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

Polypore International, Inc.  Chief Executive Officer Certification  Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Polypore International, Inc. (the "Company") for the
period ended January 2, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, Robert B. Toth, President and Chief Executive Officer of
the Company, does hereby certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



By:

/s/ ROBERT B. TOTH Robert B. Toth President and Chief Executive OfficerDate: March 8, 2010


---



QuickLinks
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted
from the accompanying financial statements and is qualified in
its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                         683,384
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  844,063
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  1,379,390
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,993,077
<PP&E>                                         250,071
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,244,619
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          278,813
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     4,051,698
<OTHER-SE>                                    (91,438)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,244,619
<SALES>                                      1,684,530
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,684,530
<CGS>                                          893,746
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  943,564
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (139,297)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (44,397)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (94,900)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (94,900)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.01)
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 13.1



CERTIFICATION



Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, each of the undersigned officers of Panasonic Corporation (the company), hereby certifies, to such officers
knowledge, that the companys annual report on Form 20-F for the year ended March 31, 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.





Date:  June 30,
2009



/s/    Fumio OhtsuboName:

Fumio OhtsuboTitle:

President and Director(Principal Executive Officer)




/s/    Makoto UenoyamaName:

Makoto UenoyamaTitle:

Director(Principal Financial Officer)
## I N T H E C O U R T O F C R I M I N A L A P P E A L S O F T E X A S NO. WR-91,409-01

EX P ARTE ABEL RIOS, App licant

ON AP P LICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORP US CAUSE NO. 20040D00922-210-1 IN THE 210TH DIST RICT COURT

F ROM EL P ASO COUNTY

Per curiam . O R D E R Applicant wa s convicted of injury to a child with intent to c ause serious bodily injury with

a deadly wea

pon and sentenc ed to life imprisonment. The Eig hth Court of Appea ls aff irmed his convicti on. Rios v. State, No. 08-06-00211- CR (Tex. Crim. App.—El Paso, Sept. 24, 2008). Applicant filed this application for a writ of habea s corpus in the county of conviction, and the district clerk f

orwa rded it to this Court. See T E X . C O D E C R I M . P R O C . art. 11.07. Ov er eleve n y ear s afte r Applicant lear ned that his conviction had been aff irmed on d i re ct appea l, he contends that appellate counsel was ineffe ctive for failing to timely inform him of his rig ht to file a pro se PDR. He states that this failure deprive d him of the opportunity to file a PDR. Applicant has alleg ed facts t hat, i f t rue, might en t i t l e h i m to relief

. Smith v. Robbins , 5282

U.S. 259 (2000); Ex parte Miller , 330 S.W .3d 610 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009). Fur ther, the curr ent

rec ord supports a sua sponte lache s inquiry

. Acc ording ly , the rec ord should be develope d. The trial court is the appropr iate forum for finding s of fac t. T E X . C O D E C R I M . P R O C . art. 11.07, § 3(d). The trial court sha ll order a

ppellate c ounsel to respond to Applica nt’s claim. The court s hall also g ive Applicant an opportunity to explain his delay

. I n developing the rec ord, the trial court may use any means set out in Article 11.07, § 3(d). I f the trial c ourt elec ts to hold a hearing , it shall deter mine whether Applicant is indige nt. I f Applicant is indige nt and wants to be repr esente d by counsel, the trial court shall appoint counsel to repr esent him at the hear ing. See T E X . C O D E C R I M . P R O C . art. 26.04. I f counsel is appointed or re t ai n ed , t h e trial court shall immediately notify this Court of counsel’s na

me. The t ri al co urt shall make finding s of fac t and conclusions of law as to whether appellate counsel’s perf

ormanc e was defic ient and Applicant was prejudic ed

. T h e court shall also make finding s and conclusions as to whether lache s bars Applicant’s reque st for relief

. The trial court may make any other finding s and conclusions that it deems appropr iate in response to Applicant’s claim. The trial court shall make findings of fac t and co n clusions of l aw within ninety day s from the date of this order

. The district cler k shall then immediately forwa rd to this Court the trial court’s finding s and conclusions and the rec ord develope d on rema nd, including, among other things, aff idavits, motions, objections, proposed finding s and conclusions, order s, and transcr ipts from hear ings and depositions. See T E X . R. A P P . P. 73.4(b)( 4). Any extensions of time must be reque sted by the trial cour

t and obtained f

rom this Court. Filed: September

16, 2020 Do not publish
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Gregory F. Kowal, Chief Executive Officer of Mera Pharmaceuticals, certify that (1) Mera Pharmaceuticals, Inc.s Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended July 31, 2008 fully complies with the requirements of Section 3 (a) or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the information contained in the Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended July 31, 2008 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and the results of operations of Mera Pharmaceuticals, Inc.



|                       
|-----------------------
|Date:  Sept. 5, 2008   
|                       
|/s/Gregory F. Kowal    
|Gregory F. Kowal       
|Chief Executive Officer



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Mera Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and will be retained by Mera Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
**Exhibit 32**

 

PURSUANTTO

18U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

I, the Corporate Trustee of Mesabi Trust,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge, theAmendment to the Annual Report of Mesabi Trust on Form 10-K for the fiscal yearended January 31, 2005 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that informationcontained in such Form 10-K fairly presents in all material respects thefinancial condition and results of operations of Mesabi Trust.

 
| /s/ Rodney Gaughan                   |   | April 13, 2005 |
|--------------------------------------|--------|----------------|
| Rodney Gaughan*                      |   |
| Assistant Vice President             |   |
| Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas |   |

 

----

* There are no principalexecutive officers or principal financial officers of the registrant.

 

*A signedoriginal of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided toMesabi Trust and will be retained by Mesabi Trust and furnished to theSecurities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.*

 

----
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-2355

MARLOW L. BATES, SR.,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.; SONY CORP OF AMERICA; L G 

ELECTRONICS USA, INC.; MITSUBISHI ELECTRIC & ELECTRONICS USA 

INC.; PANASONIC ELECTRIC WORKS CORP. OF AMERICA,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Senior District 

Judge. (1:10-cv-03158-JFM)

Submitted: September 17, 2012 Decided: September 27, 2012

Before GREGORY, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Marlow L. Bates, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. James B. Astrachan, 

Daniel P. Doty, Julie Rebecca Rubin, ASTRACHAN GUNST AND THOMAS 

PC, Baltimore, Maryland; David Ira Ackerman, SNR DENTON US LLP, 

Washington, D.C., for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Marlow L. Bates, Sr., appeals the district court’s 

orders dismissing his copyright infringement suit for failure to 

state a claim upon which relief could be granted and denying his 

post-judgment motion for leave to amend his complaint. We have 

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, 

we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See

Bates v. Samsung Electronics Am., Inc., No. 1:10-cv-03158-JFM 

(D. Md. July 20, 2011 & Dec. 1, 2011). We further deny Bates’ 

motion for the appointment of counsel. 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.

AFFIRMED
FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________ 

Case No. 5D2023-1676 

LT Case No. 2021-CA-000486 

_____________________________ 

LYNDA KYLE,

Appellant,

v.

SCHOOL BOARD OF HERNANDO

COUNTY,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Hernando County. 

Don Barbee, Jr., Judge. 

Gary L. Printy, Jr., of The Printy Law Firm, Tampa, for 

Appellant. 

Allison E. Bunker and Lisa J. Augspurger, of Bush & 

Augspurger, P.A., Orlando, and Timothy J. Ross, II, of Bush 

& Augspurger, P.A., Tallahassee, for Appellee. 

May 7, 2024

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

EDWARDS, C.J., and JAY and MACIVER, JJ., concur.
2

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-10-0000225 31-JAN-2014 08:42 AM
10902.

#### Smiley *et al. v.*Twitty.

Smith, *3.*1.

“This court, by the constitutional amendment creating it, is limited in jurisdiction to the correction of errors in law alone; and therefore has no power to grant a new trial on the ground that the verdiet is strongly contrary to the weight of evidenee, if there is any evidence at all to support it.” *Edge*v. *Thomas.*9 *Ga. App.*559 (71 S. E. 875); *Randall*v. *Bell,*12 *Ga. App.*614 (77 S. E. 1132); *Toole*v. *Jones,*19 *Ga. App.*24 (90 S. E. 732); *McCarty v. Keys,*19 *Ga. App.*494 (91 S. E. 875).

*630Decided December 16, 1919.

Complaint; from city court of Camilla—Charles Watt Jr., judge pro hac vice. July 26, 1919.

*A. 8.*Johnson, for plaintiffs in error.

*Peacoclc & Gardner,*contra.

2. The motion for a new trial embraced the usual general grounds only. There was evidence to support the verdict, which has the approval of the trial judge, and his judgment overruling the motion for a new trial is

*Affirmed.*

*Jenkins, P. J., and Stephens, J., concur.*
Exhibit 23

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of our report dated February 5, 2002, incorporated by reference in
this Form 10-K/A, into the Company's previously filed Registration Statements on Form S-3 (Nos. 333-56476, 333-67822, 333-68400, 333-67067, 033-60406, 033-57167, 033-39466, 333-86299,
333-34609, 333-29657, 333-14869, 033-59235, and 033-59237) and on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-68042, 333-68040, 333-68044, 333-67820, 333-66233, 033-45525, 033-50260, 033-45074, 033-52094, 333-19671,
333-91305, 333-94955, 333-30742, 333-29819, 033-36694 and 333-77703). It should be noted that we have not audited any financial statements of Aquila, Inc. subsequent to December 31,
2001, or performed any audit procedures subsequent to the date of our report.

/s/
ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP

Kansas
City, Missouri
April 26, 2002

---
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4293 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4293

    To modify the boundary of the Mary McLeod Bethune Council House 
      National Historic Site in Washington, District of Columbia.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 5, 2004

  Ms. Norton introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                         Committee on Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To modify the boundary of the Mary McLeod Bethune Council House 
      National Historic Site in Washington, District of Columbia.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This section may be cited as the ``Mary McLeod Bethune Council 
House National Historic Site Boundary Adjustment Act''.

SEC. 2. BOUNDARY MODIFICATION.

    Section 2 of the Act entitled ``An Act to authorize the National 
Park Service to acquire and manage the Mary McLeod Bethune Council 
House National Historic Site, and for other purposes'', approved 
December 11, 1991 (105 Stat. 1652), is amended--
            (1) by inserting ``(a)'' before ``The Secretary''; and
            (2) by adding after subsection (a) (as so designated by 
        paragraph 1 of this section) the following new subsection:
    ``(b) The Secretary may acquire, with the consent of the owner 
thereof, by donation or by purchase with donated or appropriated funds, 
the abutting property located at 1320 Vermont Avenue Northwest, 
Washington, District of Columbia, and generally depicted on the map 
entitled `Mary McLead Bethune Council Proposed Boundary Adjustment', 
numbered 021/80,006, and dated February 2004, to be used for visitor 
orientation, administrative purposes, archival storage, facilities for 
researchers, and accessibility for handicapped persons.''.
                                 <all>
```
#### TELEFLEX INFORMATION SYSTEMS v. ARNOLD

No. 64P97

Case below: 124 N.C.App. 673

Petition by plaintiff (Teleflex) for writ of certiorari to review the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 5 June 1997. Petition by plaintiff (Teleflex) for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 denied 5 June 1997.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    Exhibit 23.6


                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT


The Board of Directors
of MCI WorldCom, Inc.:


We consent to the incorporation by reference in this registration statement on
Form S-8 of MCI WorldCom, Inc. of our report dated February 12, 1998, with
respect to the consolidated balance sheets of Brooks Fiber Properties, Inc. and
subsidiaries as of December 31, 1997 and 1996, and the related consolidated
statements of operations, shareholders' equity, and cash flows for each of the
years in the three-year period ended December 31, 1997, which report appears in
the Form 8-K of WorldCom, Inc. dated May 28, 1998.


                                                  KPMG Peat Marwick LLP


St. Louis, Missouri
September 8, 1998
108TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4380

AN ACT

To designate the facility of the United States PostPaul Ray Smith Post Office Building’’. Holiday, Florida, as the ‘‘Sergeant First Class al Service located at 4737 Mile Stretch Drive in

108TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4380

AN ACT

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service

located at 4737 Mile Stretch Drive in Holiday, Florida,

as the ‘‘Sergeant First Class Paul Ray Smith Post Office

Building’’.

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

•HR 4380 EH

1 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

2 The facility of the United States Postal Service lo3 cated at 4737 Mile Stretch Drive in Holiday, Florida, shall

4 be known and designated as the ‘‘Sergeant First Class

5 Paul Ray Smith Post Office Building’’.

6 SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

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

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

9 referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference

10 to the ‘‘Sergeant First Class Paul Ray Smith Post Office

11 Building’’.

Passed the House of Representatives July 12, 2004.

Attest:

Clerk.
10730.

#### INGRAM *v.*THE STATE.

Some of the grounds of the motion for a new trial are not in proper form for consideration. The evidence authorized the verdict.

Decided November 4, 1919.

Accusation of sale of intoxicating liquor; from city court of Carrollton—Judge Beall. June 23, 1919.

*Boylcin & Boylcin,*for plaintiff in error.

*Willis Smith, solicitor,*contra.

Bloodworth, J.

1. (a) “A ground of a motion for a new trial which complains of the admission of specified testimony must state the name of the witness whose testimony is complained of.” *Adams*v. *State,*22 *Ga. App.*252 (95 S. E. 877), and cases cited.

(5) “Under repeated rulings of this court and of the Supreme Court, a ground of a motion for a new trial must be complete in itself. When it is so incomplete as to require this court to refer to the pleadings or to the brief of evidence, it will not be considered.” Cæs*ar*v. *State,*22 *Ga. App.*796 (97 S. E. 255), and cases cited.

(c) “It is only where a case is wholly dependent upon the law of circumstantial evidence that the trial judge is required to give *333the law of circumstantial evidence.” *Williamson*v. State, *22 Ga. App.*787 (97 S. E. 195), and cases cited.

*2.*The foregoing rulings dispose of the Special grounds of the motion for a new trial. The evidence is sufficient to support the verdict, which has the approval of the trial judge, and, no error of law appearing, the judgment is

*Affirmed.*

*Broyles, G. J., and Luke,- J., concur.*
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-2237

PRISCILLA HINES, Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

US GOVERNMENT; SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSION;SANDY CRANKS; TIMOTHY ROBERTSON; WILLIAM WAXMAN, Director; OFFICE OF HEARINGS & APPEALS; CAROLYN W. NEYMAN, Assistant Commissioner; GORDON SHERMAN; KENNETH S. APFEL, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (CA-97-561-5-BO)
Submitted: February 25, 1999 Decided: March 8, 1999
Before HAMILTON, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Priscilla Hines, Appellant Pro Se. Barbara Dickerson Kocher, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant filed an untimely notice of appeal. We dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. The time periods for filing notices of appeal are governed by Fed. R. App. P. 4. These periods are “mandatory and jurisdictional.” Browder v. Director, Dep’t of Corrections , 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson , 361 U.S. 220, 229 (1960)). In civil actions in which the United States or an officer or agency thereof is a party, parties have sixty days within which to file in the district court notices of appeal from judgments or final orders. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1). The only exceptions to the appeal period are when the district court extends the time to appeal under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). The district court entered its order on December 22, 1997; Appellant’s notice of appeal was filed on July 7, 1998, which is beyond the sixty-day appeal period. Appellant’s failure to note a timely appeal or obtain an extension of the appeal period leavesthis court without jurisdiction to consider the merits of Appellant’s appeal. We therefore dismiss the appeal. We dispense withoral 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
No. 16,415.

#### Luzadder *v.*The State, for Use of Rhine, Commissioner of Drainage.

*Drainage.*— Defective *Description of Land.*— Correction *of.*— Where the complaint clearly shows the land intended to be benefited, and that the defective deseription of the land was caused by the mistake of the drainage commissioner, the description may be corrected and the assessment enforced against the land intended.

From the Blackford Circuit Court.

*R. S. Gregory, A. C. Silverburg*and *J. N. Templer,*for appellant.

*W. H. Carroll, G. D. Dean, B. G. Shinn*and *E. Pierce,*for appellee.

Elliott, C. J.

The only question in this case not settled by the decisions in the cases of *Racer*v. *State, etc., ante,*p. 393, and *Curry*v. *State, etc., ante,*p. 439, is that which arises upon the contention of the appellant’s counsel that the description of the land assessed is so defective as to make the assessment ineffective.

The description is so radically defective that the assessment can not be enforced unless corrected. A valid description is essential to the validity of an assessment. *Zigler*v. *Menges,*121 Ind. 99; *Ross*v. *State, etc.,*119 Ind. 90. This is conceded by the appellee’s counsel, but it is insisted that, as the complaint shows that the defect was caused by the mistake. of the drainage commissioner it may be corrected, the description reformed, and the assessment enforced against the *599land intended. This position is sustained by the case of State, *ex rel.,*v. *Smith,*124 Ind. 302. See, also, *Craven*v. *Butterfield,*80 Ind. 503. We think that the complaint so clearly shows the land intended to be benefited, and shows the mistake in describing it, that the relator was entitled to have the mistake corrected.

Filed May 19, 1892.

Judgment affirmed.