicate required for the extreme penalty of dismissal *(see Cespedes v Mike & Jac Trucking Corp.,*305 AD2d 222 [2003]; *Walsh v Hudson Tr. Lines,*98 AD2d 745 [1983]). Concur—Buckley, P.J., Tom, Andrias, Saxe and Marlow, JJ.