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

**CERTIFICATION      OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

**Pursuant      to**

**18      U.S.C. Section 1350,**

**As      Adopted pursuant to**

**Section      906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

| Date:                May 11, 2007 | By:    | /s/                Zeynep Hakimoglu                                                              |
|-----------------------------------|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                              |   | Zeynep                Hakimoglu                                                                  |
|                              |   | President                and Chief Executive Officer(Principal                Executive Officer) |

**A      signed original of the written statement above required by Section 906 of the      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to ClearOne Communications, Inc.      and will be retained by ClearOne Communications, Inc. and furnished to the      Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon      request.**
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATIONOF CFO PURSUANT TO**

 

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

 

**As AdoptedPursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

In connection with thereport of Gaiam, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the periodended December 31, 2005, as filed with the U.S. Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Janet Mathews, Chief FinancialOfficer of the Company, certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, asadopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that tomy knowledge:

 

(1)     The Report fully complies with the requirements of Sections 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)     The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.

 

Date:  March 13,2006

 
|   | /s/ Janet Mathews       |   |
|--------|-------------------------|--------|
|   | Janet Mathews           |
|   | Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
AO 247 (Rev. 08/14) ALSD Order Regarding Motion for Sentence Reduction Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) Page 1 of 2 (Page 2 Not for Public Disclosure)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the

__________ District of __________

United States of America

)

)

)

)

)

)

v.

Case No:

USM No:

Date of Original Judgment:

Date of Previous Amended Judgment:

(Use Date of Last Amended Judgment if Any) Defendant’s Attorney

ORDER REGARDING MOTION FOR SENTENCE REDUCTION

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)

Upon motion of ’ the defendant ’ the Director of the Bureau of Prisons ’ the court under 18 U.S.C.

§ 3582(c)(2) for a reduction in the term of imprisonment imposed based on a guideline sentencing range that has

subsequently been lowered and made retroactive by the United States Sentencing Commission pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 994(u), and having considered such motion, and taking into account the policy statement set forth at USSG §1B1.10

and the sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), to the extent that they are applicable,

IT IS ORDERED that the motion is:

’ DENIED. ’ GRANTED and the defendant’s previously imposed sentence of imprisonment (as reflected in 

the last judgment issued) of months is reduced to .

(Complete Parts I and II of Page 2 when motion is granted)

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS

Except as otherwise provided, all provisions of the judgment dated shall remain in effect.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Order Date:

Judge’s signature

Effective Date:

(if different from order date) Printed name and title

 Southern District of Alabama NICHOLAS PAUL GODSEY

13-0001-WS October 30, 2013 ✔

✔

60 49 months October 30, 2013 March 16, 2015 s/ WILLIAM H. STEELE November 1, 2015 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

The Government has indicated that it has no objection to reducing defendant's sentence in this manner. (Doc. 20.) 

This amended sentence will continue to run concurrent with the custody sentence imposed in the revocation case 

bearing Criminal No. 04-0116-WS.

Case 1:13-cr-00001-WS Document 21 Filed 03/16/15 Page 1 of 1
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 Quarterly Report of Mason Hill Holdings, Inc. (the
"Company")  on Form 10-QSB for the period ending December 31, 2001 as filed with
the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Geoffrey Eiten, President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350,  as  adopted  pursuant  to  Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:
          1.     The Report fully complies with he 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:     February  24,  2004

     /s/  Geoffrey  Eiten
     President
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION EN BANC

Appellate case name: Jong W. Kim and Susan Kim v. Jin Ahn

Appellate case number: 01-11-00231-CV

Trial court case number: 0636177

Trial court: 80th District Court of Harris County

Date motion filed: March 12, 2013

Party filing motion: Jin Ahn

It is ordered that the motion for rehearing by en banc reconsideration is DISMISSED

FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Rebeca Huddle

 Acting Individually Acting for the Court

En banc court consists of: Chief Justice Radack, and justices Jennings, Keyes, Higley, Bland, 

Sharp, Massengale, Brown, and Huddle

Date: April 2, 2013
##### 



Exhibit 32.2 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 WorldQuest Networks, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10KSB/A for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2003 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report),
I, Victor E. Grijalva, Vice President, Chief Financial Officer, Secretary and
Treasurer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted
pursuant to § 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 result of operations of
the Company. By:/s/ Victor E. Grijalva
     Name: Victor E. Grijalva
     Title: Vice President, Chief Financial
               Officer, Secretary and Treasurer April 30, 2004
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1995
<CASH>                                         178,563
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  160,333
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (18,632)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                      15,263,449
<DEPRECIATION>                             (6,068,077)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              18,528,335
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          663,163
<BONDS>                                     11,417,301
<COMMON>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                   6,447,871
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                18,528,335
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             5,098,421
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                5,614,036
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,601
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             671,448
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,190,664)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,190,664)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,190,664)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (22.98)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### Louisville City Railway Company *v.*Ellen D. Saltmarsh.

Appeals — Amendment of Record.

Where the record on appeal fails to show that any exception was taken to the giving of an instruction, it may be amended when there is something to amend by, but it cannot be amended where the defect can only be supplied from the mere recollection of the judge or the attorneys.

APPEAL FROM JEFFERSON COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.

October 27, 1875.

*Mundy & Lawson, for appellant. Jeff. Brown, for appellee.*

Opinion by

Judge Pryor:

No exceptions were taken to the instructions given by the court below, nor is there any bill of evidence to be found in the .record. An amended record was offered to be filed, showing that after the case was brought to this court a motion was made in the court below to so correct the record as to show that exceptions were taken to the instructions at the time they were given. A record in such a case may be amended when there is something to amend by, as when a paper has been ordered to be copied that constitutes a part of the record, or when there is some defect in an order that may be corrected by reference to some other order in the case, but where the defect is to be supplied from the mere recollection of the judge or the attorneys, we are satisfied no such correction can be made, unless by consent after the record is filed in this court.

Besides, the bill of evidence is not signed by the judge, or so identified as to enable this court to say that it formed any part of the record.

The judgment is therefore *affirmed.*
#### Henry Weitzel *v.*Fred Nover.

Patent Rights — Defense on the Ground of Fraud.

When a right to manufacture and sell a patented article is conveyed by one not entitled to convey, and .hence fraudulent, before the purchaser can avail himself of the fraud as a defense to an action to collect the purchase price, he must offer to return what he has purchased.

*352APPEAL FROM KENTON CIRCUIT COURT.

February 5, 1875.

*B. Richardson, for appellant.*

*George G. Perkins, for appellee.*

Opinion by

Judge Pryor:

The original answer and amendments admit the delivery of the fasteners to appellant, and their use by him. There is no controversy as to the contract of sale; but it is maintained that there was a fraud practised by appellee in selling these fasteners, when the right to manufacture and sell was in one Putman, by reason of a patent giving to him the exclusive right to manufacture the article. If the fraud was perpetrated as alleged, and constitutes a defense for the appellant, before he can avail himself of it he must offer to return what he has purchased, and not retain it, or pay some one else for it. Putman had his remedy against the appellee for an infringement upon his patent right, and had already, as the record shows, recovered a large sum against the firm of which appellee was a member, or in such way connected; and the value of the articles sold may be embraced in that judgment, or, if sold afterwards, the appellants should have returned, or offered to do so, the articles he obtained from appellee. If it belonged to Putman, appellant should have made him a party to the action in order that the right of property might be determined.

The judgment is *affirmed.*
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 00-10084

Conference Calendar

 

SALVADOR MIRANDA OTERO,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

GARY L. JOHNSON, DIRECTOR,

TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL

JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION,

Respondent-Appellee.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:99-CV-2611-D

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

August 23, 2000

Before KING, Chief Judge, and POLITZ and WIENER, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Salvador Miranda Otero, Texas state prisoner #439147,

requests a certificate of appealability (COA) to appeal from the

district court’s denial of his petition for writ of coram nobis

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1651. Otero’s request for a COA is

DENIED AS UNNECESSARY. His motion for the appointment of

appellate counsel is also DENIED.

The writ of coram nobis is an extraordinary remedy available

to a petitioner no longer in custody who seeks to vacate his
No. 00-10084

-2-

criminal conviction in circumstances where he can demonstrate

that he is suffering civil disabilities as a consequence of the

conviction and that the challenged error is of sufficient

magnitude to justify extraordinary relief. Jimenez v. Trominski,

91 F.3d 767, 768 (5th Cir. 1996). Because Otero is still in

custody, he is not entitled to coram nobis relief. His appeal is

therefore DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d

215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983); 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. 

COA DENIED AS UNNECESSARY; MOTION FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF

APPELLATE COUNSEL DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED.
EXHIBIT 99.2

                            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 Black Warrior Wireline Corp. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I Ronald
Whitter, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
ss.1350, as adopted pursuanT to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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

/s/ Ronald Whitter
------------------
Ronald Whitter
Chief Financial Officer

November 14, 2002
#### THE STATE ex rel. KELLER v. HAWES et al., Appellants.

In Banc,

November 3, 1903.

The judgment in this case is reversed on the authority of State ex rel. Rife v. Hawes, reported at page 360 of this volume.

Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Horn. *D. D. Fisher,*Judge.

Reversed.

*C. W. Bates*and *Wm. F. Woerner*for appellants.

*A. A. Paxson*for respondent.

GANTT, J.

Relator was appointed a patrolman on November 1, 1889, for a term of four years. He fully served that term. Thereafter he was allowed to continue to serve without any new appointment, until October 17, 1895, when he was dropped. He brings mandamus and asks for $2,083.68. His theory is that at the expiration of his appointed term, he was allowed to hold over, which was *ipso facto*a reappointment by implication for another term of four years. He has no case. [State ex rel. Rife v. Hawes, ante p. 360.] The circuit court gave him a peremptory writ. This was error, and its judgment is reversed, and the writ quashed.

All. concur.
Exhibit 32.2











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 Ecolocap Solutions Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date here of (the "report"), I, Michel St-Pierre, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(1)
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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Dated this 15th day of April, 2010




MICHEL ST-PIERREMichel St-PierreChief Financial Officer
118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1640 

AN ACT 

To prohibit the Secretary of Energy from finalizing, implementing, or enforcing the proposed rule titled ‘‘Energy 

Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards 

for Consumer Conventional Cooking Products’’, and for 

other purposes. 

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

•HR 1640 EH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Save Our Gas Stoves 

3 Act’’. 

4 SEC. 2. STANDARDS FOR KITCHEN RANGES AND OVENS. 

5 Section 325(h) of the Energy Policy and Conserva6 tion Act (42 U.S.C. 6295(h)) is amended by adding at 

7 the end the following: 

8 ‘‘(3) The Secretary may not determine that imposi9 tion of an energy conservation standard under this section 

10 for kitchen ranges or ovens is economically justified for 

11 purposes of subsection (o) unless— 

12 ‘‘(A) the Secretary determines that imposition 

13 of such energy conservation standard is not likely to 

14 result in the unavailability in the United States of 

15 a type (or class) of product based on what type of 

16 fuel the product consumes; and 

17 ‘‘(B) the Secretary discloses all stakeholder 

18 meetings with entities that— 

19 ‘‘(i) have ties to the People’s Republic of 

20 China or the Chinese Communist Party; 

21 ‘‘(ii) have produced studies regarding, or 

22 advocated for, regulations or policy to limit, re23 strict, or ban the use of any type of energy; and 

24 ‘‘(iii) have applied for or received Federal 

25 funds.’’. 
3 

•HR 1640 EH

1 SEC. 3. PROHIBITION ON RULEMAKING. 

2 The Secretary of Energy may not finalize, implement, 

3 or enforce the proposed rule titled ‘‘Energy Conservation 

4 Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Consumer 

5 Conventional Cooking Products’’ (88 Fed. Reg. 6818 

6 (February 1, 2023)) or any substantially similar rule. 

Passed the House of Representatives June 14, 2023. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 
118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1640 

AN ACT 

To prohibit the Secretary of Energy from finalizing, 

poses. tional Cooking Products’’, and for other purConservation Standards for Consumer Conventled ‘‘Energy Conservation Program: Energy implementing, or enforcing the proposed rule ti-
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Narkey Keval TERRY, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 00-7765.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted April 24, 2001.

Decided May 23, 2001.

Narkey Keval Terry, pro se. Randy I. Bellows, Office of the United States Attorney, Alexandria, Va, for appellee.

Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Narkey Keval Terry seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal substantially on the reasoning of the district court.*
      *See United States v. Terry,*Nos. CR-96-270-A; CA-00-1521AM (E.D.Va. Nov. 17, 2000). 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.*

We recently held in *United States v. Sanders,*247 F.3d 1399 (4th Cir.2001), that the new rule announced in *Apprendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), is not retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review. Accordingly, Appellant’s *Apprendi*claim is not cognizable.
RegenerateTransactionContentSummary
Version: v1.0
Release date: October 7, 2019

This software re-creates the Transaction Content Summary of a NIEM4 XML file.  This command-line tool will remove an existing Transaction Content Summary and rebuild it based on the actual order that exists in the rest of the XML document.

The source code is available at: https://github.com/usnistgov/RegenerateTransactionContentSummary


USAGE:

On the command-line:

java -jar RegenerateTransactionContentSummary.jar [input filename] [(optional) output filename]

The filename of the XML file must be submitted as the first entry on the command-line.

If the output filename is specified, the utility will output that, otherwise a default filename will be used.


CHANGELOG

Version: v1.0
Release date: October 7, 2019

   * Initial release.


DISCLAIMER

This software was developed by employees of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), an agency of the Federal Government and is being made available as a public service. Pursuant to title 17 United States Code Section 105, works of NIST employees are not subject to copyright protection in the United States. This software may be subject to foreign copyright. Permission in the United States and in foreign countries, to the extent that NIST may hold copyright, to use, copy, modify, create derivative works, and distribute this software and its documentation without fee is hereby granted on a non-exclusive basis, provided that this notice and disclaimer of warranty appears in all copies.

THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED 'AS IS' WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESSED, IMPLIED, OR STATUTORY, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ANY WARRANTY THAT THE SOFTWARE WILL CONFORM TO SPECIFICATIONS, ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, AND FREEDOM FROM INFRINGEMENT, AND ANY WARRANTY THAT THE DOCUMENTATION WILL CONFORM TO THE SOFTWARE, OR ANY WARRANTY THAT THE SOFTWARE WILL BE ERROR FREE. IN NO EVENT SHALL NIST BE LIABLE FOR ANY DAMAGES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DIRECT, INDIRECT, SPECIAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, ARISING OUT OF, RESULTING FROM, OR IN ANY WAY CONNECTED WITH THIS SOFTWARE, WHETHER OR NOT BASED UPON WARRANTY, CONTRACT, TORT, OR OTHERWISE, WHETHER OR NOT INJURY WAS SUSTAINED BY PERSONS OR PROPERTY OR OTHERWISE, AND WHETHER OR NOT LOSS WAS SUSTAINED FROM, OR AROSE OUT OF THE RESULTS OF, OR USE OF, THE SOFTWARE OR SERVICES PROVIDED HEREUNDER.