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

                                  CERTIFICATION
                             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 Edentify, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-KSB/A for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Terrence DeFranco, 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: August 4, 2006



                                        /s/ Terrence DeFranco
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Terrence DeFranco
                                        Chief Executive Officer


                                       35
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2248 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2248

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for US Department 
 of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Salaries and Expenses 
                         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 Agriculture

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for US Department 
 of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Salaries and Expenses 
                         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 US DEPARTMENT OF 
              AGRICULTURE, AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE, SALARIES AND 
              EXPENSES FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024.

     Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, amounts authorized 
to be appropriated or otherwise available for US Department of 
Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Salaries and Expenses for 
fiscal year 2024 may not exceed $1,303,266,000.
                                 <all>
```
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Lashawn J. Scott, Appellant.

[974 NYS2d 813]

Appeal from an order of the Monroe County Court (Frank E Geraci, Jr., J.), entered July 25, 2012. The order determined that defendant is a level three risk pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act.

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

Memorandum: On a prior appeal, we reversed an order determining that defendant was a level three risk under the Sex Offender Registration Act ([SORA] Correction Law § 168 *et seq.),*and we remitted the matter to County Court for further *1275proceedings on the ground that the People had “failed to provide defendant with the requisite 10-day notice that they intended to seek a determination different from that recommended by the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders” *(People v Scott,*96 AD3d 1430, 1430 [2012]; *see*§ 168-n [3]). Defendant now appeals from an order that, following a new hearing, again classified him as a level three risk, and he contends that the court erred in denying his request for a downward departure from his presumptive risk level. We reject that contention.

It is well settled that the burden is on the People “to establish defendant’s risk level under SORA by clear and convincing evidence” *(People v Brown,*302 AD2d 919, 920 [2003]; *see*Correction Law § 168-n [3]; *People v Wroten,*286 AD2d 189, 199 [2001], *lv denied*97 NY2d 610 [2002]). Once that presumptive risk level is established, however, either the People or the defendant may seek a departure from that presumptive risk level. “A departure from the presumptive risk level is warranted where ‘there exists an aggravating or mitigating factor of a kind or to a degree, not otherwise adequately taken into account by the guidelines’ (Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary at 4 [1997 ed]). There must exist clear and convincing evidence of the existence of special circumstance[s] to warrant an upward or downward departure” *(People v Guarnan,*8 AD3d 545, 545 [2004]; *see People v Perrah,*99 AD3d 1257, 1257 [2012], *lv denied*20 NY3d 854 [2012]; *cf. People v Wyatt,*89 AD3d 112, 122-128 [2011], *lv denied*18 NY3d 803 [2012]). In our view, “defendant failed to establish his entitlement to a downward departure from the presumptive risk level inasmuch as he failed to present the requisite clear and convincing evidence of the existence of special circumstances warranting a downward departure” *(People v Marks,*31 AD3d 1142, 1143 [2006], *lv denied*7 NY3d 715 [2006]; *see People v Hamelinck,*23 AD3d 1060, 1060 [2005]). Present — Scudder, EJ., Centra, Garni, Lindley and Sconiers, JJ.
**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
      condition with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Polydex Pharmaceuticals
      Limited (the “Company”) for the fiscal quarter ended October 31, 2005 as filed
      with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),
      I, Sharon L. Wardlaw, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C. 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.








By /s/
      Sharon L. Wardlaw


Sharon
      L.
      Wardlaw,


Chief
      Financial Officer


December
      14, 2005





This
      certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for
      purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the
      “Exchange Act”). This certification shall not be deemed to be incorporated by
      reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or
      the
      Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates
      it
      by reference.





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by section 906 has been provided
      to
      the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities
      and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
SUBSCRIPTION LETTER


 


To the Board of Directors:


Logical Choice Corporation


 


October 1, 2014


 


For $0.0001 and other
good and valuable consideration, the undersigned hereby subscribes for the number of shares of the common stock, $0.0001
par value per share, of Logical Choice Corporation (the “Corporation”) set forth below (the “Shares”),
which Shares upon issuance thereof, will be validly issued, fully paid and non-assessable shares of common stock of the Corporation.


 


We hereby represent and warrant to you as follows:


 


We understand that the Shares offered hereby
have not been registered under the Securities Act of 1933 in reliance upon exemptions form registration provided by Section 4(2).


 


We understand the risks and possible financial
hazards and lack of liquidity of an investment in the Corporation, and believe that we can easily benefit from an investment
in the Corporation in view of our overall investment objectives and portfolio structure.


 


We are aware that no
United States, federal or state agency has made any finding or determination as to the fairness for the investment in, nor
any recommendation or endorsement of the Shares.


 


We are aware that no public market exists for
the Shares and that it may not be possible to liquidate this investment readily, if at all in the case of an emergency or for any
other reason.


 


We hereby further agree that this Subscription
Letter will not be binding upon the Corporation until the Corporation has accepted it. The Corporation reserves the right to reject
any subscription in whole or in part.


 


Number of Shares Subscribed
for:                              Shares
at $0.0001 par value per share.


 


	By:		 
	Name:		 
	Title:
#### Leon Dozier, Respondent, v Anna Lee et al., Appellants.

[973 NYS2d 653]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the *671defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Winslow, J.), entered November 30, 2012, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendants failed to meet their prima facie burden of demonstrating that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) as a result of the subject accident *(see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys.,*98 NY2d 345, 350 [2002]; *Gaddy v Eyler,*79 NY2d 955, 956-957 [1992]). The defendants’ motion papers failed to adequately address the plaintiffs claim, clearly set forth in the bill of particulars, that he sustained a medically determined injury or impairment of a nonpermanent nature which prevented him from performing substantially all of the material acts which constituted his usual and customary daily activities for not less than 90 days during the 180 days immediately following the subject accident *(see Karpinos v Cora,*89 AD3d 994, 995 [2011]). Since the defendants failed to meet their prima facie burden, it is unnecessary to determine whether the papers submitted by the plaintiff in opposition were sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact *(see generally Stukas v Streiter,*83 AD3d 18, 24 [2011]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). Dillon, J.P., Leventhal, Chambers and Miller, JJ., concur.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Frank Crisler, Jr., Appellant.

(Appeal No. 1.)

[825 NYS2d 652]

Motion for writ of error coram nobis denied. Present—Scudder, EJ., Hurlbutt, Gorski and Martoche, JJ.
**EXHIBIT 10.16**

 

ANDREW CORPORATION

EXECUTIVE SEVERANCE BENEFIT PLAN AGREEMENT

 

THIS AGREEMENT, made this 5th day of July, 2004, by and between AndrewCorporation (the “Company”) and Roger Manka (the “Executive”),

 

WITNESSETH:

 

WHEREAS, the Company maintains the Andrew Corporation ExecutiveSeverance Benefit Plan, as amended and restated effective May 14, 2004 (the“Plan”); and

 

WHEREAS, the Executive has been designated as an eligible participantin the Plan;

 

NOW, THEREFORE, the Executive and Company hereby agree as follows:

 

1.                                       PlanBenefits.  The Executive has beendesignated as a TIER II Participant in the Plan and shall be eligible solelyfor the benefits set forth therein applicable to TIER II Participants.  The receipt of such benefits shall besubject to all of the terms and conditions set forth in the Plan, including,but not limited to, terms related to the amount, time and form ofbenefits.  By execution of thisAgreement, the Executive agrees to be bound by the provisions of the Plan, asamended and restated effective May 14, 2004, and as may be subsequentlyamended.

 

2.                                       Arbitration.  The Executive acknowledges thatSection 7.2 of the Plan contains an arbitration provision, and byexecution of this Agreement agrees to be bound by the terms of such arbitrationprovision.

 

3.                                       PlanNot Contract of Employment.  ThePlan does not constitute a contract of employment and nothing in the Plan shallbe construed to give the Executive the right to be retained by the Company orto any benefits not specifically provided by the Plan.

 

4.                                       PlanSupercedes Prior Change in Control Severance Agreements.  The Executive acknowledges and agrees thatthe benefits and terms set forth in the May 14, 2004 restatement of the Plan,as applicable to the Participant based on the Tier designated in paragraph 1above, are a replacement for and in lieu of any benefits to which the Executivemay have been entitled under the Plan prior to its restatement or under anyother agreement with the Company relating to Change in Control severancebenefits.  The Executive furtheracknowledges such benefits and terms may be subsequently amended pursuant toSection 7.1 of the Plan.

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Agreement to beexecuted as of the date first above written.

 
| EXECUTIVE       | ANDREW CORPORATION                           |
|-----------------|----------------------------------------------|
|            |                                         |
|            |                                         |
| /s/ Roger Manka |                                         | /s/ Ralph E. Faison |   |
| , individually  |                                         | By: Ralph E. Faison |
|            | Its: President & Chief Executive Officer |
|                 |                                              |  |  |  |

 

----
# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 19

- 0 582 V

UNPUBLISHED

THE ESTATE OF APOLINAR HASEM
PERDOMO FELIZ, by and through

Administrator, BIENCHIS Y. ESTEVA

FELIZ

,

Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND

HUMAN SERVICES,

Respondent. Chief Special Master Corcoran

Filed: May 19, 2020

Special Processing Unit (SPU) ;

Rul ing on Entitlement; Concession;
Table Injury; Influenza (Flu) Vaccine;

Guillain

- Barre Syndrome (GBS)

John Richard Ta ylor, Zaytoun Law Firm, Raleigh, NC , for petitioner.

Dhairya Divyakant Jani , U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT 1

On April 17, 2019

, the Estate of Apolina Hasem Perdomo F eliz, by and through

Ad ministrator Biechis Y.L Esteva

- Feliz, filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa

- 10, et seq

. 2 (the “Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleges that , due to a March 12, 2017 i nflu enza ( “ flu ” )

vac cine, Apolinar Hasem Perdomo Feliz suffered from Guillain

- Barre syndrome ( “ G BS ” ), which led to his subsequent death on April 2 1, 2017 Petit ion at 1, 9

- 12 . The

case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.

1 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am required to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website in accordance with the E

Government Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Managemen t and Promotion of
Electronic Government Services). This means the ruling will be available to anyone with access to

the internet. In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), Petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to

redact medical or other information, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of
privacy. If, upon review, I agree that the identified material fits within this definition, I will redact such material from public access.

2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 19 86, Pub. L. No. 99

- 660, 100 Stat. 3755

. Hereinafter, for ease of citation, all “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subpara graph of 42 U.S.C.
§ 300aa (2012 ).2

On May 15, 2020

, R espondent filed his Rule 4(c) report in which he concedes

that P etitioner is entitled to compensa tion in this case. Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report

at 1. Specifically, R espondent agrees that Petitioner has satisfied the criteria set forth in

the Vaccine Injury Table and Qualifications and Aids to Interpretation for GBS

. Id. at 5

. Respondent states that the scope of damages to be awarded “ i s limited to the

decedent ’ s GBS and its related sequ elae only

. ” Id.

In view of R espondent’s position and the evidence of record, I find that

P etitioner is entitle d to compensation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Brian H. Corcoran

Brian H. Corcoran

Chief Special Master
##### 



Exhibit 32 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 Certifications of Chief Executive and Chief Financial Officers The following statement is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission solely for
purposes of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350), which carries with it
certain criminal penalties in the event of a knowing or willful misrepresentation. Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, NW
Washington, DC 20549 Re: Andrew Corporation Ladies and Gentlemen: In accordance with the requirements of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 USC 1350),
each of the undersigned hereby certifies that:  (i)
    this Current Report on Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and(ii)
    the information contained in this report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Andrew Corporation. Dated as of this 9th day of May 2005. /s/ Ralph E. Faison
    
    /s/ Marty R. KittrellRalph E. Faison
    
    Marty R. KittrellPresident and Chief Executive Officer
    
    Chief Financial Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2349 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2349

  To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for the United 
      States African Development Foundation 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 Foreign Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for the United 
      States African Development Foundation 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 THE UNITED STATES 
              AFRICAN DEVELOPMENT FOUNDATION FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, amounts authorized 
to be appropriated or otherwise available for the United States African 
Development Foundation for fiscal year 2024 may not exceed $30,000,000.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                       5

<LEGEND>

This  schedule  contains  summary  financial   information  extracted  from  the
Partnership's  unaudited  financial  statements  for the quarter ended March 31,
2000 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.

</LEGEND>

<MULTIPLIER>                            1,000

<S>                                       <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                   Sep-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                        Mar-31-2000
<CASH>                                    554
<SECURITIES>                                0
<RECEIVABLES>                               0
<ALLOWANCES>                                0
<INVENTORY>                                 0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                          554
<PP&E>                                  5,038
<DEPRECIATION>                          1,746
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                          3,846
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                   1,075
<BONDS>                                   871
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       0
<PREFERRED>                                 0
<COMMON>                                    0
<OTHER-SE>                              1,900
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>            3,846
<SALES>                                     0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                          260
<CGS>                                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                             425
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                            0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         83
<INCOME-PRETAX>                         (248)
<INCOME-TAX>                                0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                     (248)
<DISCONTINUED>                              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                             0
<CHANGES>                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                            (248)
<EPS-BASIC>                           (11.45)
<EPS-DILUTED>                         (11.45)



</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of Masao Yonamine, Petitioner, v Peter M. Forman, Respondent.

[970 NYS2d 704]

— Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 in the nature of mandamus to compel the respondent Peter M. Forman, an acting Justice of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County, to determine a CPLR article 78 proceeding entitled *Matter of Yonamine v Evans,*commenced in the Supreme Court, Dutchess County, under index No. 5067/12, and application by the petitioner for poor person relief.

Ordered that the application for poor person relief is granted to the extent that the filing fee imposed by CPLR 8022 (b) is waived, and the application is otherwise denied; and it is further,

*621Adjudged that the petition denied as academic, and the proceeding is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

The instant proceeding has been rendered academic in light of the decision, order and judgment of the respondent Justice Peter M. Forman, dated June 3, 2013. Rivera, J.P, Balkin, Lott and Sgroi, JJ., concur.