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 of BSD Software Solutions, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended July 31, 2005 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby
certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:

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

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

Date:    December 23, 2005                 By:    /S/ GUY FIETZ
         ----------------                        -------------------------------
                                          Name:  Guy Fietz
                                          Title: President

                                          By:    /S/ GORDON ELLISON
                                                 -------------------------------
                                          Name:  Gordon Ellison
                                          Title: Chief Financial Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authentications, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature
that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written
statement required by Section 906, has been provided to BSD Software Solutions,
Inc. and will be retained by BSD Software Solutions, Inc. 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. 2136 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        S.2136

                       One Hundred Eighth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

          Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,
           the twentieth day of January, two thousand and four

                                 An Act

 
  To extend the final report date and termination date of the National 
   Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, to provide 
     additional funding for the Commission, and for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF NATIONAL COMMISSION ON TERRORIST ATTACKS UPON 
THE UNITED STATES.
    (a) Final Report Date.--Subsection (b) of section 610 of the 
Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003 (Public Law 107-
306; 6 U.S.C. 101 note; 116 Stat. 2413) is amended by striking ``18 
months'' and inserting ``20 months''.
    (b) Termination Date.--Subsection (c) of that section is amended--
        (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``60 days'' and inserting 
    ``30 days''; and
        (2) in paragraph (2), by striking ``60-day period'' and 
    inserting ``30-day period''.
    (c) Additional Funding.--Section 611 of that Act (6 U.S.C. 101 
note; 116 Stat. 2413) is amended--
        (1) by redesignating subsection (b) as subsection (c);
        (2) by inserting after subsection (a) the following new 
    subsection (b):
    ``(b) Additional Funding.--In addition to the amounts made 
available to the Commission under subsection (a) and under chapter 2 of 
title II of the Emergency Wartime Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2003 
(Public Law 108-11; 117 Stat. 591), of the amounts appropriated for the 
programs and activities of the Federal Government for fiscal year 2004 
that remain available for obligation, not more than $1,000,000 shall be 
available for transfer to the Commission for purposes of the activities 
of the Commission under this title.''; and
        (3) in subsection (c), as so redesignated, by striking 
    ``subsection (a)'' and inserting ``this section''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2009-3035

DAVID M. JOYCE,

Petitioner,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY,

Respondent.

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection Board

in SF0752080197-1-1.

ON MOTION

Before DYK Circuit Judge.

ORDER

David M. Joyce moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperis.

The court notes that Joyce's petition was dismissed on December 15, 2008 for

failure to pay the fee and for failure to file a Fed. Cir. R. 15(c) statement concerning

discrimination.

Upon consideration thereof,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

The motion is granted.

The mandate will be recalled, the dismissal order will be vacated, and the

case will be reinstated, if Joyce files a completed Fed. Cir. R. 15(c) statement

concerning discrimination (form enclosed) and a completed informal brief (form

enclosed) within 21 days of the date of filing of this order.
FOR THE COURT

FEB 2 4 2009

/s/ Jan Horbalv

Date

	

Jan Horbaly

Clerk

cc:	

David M. Joyce (Fed. Cir. R. 15(c) form enclosed and informal brief

form enclosed)	 FILED

Steven M. Mager, Esq. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR

THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT

s8	

FEB 2 4 2009

JAW HUtidiiLv

CLERK
EXHIBIT
32.1





Certification
of Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350


(Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)





Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, the undersigned officer of Sandston Corporation (the
"Company") hereby certifies, to such officer's knowledge, that the Company's
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2009 (the
"Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as
applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information
contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.





/s/ Daniel J. DormanName:
                Daniel
      J. DormanTitle:
                President,
      Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)Date:
                November
      10, 2009





The
foregoing certification (i) accompanies the filing and is being furnished solely
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, (ii) will not be deemed "filed" for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, or otherwise subject to the
liability of that section, and (iii) will not be deemed to be incorporated by
reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Exchange Act,
except to the extent that the small business issuer specifically incorporates it
by reference.





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 required
by Section 906, has been provided to Sandston Corporation and will be retained
by Sandston Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
or its staff upon request.
EXHIBIT 32.1

CREDENCE SYSTEMS CORPORATION

CERTIFICATION

In connection with the periodic report of Credence Systems Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended July 31, 2006 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, David A. Ranhoff, President, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United
States Code, that to the best of my knowledge:

(1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as
applicable, 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 at the dates and for the periods indicated.

This Certification has not been, and shall not be deemed, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.



|                                                      
|------------------------------------------------------
|Date: September 11, 2006                              
|                                                      
|/s/ DAVID A. RANHOFF                                  
|David A. Ranhoff President and Chief Executive Officer
COMPENSATION ARRANGEMENTS WITH EXECUTIVE OFFICERS
        EXECUTIVE OFFICER COMPENSATION TABLE
 FY2009 Bonus
    
    FY2009 ApplicableExecutive Officer
    
    Target
    
    Bonus Plan
    
    SalaryBruce A. Anderson
    
    (1) $75,000 CND
    
    (1) Business Unit
    
    $315,000 CND(2) $90,000 CND
    
    (2) Individual(3) $60,000 CND
    
    (3) IndividualDavid G. Bakken
    
    $50,000
    
    Corporate
    
    $210,000Dennis K. Bhame
    
    $60,000
    
    Corporate
    
    $205,000Richard W. Millard
    
    $75,000
    
    Business Unit
    
    $225,000Eric W. Narowski
    
    $30,000**
    
    Corporate
    
    $155,000Gregory T. Novak
    
    $250,000
    
    Corporate
    
    $500,000Michelle F. ONeill
    
    $75,000
    
    Business Unit
    
    $250,000Ronald E. Salluzzo
    
    $150,000
    
    Corporate
    
    $335,000Stephan B. Sigaud
    
    $75,000
    
    Business Unit
    
    $260,000George H. Terhanian
    
    $100,000
    
    Business Unit
    
    $299,000*David B. Vaden
    
    $150,000
    
    Business Unit
    
    $350,000
 
 *
    
    Subject to currency adjustment with 5% changes in the exchange rate between the US Dollar and
the British Pound
Exhibit
32.2





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906


OF


THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I,
Richard J. Leimbach, Chief Financial Officer of Telkonet, Inc. (the “Company”),
certify that:





(1) The Annual
Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the period ended December 31, 2007 which
this certification accompanies 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/ Richard J.
Leimbach


Richard
J. Leimbach


Chief
Financial Officer


April 1,
2008
#### Lisa Marcus, Respondent, v Barry Marcus, Appellant, et al., Defendant.

[788 NYS2d 341]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Jacqueline W. Silbermann, J), entered August 16, 2004, which, to the extent appealable and appealed from, found defendant husband in contempt for failure to pay child support and maintenance, and directed him to purge the contempt by a date certain in the amount of $459,667, upon pain of arrest and commitment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

There was clear and convincing evidence that the husband’s failure to pay child support and maintenance was willful. After plaintiff demonstrated that her husband’s failure to make these payments was not inadvertent, he failed to sustain his burden of showing, with competent and credible evidence, his inability *360to pay *(see Matter of Powers v Powers,*86 NY2d 63 [1995]). Among other flaws in his “evidence” was the testimony of the 21-year-old surviving son of the husband’s decéased business partner, Andrea Dunham, who has allegedly been the source of funds the husband has been using to pay his counsel fees and his children’s costly tuition. We perceive no basis for disturbing the court’s rejection of that testimony that this benefactor had been willing to lend exorbitant sums of money to a man he did not know well until his mother passed away, without collateral or any reliable assurance of repayment, especially after he learned of this man’s heavy, unsatisfied indebtedness to his mother.

The husband’s payment of $110,000 for child support since the initial pronouncement of contempt in June 2003 does not avail him, and smacks of a tactic to delay imprisonment. Likewise, his offer to sell the parties’ Rolls Royce to enable him to make a $20,000 tuition payment is inapposite as to whether he has the financial ability to pay the remaining $439,667.

The husband’s remaining arguments concerning due process and the rendering illusory of his right to purge contempt are untenable in light of plaintiff’s discovery that prior to the subject hearing, he had signed an affidavit of confession of judgment acknowledging his debt of $1,836,805.57 to his deceased business partner’s estate. Concur—Tom, J.P., Andrias, Saxe, Friedman and Gonzalez, JJ.
**Exhibit 15.1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC**

**ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Form S-8 Nos. 333-11598, 72320 and 138022) pertaining to the 1990 Trintech Group PLC ShareOption Scheme; the 1997 Trintech Group PLC Share Option Scheme, as amended; the 1998 Trintech Group PLC Directors and Consultants Option Scheme, as amended; the Exceptis Technologies Limited Share Option Scheme; the 1999 Trintech Group PLC EmployeePurchase Plan, as amended; and the 1999 Trintech Group PLC U.S. Employee Share Purchase Plan, as amended; the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-145642) pertaining to the Trintech Group PLC Share Option Plan 2007 and the Trintech GroupPLC Share Option Plan for Directors and Consultants 2007; and the Registration Statement (Form F-3 No. 333-116087) pertaining to the disposition of 300,000 outstanding ordinary shares, represented by 150,000 American Depositary Shares, of theCompany, of our report dated June 13, 2008, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of Trintech Group PLC included in the Annual Report (Form 20-F) for the year ended January 31, 2008, filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission. 

/s/ Ernst &Young                                                         

Dublin, Ireland 

June 13, 2008
National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Human Exploration 

and Operations 

Mission Directorate

Chief, Safety and Mission 

Assurance

Kennedy Space 

Center

Marshall Space 

Flight Center

Langley Research 

Center

Stennis Space 

Center

Johnson Space 

Center

Armstrong Flight 

Research Center

Goddard Space 

Flight Center

Glenn Research 

Center

Jet Propulsion 

Laboratory*** 

Ames Research 

Mission Support Center

Directorate

Administrator

Deputy Administrator

Associate Administrator

Chief of Staff

Deputy Associate Administrator

Associate Deputy Administrator 

Associate Administrator for Strategic

 Engagement and Assessments

Chief Engineer

Chief Health and Medical 

Officer

Chief Financial Officer*

Chief Information Officer*

Diversity and Equal 

Opportunity

Legislative and 

Intergovernmental Affairs*

International and 

Interagency Relations

STEM Engagement Communications*

Small Business 

Programs

Advisory Groups

NAC and ASAP

Inspector General

Chief Human Capital Officer

Strategic Infrastructure

Headquarters Operations

NASA Shared Services Center

Procurement

Protective Services

Aeronautics 

Research Mission 

Directorate

Space Technology 

Mission Directorate

Office of Strategy and 

Plans

Office of Agency Council 

Staff

NASA Management 

Office** 

Science Mission 

Directorate

Office of Strategic

 Engagement and 

Assessments

Office of Agency Council 

Staff

General Counsel

Chief Scientist

Chief Technologist

Reporting Structure

Administrator

Associate Administrator

Note: Administrator may delegate direct reports to Deputy Administrator at his/her discretion.

 * Center functional office directors report to Agency functional AA or Chief. Deputy and below report to Center leadership. 

** NMO oversees the Jet Propulsion Laboratory and other Federally Funded Research and Development Center work.

www.nasa.gov *** Functional reporting only.

March 2019
OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR

ADMINISTRATOR

DEPUTY 

ADMINISTRATOR

ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR

Office of Strategic

Engagement and

Assessments

Office of Agency

Council Staff
Exhibit 10.57

Strictly private and confidential

To be opened by addressee only

BY ELECTRONIC MAIL

December 17,
2010

Sean Windeatt

Dear Sean:

Reference is made to your partnership interests in BGC Holdings, L.P. (BGC Holdings or the Partnership). Capitalized
terms used but not defined herein shall have the meanings set forth in the Agreement of Limited Partnership of BGC Holdings, amended and restated as of March 31, 2008 (as further amended from time to time, the Partnership
Agreement).

You acknowledge and agree that, as soon as practicable, the Partnership shall, with respect to 50,000 non-exchangeable FPUs
held by you as of December 15, 2010 (the Eligible FPUs), redeem such Eligible FPUs for a cash payment determined based upon the average closing price of BGC Partners, Inc. Class A Common Stock for the five business days
immediately following December 15, 2010, less a 2% commission fee (the Payment). Such Payment shall be less all applicable taxes, deductions, and withholdings, and payable to you as soon as practicable after such redemption.

You agree to execute any and all documents as required by the Partnership in connection with executing the foregoing. This letter shall be
governed by the terms and conditions of, as well as the same venue and choice of law provisions, governing the Partnership Agreement.

This
letter agreement contains the entire agreement and understanding of each of the parties hereto with respect to the subject matter hereof, and neither party is relying upon any promises, representations or inducements, written, oral or otherwise,
which are not set forth in this letter agreement.

This letter agreement may only be treated as an offer capable of acceptance if executed by
Howard W. Lutnick on behalf of the General Partner. It may be executed in multiple counterparts, each of which shall constitute an original, but all of which shall constitute one agreement. Each such counterpart signature may be delivered via
telecopier or email.

Sincerely,



BGC HOLDINGS, L.P.By:

/S/    HOWARD W.
LUTNICKName: Howard W. Lutnick
Title: Chairman and CEO


Accepted and Agreed:

PARTICIPANT



|           |  |                      
|---------- |  | ---------------------
|          
|           | 
|Signature: |  | /S/     SEAN
WINDEATT
|           |  | Sean Windeatt        



1
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2385 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 20, 2004 

Referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

AN ACT 

To designate the United States courthouse at South Federal 

Place in Santa Fe, New Mexico, as the ‘‘Santiago E. 

Campos United States Courthouse’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

S 2385 RFH 

1 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF SANTIAGO E. CAMPOS 

2 UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE. 

3 The United States courthouse at South Federal Place 

4 in Santa Fe, New Mexico, shall be known and designated 

5 as the ‘‘Santiago E. Campos United States Courthouse’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REFERENCES. 

7 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 

8 paper, or other record of the United States to the United 

9 States courthouse referred to in section 1 shall be deemed 

10 to be a reference to the ‘‘Santiago E. Campos United 

11 States Courthouse’’. 

Passed the Senate July 19, 2004. 

Attest: EMILY J. REYNOLDS, 

Secretary.
#### Colson *v.*The State.

*Saturday, December*27.

If to a statute on which an indictment is founded there be an exception in a subsequent statute, the exception need not be negatived in the indictment.

To authorize a person to sell foreign merchandize without license, he must have received it in exchange for articles of his manufacturing, or for products of his own agriculture.

An indictment for selling foreign merchandize without license for money, is not sustained by proof that the merchandize was sold for produce.

ERROR to the *Union*Circuit Court.

Blackford, J.-

— Indictment for vending foreign merchandize without license. The charge alleged in the indictment is, “that the defendant, on, &c., in eighteen hundred and forty-three, in *Union*county, &c., not having a license, &c., sold to *Anderson Sutton,*at and for the sum of six and a fourth’ cents, one-fourth of a pound of pepper, the same not being the product of the *United States,”*&c. Plea, not guilty. *591Cause submitted to the Court, and judgment for the state. A motion by the defendant for a new trial was overruled.

*J. Hyman,*for the plaintiff.

*A.*A. *Hammond,*for the state.

It was proved on the trial that in 1843, in *Union*county, &c., *Anderson Sutton*purchased of the defendant a quarter of a pound of pepper for the price of five cents, which he paid for in produce, not money; that the defendant was a citizen of said county; that he kept some groceries which he received in exchange for the products of agriculture, a part of which he raised on his own farm, and the balance of which he received in exchange for groceries of his neighbours; and that the pepper in question was received by the defendant in that way. There was no other material evidence.

Subsequently to the statute prohibiting the sale of foreign merchandize, on which this indictment is founded, a statute was passed saying, *“*that citizens of this state who, in exchange for articles of their manufacturing or products of agriculture, receive groceries, dye stuffs, oils, paints, or cloths, may, and they are hereby authorized to, sell the same within their proper county without procuring a license therefor.” 11. S. 1843, p. 1052. The indictment is not objectionable for omitting to state, that the pepper had not been received by the defendant in exchange for articles of his manufacturing, &c., the exception being in a separate statute. It was for the defendant to show that he came within the exception. *The King*v. *Hall,*1 T. R. 320.

We do not think the defendant proved that his sale of the pepper without license, was protected by the last-named statute; because it did not appear that he had received the pepper for articles of his manufacturing or for products of his own agriculture.

A' new trial, however, ought to have been granted as the sale of the pepper, according to the indictment, was for money; but according to the evidence it was for produce. The statement that the sale was for money, was descriptive of the offence and should have been proved as laid.

*Per Curiam.*

— The judgment is reversed. Cause remanded, &c.
**Exhibit 23.1****Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements Nos. (333-30356, 333-67436,333-113781, 333-88408, 333-104184, 333-67650, 333-110388) on Forms S-8 of Quovadx, Inc. of ourreports dated March 9, 2007 relating to our audit of the consolidated financial statements andinternal control over financial reporting, which appear in the Annual Report to Shareholders, whichis incorporated in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Quovadx Inc. for the year ended December 31,2006.     /s/ McGladrey & Pullen,LLPDenver, Colorado