alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32.1

Certification of
Principal Executive OfficerPursuant to U.S.C. Section 1350
As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I,
Edward J. Quilty, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of Derma Sciences, Inc.,
hereby certify that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB/A for the period ended June 30, 2006
of Derma Sciences, Inc. (the Form 10-QSB/A) upon my best knowledge and belief
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Form 10-QSB/A fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Derma Sciences,
Inc.

|                         |                                                                                                                | 
|------------------------ | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 
|Dated:  October 20, 2006 | /s/ Edward J. Quilty                                                                                           | 
|                         | Edward J. Quilty
        Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
        (Principal Executive Officer) |
Exhibit 13.1



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



I, Raju Vegesna, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report on Form
20-F of Sify Technologies Limited for the year ended March 31, 2020, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that information contained in such Annual Report on Form 20-F fairly presents,
in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Sify Technologies Limited.



|Date: July 27, 2020 |                                         
|------------------- | ----------------------------------------
|                    | /s/ Raju Vegesna                        
|                    | Name: Raju Vegesna                      
|                    | Title: CEO, Chairman & Managing Director



The foregoing certification is being furnished
solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference to any filing of the Company, whether made
before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. MICHAEL TATE.

July 12, 1984.

Leave to appeal is granted, and the matter is summarily remanded to the Appellate Division to hear the merits on the appeal.

Jurisdiction is not retained.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0001094563
<NAME>                        USA DIGITAL, INC.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     US DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 APR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                          1
<CASH>                                             856,445
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      214,917
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                         46,486
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 1,160,940
<PP&E>                                           1,404,660
<DEPRECIATION>                                           0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   3,629,457
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              589,409
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              303,750
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                             7,928
<OTHER-SE>                                       1,615,371
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     3,629,457
<SALES>                                          2,523,386
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 2,523,386
<CGS>                                                    0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    3,992,704
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                         0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,469,318)
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,469,318)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,469,318)
<EPS-BASIC>                                         (0.26)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       (0.26)


</TABLE>
CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                          OF CORPORATE GENERAL PARTNER

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

The undersigned, James M. Seneff, Jr., the Chief Executive Officer of CNL Realty
Corporation,  the corporate  general  partner of CNL Income Fund XIII, Ltd. (the
"Partnership"),  has executed this  certification  in connection with the filing
with the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission  of the  Partnership's  Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q for the period  ending  June 30,  2004 (the  "Report").  The
undersigned hereby certifies 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 Partnership.

Date: August 9, 2004                 /s/ James M. Seneff, Jr.
                                    --------------------------------------------
                                     Name:  James M. Seneff, Jr.
                                     Title: Chief Executive Officer

                                    A signed original of this written  statement
                                    required by Section 906 has been provided to
                                    CNL  Income  Fund  XIII,  Ltd.  and  will be
                                    retained by CNL Income Fund XIII,  Ltd.  and
                                    furnished  to the  Securities  and  Exchange
                                    Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit 32.2



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 June 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Jeffrey A. Wise, Principal Financial and Accounting Officer and Treasurer, 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/ Jeffrey A. Wise                                     
|Jeffrey A. Wise                                         
|Principal Financial and Accounting Officer and Treasurer
|August 9, 2005
#### Willie WILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Gerald BERGE and Henry Bray, Defendants-Appellants.

No. 03-1544.

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

*628Submitted Aug. 20, 2003.*

Decided Aug. 20, 2003.

Willie Williams, pro se, Champaign, IL, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

JoAnne P. Kloppenburg, Office of the Attorney General, Wisconsin Department of Justice, Madison, WI, for DefendantsAppellees.

Before BAUER, KANNE, and EVANS, Circuit Judges.

*

 After an examination of the briefs and the record, we have concluded that oral argument is unnecessary. Thus, the appeal is submitted on the briefs and the record. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

ORDER

Wisconsin inmate Willie Williams sued prison officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that they violated his constitutional rights. The district court screened his complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and permitted him to proceed on the single claim that correctional officer Henry Bray and warden Gerald Berge had violated his rights under the First Amendment by opening his legal mail outside of his presence between March 1 and 15, 2002. The court then entered summary judgment in favor of the defendants, concluding that most of the alleged legal mail could not have been opened during the relevant time period and that the remaining mail was not “legal mail” entitled to First Amendment protection. Williams appeals.

Williams’s appellate brief does not comply with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28(a)(9), which requires that an appellant’s brief “contain appellant’s contentions and the reasons for them, with citations to the authorities and parts of the record on which the appellant relies.” Williams cites no cases nor any portion of the record in his brief. Moreover, he fails to articulate how the district court erred in granting summary judgment to the defendants. Although we construe pro se briefs liberally, we “must be able to discern cogent arguments” consisting of “more than a generalized assertion of error, with citations to supporting authority.” *Anderson v. Hardman,*241 F.3d 544, 545 (7th Cir. 2001).

Accordingly, we DISMISS his appeal.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

                    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as                           ( print page 61085)                        amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.                

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; Time Sensitive Obesity Policy Reviews.                    

*Date:*                         October 23, 2014.                    

*Time:*                         1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Institutes of Health, Two Democracy Plaza, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892, (Telephone Conference Call).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Michele L. Barnard, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Review Branch, DEA, NIDDK, National Institutes of Health, Room 753, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892-2542, (301) 594-8898,                         *barnardm@extra.niddk.nih.gov*.                    

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.847, Diabetes, Endocrinology and Metabolic Research; 93.848, Digestive Diseases and Nutrition Research; 93.849, Kidney Diseases, Urology and Hematology Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: October 1, 2014.

David Clary,

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2014-24058 Filed 10-8-14; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
108TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 2214

AN ACT

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service

located at 3150 Great Northern Avenue in Missoula,

Montana, as the ‘‘Mike Mansfield Post Office’’.

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

2

S 2214 ES

1 SECTION 1. MIKE MANSFIELD POST OFFICE, MISSOULA,

2 MONTANA.

3 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States

4 Postal Service located at 3150 Great Northern Avenue in

5 Missoula, Montana, shall be known and designated as the

6 ‘‘Mike Mansfield Post Office’’.

7 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg8 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United

9 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall

10 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Mike Mansfield Post

11 Office’’.

Passed the Senate June 9, 2004.

Attest:

Secretary.
108TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 2214

AN ACT

To designate the facility of the United States Postfield Post Office’’. nue in Missoula, Montana, as the ‘‘Mike Mans- al Service located at 3150 Great Northern Ave-
#### Shimer v. Hightshue.

Monday, *November*25.

. If, in an appeal to the Circuit Court from a justice’s judgment against two persons, the appellee, by consent of parties, take judgment against one of the appellants without the consent of the surety in the appeal-bond, the surety is discharged.'

ERROR to the *Marion*Circuit Court.

Sullivan, J.

— Debt. The declaration contains two counts. The first is on a joint and several bond executed by the defendant with *L. C. Lewis*and *W. T. Lewis.*The second count is also upon a joint and several bond executed by the defendant with *L. C.*Lewis, *W. T.*Lewis, and *G. W. Lewis.*The defendant craved *oyer*of the bonds declared on, and the conditions thereto, which was granted, and pleaded performance. The condition of the first-mentioned bond was, that if *L. C.*Lewis, *W. T.*Lewis, and *Lee*Isaac, should well and truly prosecute an appeal with effect, &c., which they had taken to the Circuit Court from a judgment rendered against them by *N.*Bell, a justice, &c., in favour of Shimer, and should pay the condemnation money in case judgment should be rendered against them, then said bond should be void, &c. The condition of the second bond was, that if *L. C.*Lewis, *W. T.*Lewis, and *G. W.*Lewis, should well and truly prosecute an appeal with effect, &c., (as in the condition of the first bond.) The plaintiff replied that the defendant had not performed, &c., because, &c., the suits mentioned in the conditions of the bonds set out in the defendant’s plea, were, at the *May*term, 1841, of the *Marion*Circuit Court, consolidated, and by consent of parties, but without the knowledge or consent of Hightshue, a judgment was taken in favour of *Shimer*against *L. C.*Lewis, *W. T.*Lewis, and *G. W. Lewis ;**239and that afterwards a *ji. fa.*was issued against the goods and chattels, &c., of said *Lewis*and others on said judgment, which was, in due time, returned *nulla*bona, &c. Demurrer to the replication, demurrer sustained, and judgment for the defendant.

*W. W. Wick*and *L.*Barbour, for the plaintiff.

*W. Quarles*and *J. H.*Bradley, for the defendant.

This judgment must be reversed. We concur with the Circuit Court in the opinion that the arrangement between the plaintiff, Shimer, and the defendants in the appeal cases, by which a judgment was taken against the Lewises, and *Lee Isaac*discharged, operated as a discharge of the defendant, Hightshue, from the bond set out in the first count. It may be assimilated to a release of the principal debtor by the payee of a note or bond, which operates to discharge the surety from his liability. But *Isaac*had no connection with the bond named in the second count, and there was no contract between the creditor and the principal obligors that would enlarge the responsibilities of the surety on that bond. There is no reason, therefore, why *Hightshue*should claim exemption from it. We are of opinion that the replication, as to one of the debts sued for, was sufficient, and that the Court erred in sustaining the demurrer to it.

*Per Curiam.*

— The judgment is reversed with costs. Cause remanded, *See.*
EXHIBIT 99.2

                           LETTERHEAD OF GENEMAX CORP.




                            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-KSB for fiscal year ended
December 31, 2002 of GeneMax Corp., a Nevada corporation (the "Company"), as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Annual Report"), I, Ronald L. Handford, 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, Ronald L. Handford, have reviewed and read this Annual Report on
          Form 10-KSB;

     2.   To the best of my knowledge, this Annual 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 Annual Report;

     3.   To the best of my knowledge, the financial statements and other
          financial information included in this Annual Report, fairly present
          in all material respects the financial condition, results of
          operations and cash flows of the Company as of, and for, the periods
          presented in this Annual Report;

     4.   I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation, to the Company's
          auditors and board of directors performing the equivalent functions of
          an audit committee:

          (a)  all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of
               internal controls which could adversely affect the Company's
               ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data
               and have identified for the Company's auditors any material
               weaknesses in internal controls; and

          (b)  any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
               other employees who have a significant role in the Company's
               internal controls; and

     5.   I have indicated in this Annual Report whether there were significant
          changes in internal controls or in other factors that could
          significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of my
          most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard
          to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.


                                         /s/ Ronald L. Handford
                                         ----------------------------
                                         Ronald L. Handford, President and Chief
                                         Executive Officer
Exhibit 99.2



CHIPPAC, INC.

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Dennis P. McKenna, in my capacity as Chief Executive Officer of ChipPAC, Inc., a Delaware corporation (ChipPAC), and in
connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K filed by ChipPAC with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 31, 2003 (the Report), hereby certify that:



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



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



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this CEO Certification as of the 31st day of March, 2003.



/s/    DENNIS P.
MCKENNADennis P. McKenna Chief Executive Officer




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

San Antonio, Texas

July 29, 2016

No. 04-15-00791-CV

TALISMAN ENERGY USA, INC.,

Appellant

v.

MATRIX PETROLEUM, LLC, Matrix Petroleum Holdings, LLC, and JAR Resources 

Holdings, L.P. (Cross-Appellants),

Appellees

From the 218th Judicial District Court, La Salle County, Texas

Trial Court No. 14-08-00158-CVL

Honorable Russel Wilson, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

On July 26, 2016, appellees filed their brief in this accelerated appeal, along with a 

motion to dismiss the appeal as moot. It is ORDERED that appellant file a response addressing 

the issue of mootness within ten (10) days from the date of this order. The cross-appeal briefing 

schedule is suspended pending further order of this court.

_________________________________

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 29th day of July, 2016.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
#### LOUIS P. FARRELL v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES, STATE POLICE RETIREMENT SYSTEM.

May 22, 1984.

Petition for certification denied.