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

                               TELVUE CORPORATION


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


In connection with the Quarterly Report of TelVue Corporation (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Jesse Lerman,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. sec.
1350, as adopted 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.


Date:  11/16/09                         /s/ Jesse Lerman
                                        ----------------
                                        Jesse Lerman
                                        President and Chief Executive Officer
Continuing Abatement Order filed May 18 , 2012

.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________
NO. 14

- 11

- 00 372

- CV

____________
MATTHEW VERE , Appellant

V.

AFFORDABLE POWER, L.L.P. , Appellee

On Appeal from County Civil Court at Law No. 1

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 956968



### CONTINUING ABATEMENT ORDER

On December 14, 2011 , the parties notified this court that the parties had reached an agreement to settle the issues on appeal

. On January 5, 2012, we abated this appeal. As of the date of this order, the parties have not filed a motion to dismiss the appeal or other dispositive motion.

The app eal will be reinstated on this c ourt’s active docket in ten (10) day s from the date of this order. Appellant's brief will be due fort y (40) days from the date of this order.

PER CURIAM
Exhibit 31.1**CERTIFICATIONS**     I, Gary L. Dreher, certify that:     1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of AMDL, Inc. for the period endedMarch 31, 2006;     2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light ofthe circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this quarterly report;     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented inthis quarterly report;     4. The small business issuer’s other certifying officers and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f) for the small business issuer and have:     a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is madeknown to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisquarterly report is being prepared;     b) evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness ofthe disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisquarterly report based on such evaluation; and     c) disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer’s internal controlover financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer’s fourth fiscalquarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, thesmall business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting; and     5. The small business issuer’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer’sauditors and the audit committee of small business issuer’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions):     a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe small business issuer’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and     b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the small business issuer’s internal control over financialreporting.Date:May 12, 2006   /s/ Gary L. Dreher   Gary L. Dreher  Chief Executive Officer
<PAGE>   34

                      SUBSIDIARIES OF REGISTRANT

Mueller International Sales Corporation, a Foreign Sales Corporation,
was organized December 18, 1984, and incorporated under the laws of
the Virgin Islands of the United States and became active in 1985.
This is a wholly owned subsidiary and its accounts have been included
in the consolidated financial statements filed herein.

Mueller Transportation, Inc., a Missouri Corporation, was incorporated
on October 15, 1996.  This is a wholly owned subsidiary that began
operations effective January 1, 1997.  Its accounts have been included
in the consolidated financial statements filed herein.

Mueller Field Operations, Inc., a Missouri Corporation, was incorpo-
rated on January 28, 1998.  This is a wholly owned subsidiary that
began operations effective January 28, 1998.  Its accounts have been
included in the consolidated financial statements filed herein.
N O T F O RP U B L IC A T IO N IN W E S T ' S H AWA I # I RE P O R T S A N D P A C IF IC RE P O R T E R



### NO. CAAP-20-0000384

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
O F THE STATE OF HAWAI # I
CRANDALL PENAFLOR, Petitioner-Appellant, v. STATE OF HAWAI # I, Respondent-Appellee

A PPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SECOND CIRCUIT ( CASE NO. 2PR181000006(2) (CR. NO. 2PC900000146(4))

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL FOR LACK OF APPELLATE JURISDICTION (By: Hiraoka, Presiding Judge, Wadsworth and Nakasone, JJ.)

Upon review of the record, it appears we lack appellate jurisdiction over self-represented Petitioner-Appellant Crandall Penaflor's ( Penaflor ) appeal from the Circuit Court of the Second Circuit's ( circuit court ) April 27, 2020 Order Denying [Penaflor's] Motion for Reconsideration, entered in No. 2PR181000006.

On February 22, 2021, we issued an order for temporary remand, under Waikiki v. Hoomaka Village Ass'n of Apartment Owners, 140 Hawai # i 197, 204, 398 P.3d 786, 793 (2017), on the ground that the circuit court had not entered a final, appealable order or judgment

. On remand, the circuit court indicated that it did not intend to resolve all claims in Penaflor's petition for post-conviction relief under Hawai # i Rules of Penal Procedure Rule 40, and the claims remain unresolved. Thus, we lack Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-20-0000384 13-APR-2021 09:54 AM Dkt. 54 ODSLJN O T F O RP U B L IC A T IO N IN W E S T ' S H AWA I # I RE P O R T S A N D P A C IF IC RE P O R T E R



### appellate jurisdiction and must dismiss the appeal. See State v. Johnston, 63 Haw. 9, 10, 619 P.2d 1076, 1077 (1980).

Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai # i, April 13, 2021. /s/ Keith K. Hiraoka Presiding Judge /s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth Associate Judge /s/ Karen T. Nakasone Associate Judge

2
11205.

#### Green *v.*The State.

Decided March 3, 1920.

Accusation of carrying concealed weapon, etc.; from city court of Macon — Judge Guerry. November 22, 1919.

*Olin J. Wimberly, Gillon & Churchwell,*for plaintiff in error.

*Will Gunn, solicitor,*contra.

Broyles, C. J.

The evidence authorized the defendant’s conviction under both counts of the indictment, and the court did not err in refusing to grant a new trial.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.*
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

DECEMBER 1, 2009

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 09-11921

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 98-00221-CR-WS

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

KAMARA CATAVIOUS WOODSON,

a.k.a. Kamara Woodson,

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Alabama

_________________________

(December 1, 2009)

Before EDMONDSON, BIRCH and BLACK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:
Kamara Catavious Woodson appeals the district court’s denial of his second

motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). In his second

§ 3582(c)(2) motion, Woodson asserted the district court erred by partially denying

his first § 3582(c)(2) motion. In Woodson’s first § 3582(c)(2) motion, he

requested a lower sentence based on Amendment 706 to the Sentencing

Guidelines, which reduced the base offense level for crack cocaine offenses two

levels. The district court partially granted Woodson’s first motion and reduced his

sentence to the lowest possible under the amended Guidelines range. The district

court denied further relief, however, determining it lacked the authority to revisit

other sentencing issues and could not reduce his sentence any further. Woodson’s

appeal from the first § 3582(c)(2) order was dismissed. Woodson now contends

the district court erred in denying his second § 3582(c)(2) motion by refusing to

correct purported errors in his original resentencing.

Assuming arguendo this second § 3582(c)(2) motion was procedurally

permitted, the district court committed no error in denying it. The district court

previously afforded Woodson the maximum relief permitted under Amendment

706 and U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(a)(3). Proceedings under § 3582(c)(2) and U.S.S.G.

§ 1B1.10 “do not constitute a full resentencing of the defendant” or a de novo

resentencing. U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(a)(3); United States v. Moreno, 421 F.3d 1217,

2
1220 (11th Cir. 2005). The district court could not revisit other purported

sentencing errors, see United States v. Bravo, 203 F.3d 778, 782 (11th Cir. 2000)

(stating § 3582(c)(2) does not “grant to the court jurisdiction to consider

extraneous resentencing issues”), and Booker did not give the district court

authority to resentence Woodson, see United States v. Melvin, 556 F.3d 1190, 1192

(11th Cir. 2009) (holding the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Booker,

125 S. Ct. 738 (2005), does not provide an independent basis for granting a

sentence reduction in the context of § 3582(c)(2) proceedings because Booker does

not apply to § 3582(c)(2) proceedings). The district court did not err in denying

Woodson’s second § 3582(c)(2) motion. Accordingly, we affirm.

AFFIRMED.

3
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit 

___________________________

No. 18-3708

___________________________ 

United States of America

Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Nicole Marie Gorsline

 Defendant - Appellant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Iowa - Davenport

____________ 

Submitted: October 14, 2019

 Filed: November 19, 2019

[Unpublished] 

____________ 

Before LOKEN, SHEPHERD, and STRAS, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM. 

While on supervised release for her role in a conspiracy to manufacture 

methamphetamine, Nicole Gorsline was arrested for forgery. After her probation 
-2-

officer testified about the arrest, the district court1 revoked supervised release. We 

affirm. 

On appeal, Gorsline argues that the district court should not have relied on her 

probation officer’s testimony. Her theory is that, once he read from the police report 

of her forgery arrest, it gave rise to a “limited due process right[]” to confront the 

report’s author. United States v. Johnson, 710 F.3d 784, 786 (8th Cir. 2013); see 

also Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.1(b)(2)(C). 

The problem with Gorsline’s theory is that she did not invoke this right at the 

revocation hearing. See United States v. Simms, 757 F.3d 728, 733 (8th Cir. 2014) 

(holding that there is no requirement for a district court to remedy a potential 

confrontation violation sua sponte at a revocation hearing). To be sure, Gorsline’s 

attorney stated that the probation officer’s testimony was “hearsay” and lacked 

“foundation.” But there was no request to question the officer who wrote the report. 

See Johnson, 710 F.3d at 788 (holding that a releasee properly raised confrontation 

by “object[ing] to a separate constitutional violation of [his] right to cross-examine 

an adverse witness”). Having never made the request, Gorsline cannot now 

complain that she was denied the right to confront the report’s author. See Simms, 

757 F.3d at 733.

We accordingly affirm the judgment of the district court.

______________________________

 

1

The Honorable Rebecca Goodgame Ebinger, United States District Judge for 

the Southern District of Iowa.
Exhibit 32.2



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



The undersigned, being the Chief Financial Officer of Mines Management, Inc., an Idaho corporation (the "Issuer"), hereby certifies that the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB/A (the "Annual Report") of the Issuer for the year ended December 31, 2004, which accompanies this certification, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. §78 m(a)) and that the information contained in the Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Issuer.

/s/ James H. Moore

_____________________________

James H. Moore

Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer



Date: June 14, 2005
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 237 (Wednesday, December 10, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 73337-73338]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-29038]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[USITC SE-14-043]


Government in the Sunshine Act Meeting Notice

AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING: United States International Trade 
Commission.

[[Page 73338]]


TIME AND DATE: December 19, 2014 at 11:00 a.m.

PLACE: Room 101, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, Telephone: 
(202) 205-2000.

STATUS: Open to the public.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:
    1. Agendas for future meetings: None.
    2. Minutes.
    3. Ratification List.
    4. Vote in Inv. Nos. 731-TA-1131, 1132, and 1134 (Review) 
(Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip (``PET Film'') from 
Brazil, China, and the United Arab Emirates). The Commission is 
currently scheduled to complete and file its determinations and views 
of the Commission on January 8, 2015.
    5. Outstanding action jackets: None.
    In accordance with Commission policy, subject matter listed above, 
not disposed of at the scheduled meeting, may be carried over to the 
agenda of the following meeting.

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: December 5, 2014.
William R. Bishop,
Supervisory Hearings and Information Officer.
[FR Doc. 2014-29038 Filed 12-8-14; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alberto ALTAHONA-ESCOBAR, a/k/a Albert Altahona-Escobar, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 00-50082.

D.C. No. CR 99-02225-TJW.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 14, 2001.*

Decided June 4, 2001.

Before PREGERSON, FERNANDEZ, and WARD LAW, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Alberto Altahona-Escobar appeals his fifty-one month sentence imposed after his guilty plea conviction for being an illegal alien found in the United States following deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742, and we affirm.

*611Altahona-Escobar contends that under *Apprendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), the existence and nature of a prior felony conviction used to enhance his sentence must be charged in the indictment and proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Altahona-Escobar’s argument is foreclosed by our decision in *United States v. Pacheco-Zepeda,*234 F.3d 411, 414 (9th Cir.2000), *cert. denied,*— U.S. —, 121 S.Ct. 1503, 149 L.Ed.2d 388 (2001). As a matter of law, Altahona-Escobar’s prior conviction for aggravated criminal sexual abuse of a minor is an aggravated felony. 8 U.S.C. § 1101 (a)(43)(A); *see also United States v. Baron-Medina,*187 F.3d 1144, 1146-47 (9th Cir.1999), *cert. denied,*— U.S. —, 121 S.Ct. 1130, 148 L.Ed.2d 996 (2001).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Exhibit 10.7

 

AMENDMENT to the

EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

between

Nivalis Therapeutics, Inc. (formerly known as N30 Pharmaceuticals, Inc.)

and

Jon Congleton (“Employee”)

 

WHEREAS, Nivalis Therapeutics, Inc. (formerly known as N30 Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the “Company”)) and the Employee entered into an employment agreement (the “Agreement”) effective as of January 1, 2015;

 

WHEREAS, the Company and the Employee desire to amend the Agreement to change the provision relating to accelerated vesting of stock options in connection with Termination/Severance;

 

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the promises and mutual covenants contained herein and for other good and valuable consideration, the parties agree as follows:

 

1.                                      Section 5(e)(iii) is amended to read as follows:

 

(iii)  the Company shall cause any issued but unvested options scheduled to vest in the 12 months following the Employee’s Termination Date to immediately vest; provided, however, that this sentence shall not diminish the 100% vesting contemplated by 5(f) below in connection with a Change in Control.

 

2.                                      Except as amended herein, the provisions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Amendment to be executed and Employee has hereunto set his hand as of March 6, 2015.

 

 

	
 
    	
NIVALIS   THERAPEUTICS, INC.
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
By:
    	
/s/ R. Michael   Carruthers
    
	
 
    	
Name:
    	
R. Michael   Carruthers
    
	
 
    	
Title: 
    	
Chief Financial   Officer
    
	
 
    	
Date: 
    	
3/6/15
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
EMPLOYEE
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
By:
    	
/s/   Jon   Congleton
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
Jon Congleton,   Chief Executive Officer
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

GREGORY L. DANIELS, *

 * 

Plaintiff, *

*

vs. * CIVIL ACTION 08-00399-CG-B

*

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, *

Commissioner of *

Social Security, *

*

Defendant. *

ORDER

After due and proper consideration of all portions of this

file deemed relevant to the issues raised, and a de novo

determination of those portions of the Report and Recommendation

to which objection is made, the Report and Recommendation of the

Magistrate Judge made under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and dated

February 4, 2010, is ADOPTED as the opinion of this Court.

DONE and ORDERED this the 19th day of February, 2010.

/s/ Callie V. S. Granade 

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:08-cv-00399-CG-B Document 21 Filed 02/19/10 Page 1 of 1
United States Department of Com

National Institute of Standards and Technolo

Certificate of Metrological Traceability For:

Nebraska 

This laboratory has demonstrated evidence of an unbroken chain of metrological traceability of its standards to the international system of units (SI), maintains a documented calibration program, documented measurement uncertainties, uses documented measurement procedures, successfully completed training and proficiency tests, submitted a quality management system, and has demonstrated suitable measurement assurance for the Scope listed on this certificate. The Office of Weights and Measures Program assesses laboratories to NIST Handbook 143 - Program Handbook for State Weights and Measures Laboratories and ISO/IEC 17025:2017. 

Scope 

Mass Echelon III Volume Transfer, II 30 kg to 1 mg 1000 gal to 5 gal 3000 lb to 0.001 lb 8 oz to 0.03125 oz 

Volume Transfer, II LPG100 gal to 20 gal 

Weight Carts 5000 lb to 3000 lb 

___________Douglas A. ONIST Office Effective Date

(Rev.: February 2020)
1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

SOUTHERN DIVISION

EARATON ADAMS, et al., ) 

Plaintiffs, ) 

 ) CIVIL ACTION NO 08-0155-KD-N 

vs. ) 

 ) 

AUSTAL, USA, L.LC., ) 

Defendant. ) 

 ORDER 

This matter came before the Court on this date for a hearing on the Defendant’s Motion to 

Sever and Supplement thereto (Docs. 363, 389), Plaintiffs’ Opposition (Doc. 371), Defendant’s 

Reply (Doc. 372), and the parties’ Joint Motion to Continue (Doc. 387). 

Upon consideration and after hearing oral argument, it is ORDERED that Defendant’s 

Motion to Sever (Docs. 363, 389) is GRANTED in part pursuant to Rule 42(b) of the Federal Rules 

of Civil Procedure for those reasons stated on the record. Thus, this action is SEVERED FOR 

TRIAL with the first trial to consist of Plaintiffs Earaton Adams, Myron Barnes, Frederick 

Carter, Sidney Hedgeman and Carlos Johnson. The Court will determine the manner in which 

the remaining plaintiffs shall be severed for trial at a later date. 

It is further ORDERED that the parties’ Joint Motion to Continue (Doc. 387) is GRANTED

as to the Pretrial Conference setting and DENIED as to the trial setting, as follows: 

1) The Final Pretrial Conference shall be held on Thursday, August 25, 2011 at 

8:00 a.m. in the United States Courthouse in Mobile, Alabama (see Judge DuBose’s 

Standing Order attached hereto); and 

Case 1:08-cv-00155-KD-N Document 399 Filed 07/29/11 Page 1 of 2
2 

2) This Jury action is set for Trial during the months of September and October 

2011, in Mobile, Alabama, with Jury Selection commencing at 8:30 a.m. on 

Tuesday, August 30, 2011,1 and Trial commencing on Monday, September 26, 

2011 at 8:30 a.m.

DONE and ORDERED this the 28th day of July 2011.

/s/ Kristi K. DuBose 

KRISTI K. DuBOSE 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

 

1 The parties have consented to jury selection with the Magistrate Judge. 

Case 1:08-cv-00155-KD-N Document 399 Filed 07/29/11 Page 2 of 2