alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 32.01




CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


RULE 13a-14(b) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934


AND 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350




In connection with the Annual Report of SWK Holdings Corporation (the “Registrant”) on Form 10-K for the annual period ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, John F. Nemelka, Interim Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant, certify, in accordance with Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to the best of my knowledge:




(1) The Report, to which this certification is attached as Exhibit 32.01, 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 Registrant.





Dated: March 29, 2011

/s/ John F. NemelkaJohn F. Nemelka

Interim Chief Executive Officer




A signed original of this written statement required by Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 has been provided to the Registrant and will be retained by the Registrant and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
null

2016-09-28

507.91534

eng - Argued: 2016-09-28. Docket number: 15-3489
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2008 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2008

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Department of 
    Health and Human Services, The Administration for Children and 
   Families, Low Income Home Energy Assistance for fiscal year 2024.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 29, 2023

Mr. Biggs (for himself, Mr. Rosendale, Mr. Gaetz, Mr. Good of Virginia, 
   Mr. Roy, and Mr. Crane) introduced the following bill; which was 
 referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to 
   the Committee on Education and the Workforce, for a period to be 
subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration 
  of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee 
                               concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Department of 
    Health and Human Services, The Administration for Children and 
   Families, Low Income Home Energy Assistance for fiscal year 2024.

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

SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH 
              AND HUMAN SERVICES, THE ADMINISTRATION FOR CHILDREN AND 
              FAMILIES, LOW INCOME HOME ENERGY ASSISTANCE FOR FISCAL 
              YEAR 2024.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, amounts authorized 
to be appropriated or otherwise available for Department of Health and 
Human Services, The Administration for Children and Families, Low 
Income Home Energy Assistance for fiscal year 2024 may not exceed 
$3,690,304,000.
                                 <all>
```
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

GORDON ORR, :

Plaintiff, :

:

v. : CIVIL ACTION 14-00541-KD-B

:

BATTLE HOUSE HOTEL, :

Defendant. :

ORDER

After due and proper consideration of the issues raised, and there having been no 

objections filed, the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge made under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(b)(l)(B) and dated January 14, 2015, is ADOPTED as the opinion of this Court. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to 

Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to obey the Court’s order and for 

failure to prosecute, as no other lesser sanction will suffice.

DONE and ORDERED this the 4th day of February 2015.

/s/ Kristi K. DuBose

KRISTI K. DuBOSE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 1:14-cv-00541-KD-B Document 5 Filed 02/04/15 Page 1 of 1
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16

- 40478 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
OZIEL LERMA

- CRUZ , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 1:13

- CR

- 357

- 1

Before DENNIS, PRADO, and OWEN , Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Oziel Lerma

- Cruz
has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Lerma

- Cruz h a s not filed a response . We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED December 20 , 2016 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 16-40478 Document: 00513804611 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/20/2016No. 16

- 40478

2 issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw
is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the
APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2. Case: 16-40478 Document: 00513804611 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/20/2016
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                         208,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                6,498,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   363,000
<INVENTORY>                                  2,933,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            10,539,000
<PP&E>                                       5,654,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               4,332,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              13,624,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        9,363,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                  5,000,000
<COMMON>                                    14,915,000
<OTHER-SE>                                (15,890,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                13,624,000
<SALES>                                      7,270,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             7,270,000
<CGS>                                      (5,203,000)
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              (7,451,000)
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                70,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             108,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (289,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (289,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (289,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.07)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.07)
        

</TABLE>
USGv6 Test Selection Tables 

IPv6 IPsec SHA-512 Requirements (IPsec, IKEv2)

F11-Conformance: Security Requirements R1v1.0

Applicable Profile: NIST SP 500-267B Revision 1 USGv6 Profile – November 2020.

Test Specification Id: 

• [IPsec Conformance] IPv6 Ready Test Specification IPsec and IKEv2, [editor: IPv6 Ready Logo ]. 

IPsec-SHA-512 Capability

Reference Test Specification Id Test Number Device 

Type

[RFC 8247] IPsec-Conformance

IPsec.Conf.1.1.1.3: IKE_SA_INIT Cryptographic Algorithm 

Negotiation

(F) SHA512

End-Node

[RFC 8221] IPsec-Conformance

IPsec.Conf.1.1.2.5: IKE_AUTH Cryptographic Algorithm 

Negotiation

(G) SHA512

End-Node

[RFC 8247] IPsec-Conformance

IPsec.Conf.1.2.1.3: IKE_SA_INIT Cryptographic Algorithm 

Negotiation

(F) SHA512

End-Node

[RFC 8221] IPsec-Conformance

IPsec.Conf.1.2.2.5: IKE_AUTH Cryptographic Algorithm 

Negotiation

(G) SHA512

End-Node

[RFC 8221] IPsec-Conformance IPsec.Conf.4.1.1. End-Node ESP Algorithms (Transport Mode)

(C) AES256 / SHA512 End-Node

[RFC 8221] IPsec-Conformance IPsec.Conf.4.1.2. End-Node ESP Algorithms (Tunnel Mode)

(C) AES256 / SHA512 End-Node

References: 

• [RFC8221] Wouters, P., Migault, D., Mattsson, J., Nir, Y., and T. Kivinen, "Cryptographic Algorithm 

Implementation Requirements and Usage Guidance for Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP) and 

Authentication Header (AH)", RFC 8221, DOI 10.17487/RFC8221, October 2017, https://www.rfceditor.org/info/rfc8221 .

• [RFC8247] Nir, Y., Kivinen, T., Wouters, P., and D. Migault, "Algorithm Implementation Requirements 

and Usage Guidance for the Internet Key Exchange Protocol Version 2 (IKEv2)", RFC 8247, DOI 

10.17487/RFC8247, September 2017. Online at: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8247

The objective of this test selection sheet is to provide a reference for available test specifications that identifies tests 

applicable to the USGv6 Profile.
Order entered December 16 , 2013

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 13
- 00450
- CR ANTONIO PATTERSON, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 4

Dallas County, Texas Trial C ourt Cause No. F10
- 59304
- K



### O RDER
The Court REINSTATE S the appeal. On September 12, 2013, we ordered the trial court to make fi ndings regarding wh y the reporter’s record has not been filed. We ADOPT the findings that: (1) appellant desires to pursue th e appeal; (2) appellant is indigent and entitled to proceed without payment for the record; (3) appellant’s attorney requested preparation of the record on April 15, 2013; and (4) Janice Garrett is the court reporter who recorded the proceedings. This appe al has been pending since April 2, 2013. The reporter’s record was due on July 24, 2013 and the appeal has been abated since September 12, 2013 for findings regarding the reporter’s record. Therefore, we DO NOT ADOPT the finding that Ms. Garrett requires an additional sixty days to file the record in this appeal.We ORDER Janice Garrett, official court reporter of the Criminal District Court No. 4,

to file the reporter’s record by JANUARY 31, 2014 . We further order that Janice Garrett not sit

as a court r eporter until she files the record in this appeal.
We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order, by electronic transmission, to the Honorable Dominique Collins, Presiding Judge, Criminal District Court No. 4; Janice Garrett, official court reporter, Cr iminal District Court No. 4; the Dallas County Auditor; and to counsel for all parties.

/s/ LANA MYERS JUSTICE
Parra guirre 

, J. 

order declining to grant the requested relief. The parties' request to stay 

the briefing schedule in this matter is denied as moot. 

It is so ORDERED. 

Pickering 

cc: Hon. Brent T. Adams, District Judge 

David E. Adkins 

McCarthy & Holthus, LLP/Las Vegas 

Washoe District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 2 

(0) (947A e
#### James D. Blackburn, Respondent, v Peter Del Prince, Defendant, and Allan Lent, Appellant.

[827 NYS2d 388]

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Monroe County *1270(Harold L. Galloway, J.), entered April 5, 2006. The order granted plaintiffs motion for summary judgment against defendant Allan Lent and denied the cross motion of defendant Allan Lent for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against him and for leave to serve an amended answer.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously reversed on the law without costs, the motion is denied, the cross motion is granted in part and the complaint is dismissed.

Memorandum: Plaintiff and defendants, Peter Del Prince and Allan Lent, entered into an agreement pursuant to which plaintiff would loan a sum of money to Del Prince and Lent, acting on behalf of a proposed company. Plaintiff, without Lent’s knowledge, subsequently issued a check payable only to the order of Del Prince. The proposed company was never formed and Del Prince allegedly retained the funds received from plaintiff. Plaintiff commenced the instant action alleging breach of contract and moved for summary judgment against Lent on the ground that Lent is jointly and severally liable for repayment of the loan under the guarantee provision of the parties’ agreement. Lent cross-moved for, inter alia, summary judgment dismissing the complaint against him. We conclude that Supreme Court erred in granting plaintiffs motion and in denying that part of Lent’s cross motion for summary judgment.

The terms of the agreement are unambiguous; pursuant to the agreement, plaintiff was required to loan the funds to both defendants acting on behalf of the proposed company *(see generally Greenfield v Philles Records,*98 NY2d 562, 569-570 [2002]). Inasmuch as plaintiff failed to comply with the terms of the agreement, we conclude that plaintiff failed to establish his entitlement to judgment, and we further conclude that Lent established his entitlement to judgment and plaintiff failed to raise an issue of fact sufficient to defeat the cross motion *(see generally Zuckerman v City of New York,*49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]). We therefore grant that part of the cross motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the complaint against Lent. Present—Scudder, PJ., Hurlbutt, Gorski and Pine, JJ.
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 First  Litchfield  Financial
Corporation,  (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, Carroll A. Pereira,  Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  ss. 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 result of operations of
          the Company.



/s/
   -----------------------
  Carroll A. Pereira
  Chief Financial Officer

November 13, 2002
(Principal Accounting Officer)
### IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10

- 12

- 00039

- CV

IN RE MATTHEW C. SHO RT

Original Proceeding

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Based on our review of the substance of relator’s petition for writ of mandamus

and the fact that relator has not filed a record in this matter, we conclude that relator

has not demonstrated himself entitled to the relief sought. See Walker v. Packer , 827

S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding); In re Blakeney , 254 S.W.3d 659, 661 (Tex.

App.

— Texarkana 2008, orig. proceeding) (stating that the relator bears the burden of

providing this Court with a sufficient record to establish his right to man damus relief);

see also In re Toyota Motor Corp. , No. 10

- 11

- 00050

- CV, 2011 Tex. App. LEXIS 9185, at *4

(Tex. App.

— Waco Nov. 16, 2011, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) (“Absent extraordinaryIn re Short Page 2

circumstances, mandamus ordinarily will not issue unless relator lacks an adequate

remedy by appeal.”). Accordingly, relator’s petition for writ of mandamus is denied. 1

AL SCOGGINS Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Davis, and Justice Scoggins Denied Opinion delivered and filed February 8, 2012 [OT06]

1 Relator’s mandamus petition has numerous procedural deficiencies. Relator’s petition lacks several of the requirements outlined in Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.3. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 52.3. In particular, relator failed to include a statement of the case, and he did not disclose “the name of the judge, the designation of the court in which the judge was sitting, and the county in which the court is located . . . .” See id. at R. 52.3(d)(1)

- (2). In addition, relator’s petition is not accompanied by “a properly authenticated transcript of any relevant testimony from any underlying proceeding” or “a certified or sworn copy of every document that is material to relator’s claim for relief and that was filed in the underlying proceeding.” See id. at R. 52.7(a)(1)

- (2). However, because of our disposition and to expedite this matter, we will implement Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 2 to suspend these rules. See id. at R. 2.
#### Albert R. Sunick, Respondent, v John M. Wadsworth, Appellant.

[971 NYS2d 913]

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Frederick J. Marshall, J.), entered December 17, 2012. The order denied the motion of defendant to change the place of the trial from Erie County to Chautauqua County.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: The parties were involved in an automobile/ motorcycle accident in Chautauqua County, and plaintiff thereafter commenced this negligence action in Erie County. Defendant sought a change of venue from Erie County to Chautauqua County “upon the grounds that the convenience of material witnesses and the ends of justice will be promoted by the change.” Supreme Court denied the motion, and we affirm. The standard of review for a change of venue is not whether the court abused its discretion but, rather, it is “whether such discretion was exercised in a provident manner” *(O’Brien v Vassar Bros. Hosp.,*207 AD2d 169, 172 [1995]). Under the circumstances presented here, we cannot conclude that the court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying the motion to change venue. In our view, defendant failed to meet his burden of establishing that nonparty witnesses would in fact be inconvenienced in absence of a change of venue *(see Huttenlocker v White,*298 AD2d 960, 960 [2002]; *O’Brien,*207 AD2d at 173). Present — Scudder, EJ., Fahey, Sconiers and Valentino, JJ.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1982 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1982

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Department of 
Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health Eunice Kennedy 
 Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development for 
                           fiscal year 2024.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 29, 2023

Mr. Biggs (for himself, Mr. Rosendale, Mr. Gaetz, Mr. Good of Virginia, 
   Mr. Roy, and Mr. Crane) introduced the following bill; which was 
            referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Department of 
Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health Eunice Kennedy 
 Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development for 
                           fiscal year 2024.

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

SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH 
              AND HUMAN SERVICES, NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH EUNICE 
              KENNEDY SHRIVER NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF CHILD HEALTH AND 
              HUMAN DEVELOPMENT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, amounts authorized 
to be appropriated or otherwise available for Department of Health and 
Human Services, National Institutes of Health Eunice Kennedy Shriver 
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development for fiscal 
year 2024 may not exceed $1,506,458,000.
                                 <all>
```
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

WADDIE JACKSON, :

Plaintiff, :

vs. : CA 14-0512-CB-C

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, :

Acting Commissioner of Social Security,

:

Defendant.

ORDER

After due and proper consideration of all portions of all issues raised, and 

there having been no objections filed, the recommendation of the Magistrate 

Judge made under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(B) and dated June 25, 2015 is ADOPTED

as the opinion of this Court.

DONE this 17th day of JULY , 2015.

 s/Charles R. Butler, Jr. 

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 1:14-cv-00512-CB-C Document 24 Filed 07/17/15 Page 1 of 1
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

BREON T. DAVIS,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D17-2011

[November 30, 2017]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for 

the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Paul L. Backman, 

Judge; L.T. Case Nos. 09-003309CF10B, 09-005099CF10A and 11-

008711 CF10A.

Breon T. Davis, DeFuniak Springs, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

LEVINE, CONNER, and KUNTZ, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Douglas Warmuth, Appellant.

[825 NYS2d 382]

Application by the appellant for a writ of error coram nobis to vacate, on the ground of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, a decision and order of this Court dated November 2, 1992 *(People v Warmuth,*187 AD2d 473 [1992]), affirming a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, rendered April 28, 1988.

*895Ordered that the application is denied.

The appellant has failed to establish that he was denied the effective assistance of appellate counsel *(see Jones v Barnes,*463 US 745 [1983]; *People v Stultz,*2 NY3d 277 [2004]). Miller, J.P., Ritter, Santucci and Krausman, JJ, concur.
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

** **

**DETERMINE****, INC.**

** **

**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 on Form 10-K/A of Determine, Inc. (the “Company”) for the year ended March 31, 2018, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Patrick Stakenas, President and Chief Executive 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 the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company. |
|--------|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

Date: July 30, 2018

 

| /S/ PATRICK STAKENAS                  |   |
|---------------------------------------|--------|
| Patrick Stakenas                      |   |
| President and Chief Executive Officer |   |