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

 

**Certification of Chairman and Chief Executive Officer**

 

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of HyperSpace Communications, Inc. (the “*Company*”) hereby certifies, to such officer’s knowledge, that:

 

(i) the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2005 (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

 

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

 

 
|           | /s/ John Yeros                       |
|----------------|--------------------------------------|
| March 31, 2006 | John Yeros                           |
|           | Chairman and Chief Executive Officer |
Case: 1:20-cr-00394 Document #: 151 Filed: 09/07/22 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:847
Case: 1:20-cr-00394 Document #: 151 Filed: 09/07/22 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:848
Case: 1:20-cr-00394 Document #: 151 Filed: 09/07/22 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:849
Exhibit
18









November 16,
2009




US
Dataworks, Inc.


Sugarland,
Texas, Texas




Ladies
and Gentlemen:




We have
been furnished with a copy of the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of US Dataworks,
Inc (the “Company”) for the three and six months ended September 30,
2009, and have read the Company’s statements contained in note 2 to the
financial statements included therein. As stated in note 2, the Company changed
its cost accumulation of cost of sales. The Company states that the accounting
change is preferable in the circumstances because the change in the application
of accounting principle will enable it to better reflect the costs of its five
functional departments, and the overall reporting of gross profit and margins,
from period to period. In accordance with your request, we have reviewed and
discussed with Company officials the circumstances and business judgment and
planning upon which the decision to make this change in the application of
accounting principle was based.




We have
not audited any financial statements of the Company as of any date or for any
period subsequent to March 31, 2009, nor have we audited the information
set forth in the aforementioned note 2 to the financial statements; accordingly,
we do not express an opinion concerning the factual information contained
therein.




With
regard to the aforementioned change in accounting method, authoritative criteria
have not been established for evaluating the preferability of one acceptable
method of accounting over another acceptable method. However, for purposes of
the Company’s compliance with the requirements of the Securities and Exchange
Commission, we are furnishing this letter.




Based on
our review and discussion, with reliance on management’s business judgment and
planning, we concur that the newly adopted change in the application of the
accounting principle is preferable in the Company’s circumstances.




Very
truly yours,


/s/ Ham,
Langston & Brezina, LLP
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Bernard MORRIS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 03-50563.

D.C. No. CR-03-00034-RGK.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Nov. 15, 2004.*

Decided Nov. 23, 2004.

*513Jason Gonzalez, AUSA, Office of The U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Firdaus Dordi, FPD, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before LEAVY, MCKEOWN, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Bernard Morris appeals the denial of his motion to suppress evidence and request for a *Franks*hearing. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm in part, and reverse and remand in part.

Morris contends that there was no probable cause supporting the search warrant and, therefore, the warrant was invalid. We disagree. We review the denial of a motion to suppress de novo. *See United States v. Lynch,*367 F.3d 1148, 1159 (9th Cir.2004). The affidavit proffered, *inter alia,*that several Swan Blood gang members had previously claimed they lived at that address, the suspect had been seen on the property, others knew that he visited there often, the owner of the residence was considered a “grandmother” to the suspect, and the affiant had knowledge that typically, gang members help hide contraband to elude the police. Based on the totality of the circumstances, it was reasonable to conclude that there was a fair probability that contraband would be found in Morris’ residence. *See Illinois v. Gates,*462 U.S. 213, 238, 103 S.Ct. 2317, 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983).

Morris further contends that the district court erred in denying his request for a *Franks*hearing. *See Franks v. Delaware,*438 U.S. 154, 155-156, 98 S.Ct. 2674, 57 L.Ed.2d 667 (1978). We review de novo the district court’s denial of a *Franks*hearing. *See United States v. Reeves,*210 F.3d 1041, 1044 (9th Cir.2000). Because we conclude that the affiant’s misrepresentations and/or omissions from the affidavit were material and necessary to the magistrate’s determination that there was probable cause for the warrant, we remand the case for a *Franks*hearing.

AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED AND REMANDED IN PART.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 604 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                 In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

                                                      October 20, 1998.
    Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in order 
without intervention of any point of order to consider in the House the bill (S. 
1132) to modify the boundaries of the Bandelier National Monument to include the 
lands within the headwaters of the Upper Alamo Watershed which drain into the 
Monument and which are not currently within the jurisdiction of a Federal land 
management agency, to authorize purchase or donation of those lands, and for 
other purposes. The bill shall be considered as read for amendment. The previous 
question shall be considered as ordered on the bill to final passage without 
intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate on the bill equally divided 
and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
Resources; and (2) one motion to recommit.
    Sec. 2. Upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in order without 
intervention of any point of order to consider in the House the bill (S. 2133) 
an act to preserve the cultural resources of the Route 66 corridor and to 
authorize the Secretary of the Interior to provide assistance. The bill shall be 
considered as read for amendment. The previous question shall be considered as 
ordered on the bill to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one 
hour of debate on the bill equally divided and controlled by the chairman and 
ranking minority member of the Committee on Resources; and (2) one motion to 
recommit.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
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 Stereotaxis, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ended
December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Michael P. Kaminski, President & Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) and
Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my 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 operations of the Company.



|                     |  |  |  |  |  |                                                                          
|-------------------- |  |  |  |  |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: March 15, 2010 |  |  |  |  |  | /s/    MICHAEL P.
KAMINSKI                                               
|                     |  |  |  |  |  | Michael P. Kaminski President & Chief Executive Officer Stereotaxis,
Inc.
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.                  

###### Federal Election Commission

# AGENCY:

Federal Election Commission.

# DATE AND TIME:

Tuesday November 18, 2014 at 10:00 a.m.

# PLACE:

999 E Street  NW., Washington, DC.

# STATUS:

This meeting will be closed to the public.

## Items To Be Discussed

Compliance matters pursuant to 2 U.S.C. 437g.

Matters concerning participation in civil actions or proceedings or arbitration.

Information the premature disclosure of which would be likely to have a considerable adverse effect on the implementation of a proposed Commission action.

Internal personnel rules and internal rules and practices.

* * * * *

# PERSON TO CONTACT FOR INFORMATION:

Judith Ingram, Press Officer, Telephone: (202) 694-1220.

Shelley E. Garr,

Deputy Secretary of the Commission.

[FR Doc. 2014-26996 Filed 11-10-14; 4:15 pm]

BILLING CODE 6715-01-P
#### Henry Dietz v. John H. Frazier, drain commissioner for the township of Le Roy in Ingham County

*Proceedings to lay out dtrains not rermwable on certiora/ri.*

The Supreme Court will not review proceedings to lay out drains on writ oí certiorari.

Certiorari.

Submitted Jan. 18.

Writ quashed Feb. 27.

Proceedings by the township commissioner to lay out a drain being objected to for various defects by Frazier, who claims that his land is liable to assessment for a portion of *228tbe expense of mating sucb drain, are brought up by him for review in the Supreme Court.

*Huntington & Henderson*for plaintiff in certiorari.

Marston, J.

This case is governed by *Tucker v. Parker*decided at the present term; ante p. 5.

The writ will be quashed.

Graves, C. J. and Cooley, J. concurred.
IAD Data Format 

Owner 

Owner's Identifier

Hexadecimal Code (4

digit) 

Description 

Binding Informa*on generated via a 

Cryptographic Binding Process. Provides 

fine‐grained integrity and authen*city to 

ITL files allow for the detec*on of 

modifica*ons to individual logical 

records/fields. Used to facilitate chain of 

custody via the Audit Log Field. See Type 

98 Best Prac*ce for implementa*on 

guidance

CB20

NSA IAD Iden*ty and Acc

Management Branch

ess
EXHIBIT 11

NB CAPITAL CORPORATION
COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
(in thousand of US dollars)

|                               | Three-month period
ended
June 30, 2003 | Three-month period
ended
June 30, 2002
|------------------------------ | -------------------------------------- | --------------------------------------
|
|Net income                     |                                        | $9,218                                
|Deduct: Senior preferred stock |                                       
|and series A preferred         |                                       
|stock dividends                |                                        | 6,267                                 
|
|                               | (A)                                    | $2,951                                
|
|Common share outstanding       | (B)                                    | 100                                   
|
|Earning per share              | (A/B)                                  | $     30                              

---
**EXHIBIT 23.1****CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 andForm S-3 of Xenonics Holdings, Inc. of our report dated November 16, 2006, except for Note 14 –Restatement, as to which the date is June 14, 2007, with respect to our audits of the consolidatedfinancial statements of Xenonics Holdings, Inc. and subsidiary as of September 30, 2006 and foreach of the two years in the period ended September 30, 2006, in which the report includedexplanatory paragraphs in connection with the restatement discussed in Note 14 and the Company’sability to continue as a going concern, included in the Annual Report in Form 10-KSB for the yearended September 30, 2006.We also consent to the reference to our firm under the caption “Experts” in the RegistrationStatements on Form S-3.Eisner LLP
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 511 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                 In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

                                                         July 29, 1998.
    Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to 
consider the conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 629) to grant the 
consent of the Congress to the Texas Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal 
Compact. All points of order against the conference report and against its 
consideration are waived.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Rachel Hoover","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/rlhoove1\/","title":"5 Ways Supercomputing is Key to NASA Mission Success","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"J0EhPsBntP\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/technology\/5-ways-supercomputing-is-key-to-nasa-mission-success\/\">5 Ways Supercomputing is Key to NASA Mission Success<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/technology\/5-ways-supercomputing-is-key-to-nasa-mission-success\/embed\/#?secret=J0EhPsBntP\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“5 Ways Supercomputing is Key to NASA Mission Success” — NASA\" data-secret=\"J0EhPsBntP\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/11\/10_barad_m_sc22_parachute.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":338}
Exhibit 99.1

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 Quarterly Report of DDi Corp.  (the “Company”) on Form10-Q for the quarter ending September 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Bruce D. McMaster, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify to the best of my knowledge, pursuantto 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

| 1.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|  
 
2.

The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.

 

Date: November 13, 2002

By:

/s/ BRUCE D. McMASTER

 
 
 
 
 
 
**Bruce D. McMaster Chief Executive Officer**

 
  |
#### Rui HUANG; Zhi Ming Dong, Petitioners, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 02-74009.

Agency Nos. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ], [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 6, 2004.*

Decided Dec. 9, 2004.

Albert S. Chow, Law Offices of Albert S. Chow, Alhambra, CA, for Petitioners.

Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Shelley R. Goad, Esq., John C. Cunningham, Esq., DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before GOODWIN, WALLACE, and TROTT, Circuit Judges.

*

This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Rui Huang and Zhi Ming Dong, husband and wife and natives and citizens of China, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision summarily affirming an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence an adverse credibility determination, *see Malhi v. INS,*336 F.3d 989, 992 (9th Cir.2003), and we deny the petition.

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility finding. Petitioners submitted a first asylum application which contained false incidents of past persecution and prepared fraudulent supporting documents. They then submitted a second application which alleged a new story of past persecution. *See Al-Harbi v. INS,*242 F.3d 882, 889-90 (9th Cir.2001) (affirming adverse credibility finding based *558on applicant’s “propensity to change his story regarding incidents of past persecution”); *Akinmade v. INS,*196 F.3d 951, 955-56 (9th Cir.1999) (presentation of fraudulent documents, “submitted to prove a central element of the claim in an asylum adjudication, indicates [applicant’s] lack of credibility”). Petitioners’ contention that the IJ erred in not making a credibility determination for two other witnesses lacks merit because such findings were not necessary given petitioners’ own testimony admitting to their fraudulent conduct.

Because petitioners failed to demonstrate that they were eligible for asylum, it follows that they did not satisfy the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. *See Farah v. Ashcroft,*348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003). Petitioners do not challenge the IJ’s denial of CAT relief and therefore it is waived. *See Martinez-Serrano v. INS,*94 F.3d 1256, 1259 (9th Cir.1996).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
## Court of Appeals of the State of Geo rgia

ATLA NTA,

_________________ _ The Court of

Appeals hereby passes

the followi

ng order: A15A0003. DAVID T. WEB LEY v. EVERBAN K. This case began as a dispossessory proceeding in magistrate court. A fter an adverseruling, defen dant David T. Webley ap peale d the magistr ate co urt’s decision to the superior co urt. The s uperior c ourt enter ed judgm ent in favo r of Eve rbank. Webley has appealed that or

der direc tly to t

his Court. Becausethe order at issue disposes of a de novo appeal from a magistrate court decision, Weble y wa s require d t o fol low the discretionary appeal procedures. See OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (1); English v. Delbridge , 216 Ga. App. 366, 367 (454 SE 2d 175) (1995). His failure to do so depri ves us of j urisdiction over this a

ppeal, w hich is hereby DISMISSED. Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk’s Offi

ce, Atlant a,_______________

___ I cer tify that the above is a true extract f ro m the minutes of the Court

of Appeals

of Georgia. Witness my signature a nd the seal of sai d court hereto aff

ixed the day and year last above writt

en. , Clerk. 08/28/2014 August 28, 2014