alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**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 Great Lakes Bancorp, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2007 as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Andrew
      W. Dorn, Jr., Chief Executive Officer, certify to the best of my knowledge,
      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 the Report fairly presents, in all material
              respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
              Company.
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



August
      8,
      2007




***/s/
                Andrew W. Dorn, Jr.***
              Andrew
                W. Dorn, Jr.President
                and Chief Executive OfficerPrincipal
                Executive Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
The attached Financial Data Schedule is for the three-months ended June 30,
1998 and should be read in conjunction with the Netegrity, Inc. Form 10-Q for
the same period.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                       4,012,062
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  913,093
<ALLOWANCES>                                    58,470
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             5,774,442
<PP&E>                                         638,888
<DEPRECIATION>                                 265,279
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               6,742,119
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,394,676
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     33,333
<COMMON>                                        93,975
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,220,135
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 6,742,119
<SALES>                                      1,054,434
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,054,434
<CGS>                                          407,090
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,430,398
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 872
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,339,278)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,339,278)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,339,278)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.14)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.14)
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 23




                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-8 (No. 333-60292 and No. 333-41658) of Activeworlds Corp.
of our report dated February 4, 2005, except for note 1 as to which the date is
April 4, 2005, relating to the consolidated financial statements as of December
31, 2004 and for the two years then ended, which appear in this Form 10-KSB.


/s/ Pannell Kerr Forster, P.C.
------------------------------
PANNELL KERR FORSTER, P.C.
Boston, Massachusetts
April 6, 2005
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1755 

To authorize the extension of nondiscriminatory treatment (normal trade 

relations treatment) to products of Uzbekistan. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 23, 2023 

Mr. KELLY of Mississippi (for himself, Mrs. MILLER of West Virginia, Mr. 

BACON, and Mr. VICENTE GONZALEZ of Texas) introduced the following 

bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To authorize the extension of nondiscriminatory treatment 

(normal trade relations treatment) to products of Uzbekistan. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Uzbekistan Normalized 

5 Trade Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. TERMINATION OF APPLICATION OF TITLE IV OF 

7 THE TRADE ACT OF 1974 TO PRODUCTS OF 

8 UZBEKISTAN. 

9 (a) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATIONS AND EXTEN10 SION OF NONDISCRIMINATORY TREATMENT.—NotwithVerDate Sep 11 2014 03:45 Apr 06, 2023 Jkt 039200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H1755.IH H1755

kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1755 IH

1 standing any provision of title IV of the Trade Act of 1974 

2 (19 U.S.C. 2431 et seq.), the President may— 

3 (1) determine that such title should no longer 

4 apply to Uzbekistan; and 

5 (2) after making a determination under para6 graph (1) with respect to Uzbekistan, proclaim the 

7 extension of nondiscriminatory treatment (normal 

8 trade relations treatment) to the products of Uzbek9 istan. 

10 (b) TERMINATION OF APPLICABILITY OF TITLE

11 IV.—On and after the date on which the President ex12 tends nondiscriminatory treatment to the products of Uz13 bekistan pursuant to subsection (a), title IV of the Trade 

14 Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2431 et seq.) shall cease to apply 

15 to Uzbekistan. 

16 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—This section shall take effect 

17 on the date on which the President certifies to Congress 

18 that Uzbekistan has acceded to the Marrakesh Agreement 

19 Establishing the World Trade Organization and is a Mem20 ber of the World Trade Organization. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-6337

STEVEN E. JONES,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

WILLIAM L. SMITH, Warden; JOHN F. HIMMEL, JR.,

Classification Case Management; BERNICE ALLEN,

Classification Supervisor; JOHN LOCKLEAR, Case

Management Specialist; LARRY SATTERFIELD, SUI,

Supervisor, in their individual and official

capacities,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge. (CA96-460-S)

Submitted: August 22, 1996 Decided: September 3, 1996

Before HALL, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Steven E. Jones, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying

relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed

the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district

court. Jones v. Smith, No. CA-96-460-S (D. Md. Mar. 1, 1996). 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
H. R. 1555 

One Hundred Eighteenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE SECOND SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and twenty-four 

An Act 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 2300 Sylvan 

Avenue in Modesto, California, as the ‘‘Corporal Michael D. Anderson Jr. Post 

Office Building’’. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. CORPORAL MICHAEL D. ANDERSON JR. POST OFFICE 

BUILDING. 

(a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States Postal 

Service located at 2300 Sylvan Avenue in Modesto, California, shall 

be known and designated as the ‘‘Corporal Michael D. Anderson 

Jr. Post Office Building’’. 

(b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 

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

referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference 

to the ‘‘Corporal Michael D. Anderson Jr. Post Office Building’’. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

DARREN L. GREEN, :

Plaintiff, :

vs. : CIVIL ACTION 05-00702-WS-B

SHERIFF GROVER SMITH,

et al, : 

Defendants. :

JUDGMENT

It is ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that Plaintiff’s

Motion for Injunction be denied.

DONE and ORDERED this 21st day of September, 2006.

 s/WILLIAM H. STEELE 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00702-WS-B Document 13 Filed 09/22/06 Page 1 of 1
#### Elizabeth Heinrich, et al., *v.*Nicholas Booker, et al.

Continuance of Action.

Tlie action of tlie trial court in refusing a continuance will not be disturbed except for an abuse of discretion.

Notes and Interest.

Where the makers of a note agree to pay ten per cent, interest from date until the note is due there is no promise to pay such rate after due and the holder can only recover six per cent, interest after maturity.

APPEAL PROM GRANT CIRCUIT COURT.

December 2, 1876.

Opinion by

Judge Elliott :

The first question that arises upon this record is whether the circuit court abused a sound discretion in overruling appellants’ motion for a continuance. It appears that the female appellant had made the same motion based on similar grounds, and had been successful at the term next preceding the trial of this suit, and we are of opinion that the lower court exercised a proper discretion in overruling the motion for a continuance.

The proof in this record is conclusive that female appellant acknowledged all the mortgages before the clerk, and that she did so without coercion by any one and in the absence of her husband. But it is insisted that her amended answer and cross-petition has not been replied to by any of the mortgagees except Booker and wife, and therefore should have been taken for confessed, and that its allegation makes out a good defense.

No reply was necessary to the amended answer of appellants. Said amendment only denied the right of appellees to recover because the mortgages had been obtained from her by duress, threats, etc. These allegations under the Code did not have to be replied to to put them in issue, and consequently judgment for the amount due the mortgagees would have been proper, but'we are of opinion that *812the court erred to appellants’ prejudice in adjudging to Cunningham, Collins and Davidson interest at tlie rate of ten per cent, after their debts fell due.

/. *J.*Landrum, *for appellants.*

*T. M. Collins, E. H.*Smith, *for*appellees.

The notes to Cunningham are due one and two years after date with ten per cent, interest from date. The note to' Collins was made payable about a year after date with ten per cent, interest, and the note to Davidson was made payable about two years after date with ten per cent, interest. The appellants only promised to pay ten per cent, interest till the claims were due, and then he promised to pay the whole amount of them, and as he did not contract to pay ten per cent, interest after the claims were due the appellees can only recover six per cent, after that time. Booker and wife are entitled to ten per cent., as the appellants promised them ten per cent, till their debt was paid.

For these errors alone the judgment is *reversed*and cause remanded for judgment in conformity to this opinion:
#### James McGonegal v. Hannah McGonegal.

*Divorce for drunkenness*— Costs *on affirmance in doubtful cases.*

Where the appellate court is in doubt what decree ought to have been made in a divorce case, a decree dismissing the bill will not be disturbed, especially where the evidence bearing most strongly against the defendant is of occurrences which took place several years before.

Costs and other allowance *denied*in such a case, though the wife was the successful party.

Appeal from "Wayne.

Submitted January 13.

Decided April 27.

*67Bill for divorce. Complainant appeals.

Affirmed.

*John W. A. S. Cullen*for complainant.

Habitual drunkenness is defined in the following cases: *Commonwealth v. Whitney*5 Gray 86: 11 Cush. 477; *Com.v. Boon*2 Gray 74; *Dean v. Dean*Penn. L. Journal Rep. 7; *Beatty v. Beatty*Wright O. 557; *Mahone v. Mahone*19 Cal. 627; *McKay v. McKay*18 B. Mon. 8; *Werner v. Kelly*9 La. Ann. 60; *Leake v. Linton*6 La. Ann. 262; *Threewits v. Threewits*4 Dessau. (S. C.) 560; *Kempf v. Kempf*34 Mo. 211; *Magahay v. Magahay*35 Mich. 210

*C. J. Reilly*and *Maybury & Conely*for defendant.

Cooley, J.

The bill in this case was filed to obtain a divorce from the bonds of matrimony on the ground of the habitual drunkenness of the defendant. The circuit judge was of opinion that the case was not made out, and dismissed the bill.

The ev dence in the record is not such that any court can feel entirely confident what decree ought to be made; but the circuit judge had better opportunities than we have to judge of the relative credibility of witnesses-; and we are not inclined under such circumstances to reverse his decree in a case, of doubt. And we are the less disposed in this case for the reason that the evidence which bears most strongly against defendant is of occurrences which took place several years ago.

The decree will therefore be affirmed, but without costs or other allowances.

The other Justices concurred.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1830 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1830

To prohibit a Federal firearms licensee from transferring a long gun to 
a person who the licensee knows or has reasonable cause to believe does 
  not reside in (or if the person is a corporation or other business 
 entity, does not maintain a place of business in) the State in which 
              the licensee's place of business is located.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 28, 2023

  Mr. Crow (for himself, Mr. Raskin, Ms. Norton, Mr. Neguse, and Ms. 
    Tlaib) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To prohibit a Federal firearms licensee from transferring a long gun to 
a person who the licensee knows or has reasonable cause to believe does 
  not reside in (or if the person is a corporation or other business 
 entity, does not maintain a place of business in) the State in which 
              the licensee's place of business is located.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Closing the Loophole on Interstate 
Firearm Sales Act''.

SEC. 2. EXTENSION TO LONG GUNS OF BAN ON LICENSEE TRANSFER OF FIREARM 
              TO OUT-OF-STATE PERSON.

    Section 922(b)(3) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by 
striking ``(A)'' and all that follows through ``(B)''.
                                 <all>
```
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1592 

To require the inspector general of the Department of Transportation to 

conduct an audit on the use of Federal funds by certain entities providing 

public transportation, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 14, 2023 

Ms. MALLIOTAKIS (for herself and Mr. GOTTHEIMER) introduced the following 

bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To require the inspector general of the Department of Transportation to conduct an audit on the use of Federal 

funds by certain entities providing public transportation, 

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, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Make Transportation 

5 Authorities Accountable and Transparent Act’’. 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 1592 IH

1 SEC. 2. INSPECTOR GENERAL AUDIT ON PUBLIC TRANS2 PORTATION CORONAVIRUS RELIEF SPEND3 ING. 

4 (a) INSPECTOR GENERAL AUDIT.— 

5 (1) AUDIT REQUIRED.—The inspector general 

6 of the Department of Transportation shall conduct 

7 an audit of funds provided to each specified transit 

8 agency under the applicable laws during the 5 fiscal 

9 years ending before the date of enactment of this 

10 Act. 

11 (2) CONTENTS OF AUDIT.—The audit con12 ducted under paragraph (1) shall include the 

13 amount of funds received under each of the applica14 ble laws and a description of how such funds were 

15 spent. 

16 (3) REPORT TO CONGRESS.—Not later than 

17 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the 

18 inspector general shall submit to Congress a report 

19 containing the results of the audit. 

20 (b) DEFINITIONS.—In this Act: 

21 (1) APPLICABLE LAWS.—The term ‘‘applicable 

22 laws’’ means the following: 

23 (A) Chapter 53 of title 49, United States 

24 Code. 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
3 

•HR 1592 IH

1 (B) The Coronavirus Preparedness and 

2 Response Supplemental Appropriations Act, 

3 2020. 

4 (C) The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Eco5 nomic Security Act. 

6 (D) The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 

7 2021. 

8 (E) The American Rescue Plan Act of 

9 2021. 

10 (2) PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION.—The term 

11 ‘‘public transportation’’ has the meaning given the 

12 term in section 5302 of title 49, United States Code. 

13 (3) SPECIFIED TRANSIT AGENCY.—The term 

14 ‘‘specified transit agency’’ means the 5 entities pro15 viding public transportation with the most unlinked 

16 passenger trips for calendar year 2019, as reported 

17 to the National Transit Database, that received Fed18 eral funds under any of the applicable laws. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 

Appeal of --

Turner Construction Company 

Under Contract No. N40080-13-C-0154 

APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT: 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: 

ASBCA No. 61838 

Douglas L. Patin, Esq. 

Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP 

Washington, DC 

Herman M. Braude, Esq. 

Braude Law Group, P .C. 

Rockville, MD 

Craig D. Jensen, Esq. 

Navy Chief Trial Attorney 

Robyn L. Hamady, Esq. 

Trial Attorney 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE 

This appeal has been settled. Pursuant to the request of Turner Construction 

Company, ASBCA No. 61838 is dismissed with prejudice. 

Dated: August 5, 2019 

Administra ive Judge 

Armed Services Board 

of Contract Appeals 

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Order of Dismissal of the Armed 

Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA No. 61838, Appeal of Turner 

Construction Company, rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. 

Dated: 

PAULLA K. GATES-LEWIS 

Recorder, Armed Services 

Board of Contract Appeals
! " #$%&'

#()*+**+)*	)$*$#	*

,


----------"----------

#

".
















$"
(/

#(/


01 .
/


!
 ".

1 .
/

(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)

#2. ,


 ,

,
3 
 !"" ,
  
#$

%&'
 ,

..2".
.2"
4"
 
0
"


,,"

" 4"
5 
064

07

.


46,
#

"

$..""2 " #$

%88 9,"

" ,.9: ,
206"
.
"
,#;%3


,
"

""
,#$%&''&9,

<
,,
6
22040
9

IT IS ORDERED,,
."/

+()+ ;	(*+,


="2
 "06.2"
"


.2".
(as reflected in 

the last judgment issued)  .,"is reduced to 

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

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS

+<
2",
7"
2
9002"",
> .

 ",00
.



IT IS SO ORDERED



/

Judge’s signature

+


/

(if different from order date) Printed name and title

 Southern District of Alabama

RICHARD LITTRELL 12-00233-004

12808-003

04-09-2014

Pro Se

✔

✔

March 2, 2015

United States District Judge

Defendant was afforded the two levels off at sentencing under the Holder memo. A further reduction is therefore not

warranted.

Callie V.S. Granade 

U.S. District Judge

Digitally signed by Callie V.S. Granade U.S. District Judge 

DN: cn=Callie V.S. Granade U.S. District Judge, o=U.S. 

Government, ou=Federal Judiciary, 

email=efile_granade@alsd.uscourts.gov, c=US 

Date: 2015.03.02 14:59:10 -06'00'

Case 1:12-cr-00233-CG-B Document 189 Filed 03/02/15 Page 1 of 1