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 Annual Report of Genesis Technology Group, Inc. on
Form 10-KSB for the period ending September 30, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Gary Wolfson,
Chief Executive 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 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.



January 13, 2004


/S/    Gary Wolfson
Gary Wolfson,
Chief Executive Officer
##### 



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
 PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY
ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and2.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
  /s/ NIKOLAY TOKAREVNikolay Tokarev
Vice President, Interim Chief
Financial Officer and Treasurer
EX-10.2.10



 Exhibit 10.2.10 

AMENDMENT NUMBER TWO TO 

EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT 
 This
Amendment Number Two to Employment Agreement (the “Amendment”) between Gogo LLC (f/k/a Aircell LLC) (the “Company”) and Anand Chari (the “Executive”) is dated as of April 1, 2015. 

WHEREAS, the Company and Executive have entered into an Employment Agreement dated as of July 12, 2006 (as amended by Amendment
Number One thereto dated as of December 22, 2008, the “Agreement”); and 
 WHEREAS, the Company and the Executive
desire to amend the Agreement to revise certain provisions related to termination benefits and governing law. 
 NOW, THEREFORE, in
consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein and pursuant to Section 17 of the Agreement, the parties agree as follows: 
 1.
Section 9(a) of the Agreement is hereby amended by deleting the phrase “nine (9) months” in clause (iii) of the first sentence thereof and replacing it with the phrase ‘one (1) year”. 

2. Section 13 of the Agreement is hereby amended by deleting the word “Colorado” in two places and replacing it with the word
“Illinois”. 
 3. Except as amended by this Amendment, the Agreement remains in full force and effect. 







 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this instrument to be executed by its duly
authorized officer and the Executive has executed this instrument as of this 16th day of April, 2015. 
  

			
	Gogo LLC:
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Marguerite M. Elias

		 	Marguerite M. Elias
	
	Executive:
		
		 	 /s/ Anand Chari

		 	Anand Chari
FILED

July 9, 1999

Cecil Crowson, Jr.

Appellate Court Clerk

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT JACKSON

RODNEY BUFFORD, )

)

Petitioner, ) C. C. A. NO. 02C01-9904-CC-00131

)

 vs. ) LAUDERDALE COUNTY

)

STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) No. 5227

)

Respondent. )

O R D E R

This matter is before the Court upon motion of the state to affirm the

judgment of the trial court pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. 

This case represents an appeal from the trial court’s dismissal of the petitioner’s petition

for a writ of habeas corpus. On January 23, 1997, the petitioner pled guilty to

aggravated rape and received a 13 1⁄2 year sentence. Apparently, no appeal was taken. 

In his present petition, the petitioner claims his guilty plea was involuntarily entered. 

The trial court dismissed the petition, finding that this is not an appropriate matter for

consideration in a habeas corpus proceeding. The trial court also noted that petitioner

would not be entitled to post-conviction relief in this instance because the statute of

limitation had expired and because the petition was filed in the wrong county.

On appeal, the petitioner claims the trial court erred in treating his petition

as one seeking post-conviction relief. If treated as a petition for post-conviction relief,

the petition would clearly be time barred. T.C.A. § 40-30-202. However, even

considering this a petition for writ of habeas corpus, the petitioner is still entitled to no

relief.

Habeas corpus relief is available in Tennessee only when “it

appears upon the face of the judgment or the record of the

proceedings upon which the judgment is rendered” that a

convicting court was without jurisdiction or authority to

sentence a defendant, or that a defendant’s sentence of

imprisonment or other restraint has expired.
2

Archer v. State, 851 S.W.2d 157, 164 (Tenn. 1993) (emphasis added). The judgment

clearly reflects that the convicting court had jurisdiction over this petitioner and that the

petitioner’s sentence has not expired. Since the petitioner’s allegation in this case

would necessarily involve investigation beyond the face of the judgment or record, the

trial court properly denied habeas corpus relief. See id. Even if the petitioner’s claim

has merit, such claim renders the judgment voidable, not void, and it may not be

collaterally attacked in a suit for habeas corpus relief. Passarella v. State, 891 S.W.2d

619, 627 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994). Moreover, when a petition for a writ of habeas

corpus fails to state a cognizable claim, the trial court may summarily dismiss the

petition. See Id.

Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, it is hereby ORDERED that the

state’s motion is granted and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed in accordance

with Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. Since the record reflects the

petitioner is indigent, costs of this proceeding shall be taxed to the state.

____________________________

JOE G. RILEY, JUDGE

____________________________

 DAVID G. HAYES, JUDGE

____________________________

JOHN EVERETT WILLIAMS, JUDGE
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1945 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1945

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Department of 
  Labor, Office of Disability Employment Policy 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 Education and the Workforce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Department of 
  Labor, Office of Disability Employment Policy 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 LABOR, 
              OFFICE OF DISABILITY EMPLOYMENT POLICY FOR FISCAL YEAR 
              2024.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, amounts authorized 
to be appropriated or otherwise available for Department of Labor, 
Office of Disability Employment Policy for fiscal year 2024 may not 
exceed $38,203,000.
                                 <all>
```
#### In the Matter of Elmer Rivera, Petitioner, v Brian Fischer, as Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision, Respondent.

[973 NYS2d 473]

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of respondent which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

Petitioner, a prison inmate, commenced this proceeding challenging a prison disciplinary determination rendered upon two misbehavior reports.* The first report charged him with drug *1278possession, smuggling and violating facility visitation procedures and the second report charged him with drug possession, smuggling, misuse of state property and committing an unhygienic act. Following a tier III disciplinary hearing, petitioner was found guilty as charged. On administrative appeal, the determination was modified by dismissing one charge of drug possession as duplicative, but otherwise affirmed.

Initially, respondent concedes that the Hearing Officer improperly denied petitioner’s request for witnesses who could have provided testimony relevant to the charge of violating facility visitation procedures. Upon review of the record, we agree and annul the determination to that extent. Inasmuch as a loss of good time was not recommended and petitioner has served the penalty imposed, remittal for a redetermination of the penalty is unnecessary *(see Matter of Nieves v Venettozzi,*102 AD3d 1027, 1027 [2013], *lv denied*21 NY3d 852 [2013]).

Turning to petitioner’s claims regarding the remaining charges, to the extent he asserts that he was denied adequate employee assistance, such assertion is unavailing inasmuch as he has failed to demonstrate that his defense was prejudiced by the alleged deficiencies *(see Matter of Smith v Selsky,*294 AD2d 629, 630 [2002]). Finally, we find nothing in the record to indicate that the Hearing Officer was biased or that the determination flowed from any bias *(see Matter of Tinker v Bezio,*106 AD3d 1356, 1357 [2013]; *Matter of Fisher v Fischer,*105 AD3d 1286, 1286 [2013]).

Rose, J.P., Stein, McCarthy and Garry, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is modified, without costs, by annulling so much thereof as found petitioner guilty of violating facility visitation procedures; petition granted to that extent and respondent is directed to expunge all references to this charge from petitioner’s institutional record; and, as so modified, confirmed.

*

 Although Supreme Court properly transferred the proceeding inasmuch as petitioner raised the issue of substantial evidence in his petition, that issue *1278has been abandoned because petitioner failed to raise it in his brief (see *Matter of Lineberger v Bezio,*89 AD3d 1293, 1294 [2011], *appeal dismissed*19 NY3d 847 [2012]).
11833.

#### Crider *v.*Haygood.

Decided February 15, 1921.

Motion for new trial; from Fulton superior court — Judge Pendleton. June 16, 1920.

*W. A.*James, for plaintiff in error. *Walter A. 8ims,*contra.

Hill, J.

Where counsel for the parties could not agree on a brief of the evidence, and the trial judge stated that “he would, not attempt to settle any differences or disputes between counsel, for the reason that he did not remember the evidence, the case having been tried fifteen months before,” there was no error in dismissing the motion for a new trial, the “movant not presenting for approval and filing a correct brief of the evidence.” *Williams*v. *Johnson,*94 *Ga.*722 (19 S. E. 888); *Lucas*v. *Cordele Guano Co.,*106 *Ga.*200 (32 S. E. 120) ; *Baldwin County*v. *Crawford,*101 *Ga.*185 (28 S. E. 621).

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Jenkins, P. J., and Stephens, J., concur.*
##### 



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 Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a)
and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), each of
the undersigned officers of TeraForce Technology Corporation (the Company),
does hereby certify, to such officers knowledge, that: The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2004 (the
Form 10-Q) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the
information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as
of, and for, the periods presented in the Form 10-Q. August 6, 2004
    /s/ Herman M. FrietschHerman M. FrietschChief Executive Officer August 6, 2004
    /s/ Robert P. CappsRobert P. CappsChief Financial Officer The foregoing certification is being furnished as an exhibit to the Form 10-Q
pursuant to Item 601(b)(32) of Regulation S-K and Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63
of Title 18, United States Code) and, accordingly, is not being filed as part
of the Form 10-Q for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended, and is not incorporated by reference into any filings of the
Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any
general incorporation language in such filing.
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 Composite Technology Corporation Quarterly Report on Form
10-QSB for the quarter  ended March 31,  2004 as filed with the  Securities  and
Exchange  Commission  on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I, Benton H Wilcoxon,
Chief  Executive  Officer and acting  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, 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, as amended, and

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

A signed  original of this written  statement  required by Section 906,  another
document authenticating,  acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the  electronic  version of this written  statement
required by Section 906, has been provided to Composite  Technology  Corporation
and will be retained by Composite  Technology  Corporation  and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.


/s/ Benton H Wilcoxon
------------------------
Benton H Wilcoxon
Chief Executive Officer & Acting Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Executive & Financial Officer)
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 185 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 185

To terminate the requirement imposed by the Director of the Centers for 
 Disease Control and Prevention for proof of COVID-19 vaccination for 
               foreign travelers, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 9, 2023

   Mr. Massie (for himself, Mrs. Miller of Illinois, Mr. Norman, Mr. 
Perry, and Mr. Posey) introduced the following bill; which was referred 
                to the Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To terminate the requirement imposed by the Director of the Centers for 
 Disease Control and Prevention for proof of COVID-19 vaccination for 
               foreign travelers, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. TERMINATING CDC REQUIREMENT FOR PROOF OF COVID-19 
              VACCINATION FOR FOREIGN TRAVELERS.

    (a) In General.--Beginning on the date of the enactment of this 
Act, the air travel vaccination requirement for foreign travelers shall 
have no force or effect.
    (b) Prohibition on Funding.--Beginning on the date of the enactment 
of this Act, no Federal funds may be used to administer, implement, or 
enforce the air travel vaccination requirement for foreign travelers.
    (c) Air Travel Vaccination Requirement for Foreign Travelers.--In 
this Act, the term ``air travel vaccination requirement for foreign 
travelers'' refers to the requirement specified in--
            (1) the order issued by the Director of the Centers for 
        Disease Control and Prevention entitled ``Amended Order 
        Implementing Presidential Proclamation on Advancing the Safe 
        Resumption of Global Travel During the COVID-19 Pandemic'' and 
        published in the Federal Register on April 7, 2022 (87 Fed. 
        Reg. 20405 et seq.), for proof of COVID-19 vaccination for air 
        travelers who are covered individuals (as defined in such 
        order); or
            (2) any successor or subsequent order of the Centers for 
        Disease Control and Prevention requiring foreign persons 
        traveling by air to show proof of COVID-19 vaccination as a 
        condition on entering the United States.
                                 <all>
```
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

MIDDLE DISTRICT 

KEITH T. DOUGHERTY AND LARRY 

RUNK II, 

 Petitioners 

 v. 

ERIE INSURANCE COMPANY, 

 Respondent 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 968 MAL 2015 

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court 

ORDER 

PER CURIAM 

AND NOW, this 23rd day of March, 2016, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1908 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1908

 To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Joint Items, 
               Capitol Power Plant 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 Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Joint Items, 
               Capitol Power Plant 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 JOINT ITEMS, CAPITOL 
              POWER PLANT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, amounts authorized 
to be appropriated or otherwise available for Joint Items, Capitol 
Power Plant for fiscal year 2024 may not exceed $114,050,000.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 32.01

     CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE PUBLIC COMPANY
        ACCOUNTING REFORM AND INVESTOR PROTECTION ACT OF 2002
                    (18 U.S.C.   1350, AS ADOPTED)

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Public Company Accounting Reform and
Investor Protection Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.   1350, as adopted, the
"Sarbanes-Oxley Act"), Frederick J. Slack, the Chief Executive
Officer of 3Si Holdings, Inc. (the "Company") hereby certifies that,
to the best of his knowledge:

1.  The Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended
March 31, 2005, to which this Certification is attached as Exhibit
32.01 (the "Periodic Report"), fully complies with the requirements
of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended; and

2.  The information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents,
in all material respects, the financial condition of the Company at
the end of the period covered by the Periodic Report and results of
operations of the Company for the period covered by the Periodic
Report.

Dated: May 21, 2005

/s/ Frederick J. Slack
Frederick J. Slack
Chief Executive Officer

Note: This certification accompanies the Periodic Report pursuant to
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and shall not be deemed "filed" by
the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, as amended.
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 Global Diversified Industries, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending April 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Adam Debard, Principal Accounting Officer of the Company, 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 and 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/ Adam Debard


Adam Debard


Principal Accounting Officer





August 13, 2009
Exhibit
        32.2
 
 CERTIFICATION
        PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTIONS 1350
 AS
        ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF
 THE
        SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 In
        connection with the No Borders, Inc. (the "Company") Annual Report on Form
        10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities
        and
        Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Robert M. Rosenfeld,
        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, as amended, and
 
 (2)
        The
        information contained in the Report fairly presents in all material respects
        the
        financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
  *January
        9, 2007*
 /s/ Robert
                M. RosenfeldRobert M. Rosenfeld
                Chief
                  Financial Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2060 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2060

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Department of 
 Treasury, Internal Revenue Service, Enforcement 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 Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Department of 
 Treasury, Internal Revenue Service, Enforcement 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 
              TREASURY, INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, ENFORCEMENT FOR 
              FISCAL YEAR 2024.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, amounts authorized 
to be appropriated or otherwise available for Department of Treasury, 
Internal Revenue Service, Enforcement for fiscal year 2024 may not 
exceed $4,860,000,000.
                                 <all>
```