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 MPC Corporation (the “*Company*”) hereby certifies, to such officer’s knowledge, that:

 

(i) the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-KSB/A of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2006 (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                       |
|-------------------|--------------------------------------|
| December 21, 2007 | John Yeros                           |
|              | Chairman and Chief Executive Officer |
----

**EXHIBIT 13.1**

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, theundersigned officer of NWT Uranium Corp. (the "Company") hereby certifies, tosuch officer's knowledge, that: 

(i) the accompanyingAnnual Report on Form 20-F of the Company for the fiscal year ended December 31,2008 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) orSection 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, asamended; and 

(ii) the informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Company. 

| Date: July 16, 2009
 
 
/s/ John P. Lynch                                                 
 
John P. Lynch
 
President and Chief Executive Officer
 
 
The foregoing certifications are beingfurnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, and are notbeing filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,as amended, and are not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of theCompany, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any generalincorporation language in such filing. 

  |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

LOU DAVIS and )

TAMEKA DAVIS, )

formerly known as )

TAMEKA SMITH, )

)

Plaintiffs, )

) Case No. 1:20-cv-04816

vs. )

)

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., )

)

Defendant. )

NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT

Plaintiffs Lou Davis and Tameka Davis, formerly known as Tameka Smith (“Plaintiffs”) 

and Defendant Bank of American, N.A. (“Defendant”), by and through their respective attorneys, 

hereby inform this Court that the parties have reached a settlement which will resolve the case. 

Plaintiff. The Parties are in the process finalizing settlement and will file a Stipulation of Dismissal 

as soon as settlement is complete. The Parties also request that February 16, 2021, deadline for 

the Rule 26 Joint Planning Report, and all subsequent deadlines in this case, be stricken.

Respectfully submitted,

s/ Tara L. Goodwin s/ Kathryn B. Davis

Tara L. Goodwin Kathryn B. Davis

Daniel A. Edelman Natalie Burris 

Cathleen M. Combs WINSTON & STRAWN, LLP

Carly M. Cengher 800 Capitol St., Suite 2400

EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER Houston, TX 77002

& GOODWIN, LLC T: (713) 651-2600

20 South Clark Street, Suite 1500 D: (713)-651-2784

Chicago, IL 60603-1824 F: 713-651-2700

(312) 739-4200 winston.com

(312) 419-0379 (FAX) 

Email address for service: courtecl@edcombs.com 

Case: 1:20-cv-04816 Document #: 25 Filed: 02/16/21 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:161
2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Tara L. Goodwin, hereby certify that on Tuesday, February 16, 2021, I caused a true 

and accurate copy of the foregoing document to be filed via the courts CM/ECF online system, 

which sent notice via email to all counsel of record.

/s/Tara L. Goodwin

Tara L. Goodwin

Daniel A. Edelman

Cathleen M. Combs

Tara L. Goodwin

Carly Cengher

EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER 

& GOODWIN, LLC

20 S. Clark Street, Suite1500

Chicago, Illinois 60603

(312) 739-4200

(312) 419-0379 (FAX)

E-mail for Service:

courtecl@edcombs.com

Case: 1:20-cv-04816 Document #: 25 Filed: 02/16/21 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:162
Exhibit 32.2


                                 CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350, the undersigned  officer of ING USA Annuity
and Life  Insurance  Company  (the  "Company")  hereby  certifies  that,  to the
officer's knowledge, the Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter
ended March 31, 2004 (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.


May 14, 2004                     By /s/ Keith Gubbay
    (Date)                          --------------------------------------------
                                    Keith Gubbay
                                    Director and President
#### George Tyrone EDMOND, Petitioner—Appellant, v. A. David ROBINSON, Warden, Respondent—Appellee.

No. 04-6938.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Nov. 30, 2004.

Decided Dec. 29, 2004.

George Tyrone Edmond, Appellant pro se. Donald Eldridge Jeffrey, III, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before TRAXLER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM.

George Tyrone Edmond, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. *See Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel, 529*U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Edmond has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*
Breakout Questions and 

Instructions

June 25-26, 2019

1

Logos are trademarks of the corresponding corporate partners in the U.S. and other countries

NIST Campus in 

Gaithersburg, MD
Agenda – Tuesday afternoon

• 1:50PM Evolving Methods and 

Frameworks 

[Jack Weast, moderator]

• Frank Barickman (USDOT)

• Jack Weast (Intel Corporation) 

• Michelle Chaka (VTTI) 

• 2:50PM Instructions for 

Breakouts and Short Break

• David Wollman (NIST)

• 3:00PM Day 1 Breakouts

• 4:15PM Break to Reconvene 

(Green Auditorium)

• 4:30PM Breakout Group Reports

• 4:45PM Wrap-up, Day 2 Plan

• Chris Greer (NIST)

2

Day 1 Breakouts – Tuesday June 25

Meeting Room Attendee Last Name Moderator

Lecture Room A A-G Jack Weast

Portrait Room H-M John Maddox

Dining Room A&B N-Q Ed Straub

Green Auditorium R-Z Myra Blanco
Breakout Questions

3

• Question 1: What are appropriate definitions of 

‘safety’ in a measurement context, including 

whether it may be a system measure, a 

component measure (hardware, software, etc.), 

a behavior/performance measure, or some 

combination of these? 

• Question 2: Is there a need for widely-adoptable 

measurement methods for ADS-equipped vehicle 

safety? Are there risks in not pursuing such 

methods? If so, what are some examples?

• Question 3: What are possible safety 

measurement methods (simulation, test track, 

on-road, etc.)? What are possible safety metrics 

(miles driven, pass/fail vs. formal model, etc.)?

• Question 4: Are there emerging best-practices 

around pre-deployment safety measurement 

methods? Around post-deployment 

measurement methods? (including the 

methods and metrics described above).

• Question 5: Should measurement of human 

response to ADS-equipped vehicle safety be a 

part of the calculation and, if so, in what way?

• Question 6: What are possible 

next steps?
Breakouts and Report back to plenary

4

• Moderator will arrange/ask for volunteers 

for Rapporteur (or Moderator will do this) to 

report back results of Breakout session to 

whole assembly at 4:30PM in Green 

Auditorium. 5 minutes, no set format 

(powerpoint or verbal), although report outs 

should be organized by Question.

• Notetaker(s) in each breakout session to 

capture key input and concepts, organized 

by Question.

• If Group size is not too large, brief 

introductions – or if Moderator determines 

there are too many participants for 

introductions, just quickly state name and 

affiliation before your input. 

• Today’s Breakout session is 1 hour 15 

minutes. Moderator can ask a Timekeeper 

to help with clock management to keep 

conversation moving.

• A reasonable goal is to get through 2-3 

Questions in the Day 1 Breakout. 

• Remember: Be respectful and constructive, 

short input is often best, get a good number 

of ideas on table, avoid side tangents if 

possible.

Day 1 – Tuesday, June 25

Meeting Room Participant 

Last Name

Moderator Notetaker

Lecture Room A A-G Jack Weast Ezra Hayman

Portrait Room H-M John Maddox Greg Leeming

Dining Room A&B N-Q Ed Straub Michelle Chaka/ 

Ryan Yee

Green Auditorium R-Z Myra Blanco Simone Wilson
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">Rosanna Lopez, individually, and Luisanna Lopez, a child under the age of 12 by her mother, Rossanna Lopez, Plaintiff-Appellant, Dr.<br><br>against<br><br>Ronald J. Topal, Defendant-Respondent.</font></b></div><br><br><p>Plaintiff Rosanna Lopez, as limited by her brief, appeals from so much of an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Bronx County (Paul L. Alpert, J.), dated August 11, 2016, as granted defendant's CPLR 3211(a)(7) motion to dismiss the causes of action in the amended complaint asserted by Rosanna Lopez in her individual capacity.</p><p>Per Curiam.</p><p>Order (Paul L. Alpert, J.), dated August 11, 2016, insofar as appealed from, affirmed, with $10 costs.</p><p>Plaintiff-appellant's breach of contract cause of action, emanating from defendant-orthodontist's treatment of plaintiff with Invisalign braces, was properly dismissed on defendant's CPLR 3211(a)(7) motion. Plaintiff has failed to show that, within the context of her orthodontic treatment, defendant expressed a specific promise to effect a cure or to accomplish some definite result (<i>see Leighton v Lowenberg</i>, 103 AD3d 530, 531 [2013]; <i>Scalisi v New York Univ. Med. Ctr.</i>, 24 AD3d 145, 147 [2005]). Indeed, the written agreement signed by plaintiff contained no promise for a specific result, and the written consent form also signed by plaintiff includes a representation by her that she understands that defendant "cannot guarantee that you will be completely satisfied with your result, nor can all complications or consequences be anticipated" (<i>see B.F. v Reproductive Medicine Assoc. of NY, LLP</i>, 136 AD3d 73, 81 [2015], <i>affd</i> 30 NY3d 608 [2017]).</p><p>Plaintiff's additional claims of fraud and conversion were properly dismissed because they are based on the same facts that underlie the contract cause of action (<i>see Sebastian Holdings, Inc. v Deutsche Bank, AG., </i>108 AD3d 433 [2013]; <i>Financial Structures Ltd. v UBS AG</i>, 77 AD3d 417, 419 [2010]). Plaintiff's cause of action for punitive damages was also properly dismissed, since New York does not recognize an independent cause of action for punitive damages (<i>see Jean v Chinitz</i>, 163 AD3d 497, 498 [2018]) and the alleged conduct falls short of showing the high degree of moral turpitude, wanton dishonesty and utter malice <font color="FF0000">[*2]</font>necessary to an award of punitive damages (<i>see Leighton v Lowenberg</i>, 103 AD3d at 530-531).</p><p>THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.</p><br>I concur I concur I concur<br>Decision Date: December 20, 2018<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_1_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
11 TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND

, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Terel Devon Houston

, * From the 118 th District Court

of Howard County,

Trial Court No. 16 916

.

Vs. No. 11

- 2 4

- 00 08 9

- CR * June 13 , 20 2 4

The State of Texas

, * Memorand um Opinion by Trotter, J.

(P anel consists of: Bailey , C.J.,

Trotter, J., and Williams, J.)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that the appeal

should be dismissed. Therefore, in accordance with this court ’ s opi nion, the appeal

is dismissed

.
Exhibit 32.1

Section 1350 Certification



Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002



(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350,
Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)



Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each of the undersigned officers
of Symmetry Medical Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Corporation"), does hereby certify that:



The Annual Report on Form 10-K
for the year ended December 31, 2011 (the "Form 10-K") of the Corporation fully complies with the requirements of section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Corporation.



|Dated: April 16, 2012 |  |                                                                                  
|--------------------- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                      |  | /s/ THOMAS J. SULLIVAN
        Thomas J. Sullivan
        Chief Executive Officer
|                      |  | /s/ FRED L. HITE
        Fred
L. Hite
        Chief Financial Officer
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: In the Interest of A.L.J., A.L.J., G.A.G. 

Appellate case number: 01-19-00251-CV

Trial court case number: 2017-04601J

Trial court: 315th District Court of Harris County

This is an accelerated appeal from an order terminating appellant’s parental rights. 

Appellant’s appointed counsel claims that, while drafting the brief, she realized that she had served 

as a visiting judge in one of the trial court hearings in this case. Accordingly, appointed counsel 

has filed a motion to abate and remand to the trial court for appointment of new counsel for 

appellant. The motion is granted. 

This appeal is abated and the cause remanded to the trial court for appointment of new 

counsel for appellant. The trial court shall cause a supplemental clerk’s record containing its order 

appointing new counsel, including the name, address, telephone number, and State Bar number of 

substitute counsel within 10 days of the date of this order. If the trial court holds a hearing, the 

trial court shall also cause a reporter’s record of the hearing to be filed in this Court within 15

days of the date of this order.

The appeal is abated, treated as a closed case, and removed from this Court’s active docket. 

The appeal will be reinstated on this Court’s active docket when a supplemental clerk’s record that 

complies with this order, and the reporter’s record of the hearing, have been filed in this Court.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: ___/s/ Peter Kelly_____

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: ___June 4, 2019__
Exhibit
      13.1




**CERTIFICATIONS
      UNDER SECTION 906**




Pursuant
      to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of
      section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each of the
      undersigned officers of SuperCom Ltd. (the “Company”), does hereby certify, to
      such officer’s knowledge, that:




The
      Annual Report on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2005 (the
      “Form 20-F”) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section
      13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in
      the
      Form 20-F fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
      and
      results of operations of the Company.




Dated: June 29, 2006
            /s/
                Eyal Tuchman
              Eyal Tuchman
              **Chief
                Executive Officer**and
                Principal Financial Officer




A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities
      and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
H. Res. 78

In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

February 26, 1997.

Resolved, That the following named Members be, and

that they are hereby, named to the following standing committee of the House of Representatives:

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE: Mr. Fox, Mr. Davis of Virginia, Mr. LoBiondo, and

Mr. Watts of Oklahoma.

Attest:

Clerk.
**Exhibit 3.11**

**THIRDAMENDED AND RESTATED CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION**

**OF**

**WIICOMPONENTS, INC.**

# **ARTICLE I**

The name of thecorporation is WII Components, Inc. (the “Corporation”).

# **ARTICLEII**

The address of theCorporation’s registered office in the State of Delaware is 160 GreentreeDrive, Suite 101, in the City of Dover, County of Kent, 19904.  The name of its registered agent at suchaddress is National Registered Agents, Inc.

# **ARTICLEIII**

The nature of thebusiness or purposes to be conducted or promoted is to engage in any lawful actor activity for which Corporations may be organized under the GeneralCorporation Law of the State of Delaware.

# **ARTICLEIV**

The total numberof shares of stock which the Corporation has authority to issue is 100 sharesof Common Stock, with a par value of $.01 per share.

# **ARTICLE V**

The corporation is tohave perpetual existence.

# **ARTICLEVI**

In furtherance andnot in limitation of the powers conferred by statute, the board of directors ofthe Corporation is expressly authorized to make, alter or repeal the by-laws ofthe Corporation.

# **ARTICLEVII**

Meetings ofstockholders may be held within or without the State of Delaware, as theby-laws of the Corporation may provide. The books of the Corporation may be kept outside the State of Delawareat such place or places as may be designated from time to time by 

----

the board ofdirectors or in the by-laws of the Corporation. Election of directors need not be by written ballot unless the by-lawsof the Corporation so provide.

# **ARTICLEVIII**

To the fullestextent permitted by the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware as thesame exists or may hereafter be amended, a director of this Corporation shallnot be liable to the corporation or its stockholders for monetary damages for abreach of fiduciary duty as a director. Any repeal or modification of this ARTICLE VIII shall notadversely affect any right or protection of a director of the Corporationexisting at the time of such repeal or modification.

# **ARTICLEIX**

The Corporation expresslyelects not to be governed by Section 203 of the General Corporation Law of theState of Delaware.

# **ARTICLE X**

The Corporationreserves the right to amend, alter, change or repeal any provision contained inthis certificate of incorporation in the manner now or hereafter prescribedherein and by the laws of the State of Delaware, and all rights conferred uponstockholders herein are granted subject to this reservation.

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE YEAR ENDED FEBRUARY 29, 2000 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-29-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             MAR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               FEB-29-2000
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          768,912
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        50,000
<OTHER-SE>                                   (818,912)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                        00
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         0
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.00


</TABLE>
Opinion issued September 13, 2018

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-18-00768-CV

———————————

IN RE C.K. AND J.P., Relators

Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relators, C.K. and J.P., have filed a petition for a writ of mandamus, 

challenging the trial court’s “Order for Protection of a Child in an Emergency” in 

the underlying proceeding.

1

We deny the petition.

 

1 The underlying case is In the Interest Z. K.-P., Cause No. 18CP0137, in the 306th

District Court of Galveston. Respondent in this Court is the Honorable Lonnie Cox.
2

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Higley, and Massengale.