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

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF
2002

In connection with Quarterly Report of IRIS International, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the six months ended
June 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date thereof (the Report), I, César M. García, 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, to the best of my knowledge:



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



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



|                     |  |                        
|-------------------- |  | -----------------------
|Date: August 8, 2008 |  | /s/ César M. García    
|                     |  | César M. García        
|                     |  | Chief Executive Officer

This certification shall not be deemed filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, or the Exchange Act, or otherwise subject to the liability of Section 18 of the Exchange Act. Such certification shall not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or the
Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it by reference.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

vs. 

# FILED THE MARTIN CONDOMINIUM UNIT OWNERS'ASSOCIATION, DOMESTIC 

### AUG 08 2022 NON-PROFIT, Ressondent. 

## z

ORDER DISMISSINGAPPEAL This is a pro se appeal from a district court order dismissing a complaint. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Nancy L. Allf, Judge. Review ofthe notice ofappeal and documentsbefore this court reveals a jurisdictional defect. The notice of appeal was prematurely filed in the district court after the filing of a timely tolling motion for reconsideration but before that motion was resolved by the district court in
a written order. See NRAP 4(a)(4) (regarding tolling motions); AA Primo Builders LLC v. Washington, 126 Nev. 578, 585, 245 P.3d 1190, 1195(2010) (describing when a post-judgment motion carries tolling effect). To date, it appears that motion remainspendingin the district court. This court lack jurisdiction over a premature notice ofappeal. NRAP 4(a)(6). Accordingly, this court ORDERS this appeal DISMISSED.



# LIZ4a,L) J. Silver

, J. Cadish Pickering WESLEY RUSCH, AN INDIVIDUAL, No. 85108 Appellant,

ELIZABETHA. BROWN CLERK OF SUPREME COURT BY •\/ DEPUTYCLERK

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA
I()) 1947A 44424c

, -e2g

### cc: Hon. Nancy L. Allf, District Judge Wesley Rusch Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, LLP/LasVegas Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA (0) 1947A
Order entered February 15, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-12-01465-CR

KWAYLON WILLIAMS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 7

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F-11-56237

ORDER

The Court GRANTS court reporter Sharon Hazlewood’s February 10, 2013 request for 

an extension of time to file the reporter’s record. We ORDER Ms. Hazlewood, as official court 

reporter, to file the complete record by WEDENSDAY, MARCH 6, 2013.

We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order, by electronic transmission, to Sharon 

Hazlewood, official court reporter, Criminal District Court No. 7, and to counsel for all parties.

/s/ DAVID EVANS 

JUSTICE
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-6764
PRENTISS QUICK, Petitioner - Appellant, versusATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA; KENNETH SETZER, Superintendent; FRANKLIN FREEMAN, Secretary, North Carolina Department of Corrections, Respondents - Appellees.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr., District Judge. (CA-96-709-2) Submitted: October 31, 1997 Decided: November 14, 1997 Before MURNAGHAN, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Prentiss Quick, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge andfind no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny Appellant's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and motion for appointment of counsel, and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Quick v. Attorney Gen. of North Carolina , No. CA-96-709-2 (M.D.N.C. May 2, 1997). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Derrick Tigner, Appellant.

Submitted June 15, 2009;

decided June 24, 2009

Motion for an extension of the time within which to apply for permission to appeal pursuant to CPL 460.20 granted and motion papers treated as a timely CPL 460.20 application.
|   | EXHIBIT 32.1. |
|--------|---------------|

Certification of Principal Executive Officer

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350

(Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)

 

I, Juhani Taskinen, Chief Executive Officer, and Trupti Mehta, Principal Accounting Officer, of Princeton Security Technologies, Inc. (the "Registrant") do hereby 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 our knowledge, based upon a review of the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the period December 31, 2007 of the Registrant, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"):

 

 (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 Registrant.

 

| Dated:  March 31, 2008 | By:  /s/ Juhani Taskinen |
|------------------------|--------------------------|

|   | Juhani Taskinen |
|--------|-----------------|

|   | Chief Executive Officer |
|--------|-------------------------|

 

|   | By:  /s/  Trupti Mehta |
|--------|------------------------|

|   | Trupti Mehta, Principal Accounting Officer |
|--------|--------------------------------------------|

 

* A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Princeton Security Technologies, Inc. and will be retained by Princeton Security Technologies, Inc. and furnished to the Securities Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Phillip C. Kaechele, Appellant.

[974 NYS2d 835]

— Judgment unanimously affirmed. Counsel’s motion to be relieved of assignment granted *{see People v Crawford,*71 AD2d 38 [1979]). (Appeal from Judgment of Ontario County Court, Craig J. Doran, J. — Course of Sexual Conduct against a Child, 1st Degree). Present — Scudder, PJ., Peradotto, Garni, Sconiers and Whalen, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from
American Financial Enterprises, Inc. 10-Q for the six months ended
June 30, 1997 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>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                        $ 65,773
<SECURITIES>                                   480,991<F1>
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 547,306
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        13,410
<OTHER-SE>                                     437,837
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   547,306
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                10,067<F2>
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,514
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  8,553
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,774
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              6,779
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     6,779
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     $.51
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     $.51
<FN>
<F1>Included in "Marketable securities" is AFEI's investment in affiliates of
$472 million.
<F2>Included in "Total revenue" is equity in net earnings of affiliates of
$3.4 million.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
#### 320 West 13th Street, LLC, Respondent, v Wolf Shevack, Inc., et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants.

[964 NYS2d 38]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan M. Kenney, J.), entered August 3, 2012, which, to the extent appealed from, granted plaintiff’s motion to strike the answer of defendants-appellants (defendants) to the extent of allowing a negative inference charge against them, and denied defendants’ cross

*587motion for sanctions against plaintiff, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to defendants’ arguments, this Court has frequently upheld orders striking pleadings or granting negative inference charges in cases of inadvertent destruction of evidence *(see e.g. Foley v Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y., Inc.,*84 AD3d 476, 478-479 [1st Dept 2011]). Since it is not clear from the record in this case that the destruction of evidence was in all instances inadvertent, the court properly granted a negative inference charge, leaving it to the factfinder to determine whether defendants’ explanations for the destruction are reasonable and the inference to be drawn from the destruction if they are not *(see Gogos v Modell’s Sporting Goods, Inc.,*87 AD3d 248, 255 [1st Dept 2011]; *see also General Motors Acceptance Corp. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co.,*104 AD3d 523 [1st Dept 2013]).

Even assuming plaintiff violated the one court order identified by defendants, it was the only such violation, and defendants failed to show that it was intentional. Nor do defendants cite any authority for the proposition that every unsatisfactory answer to a demand for a bill of particulars and every unsatisfactory answer given at a deposition constitutes a separate and distinct discovery violation.

We have considered defendants’ remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

Concur—Andrias, J.R, Acosta, Freedman, Richter and Gische, JJ.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion

should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited

circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

September 6, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-50397

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

LEANDRO RUIZ-ALVAREZ

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 5:06-CR-513-ALL

Before DeMOSS, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Appealing the Judgmentin a Criminal Case, Leandro Ruiz-Alvarez raises

arguments that are foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S.

224, 235 (1998), which held that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty provision and

not a separate criminal offense. See United States v. Pineda-Arrellano, 492 F.3d

624, 625 (5th Cir. 2007). The Government's motion for summary affirmance is

GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER 
                           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 ZiLOG, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 28, 2008 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Darin G. Billerbeck, as Chief Executive Officer of ZiLOG,
certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to his knowledge
that the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information
contained in the Report fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of ZiLOG, Inc.



|                      |                               
|--------------------- | ------------------------------
|Date: August 12, 2008 | By:    /s/ Darin G. Billerbeck

| |                                                
| | -----------------------------------------------
| |                                                
| | Darin G. Billerbeck                            
| | President, Chief Executive Officer and Director

In connection with the Quarterly Report of ZiLOG, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 28, 2008 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Perry J. Grace, as Chief Financial Officer of ZiLOG, certifies,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to his knowledge that the
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in
the Report fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of ZiLOG, Inc.



|                      |                          
|--------------------- | -------------------------
|Date: August 12, 2008 | By:    /s/ Perry J. Grace

| |                                                     
| | ----------------------------------------------------
| |                                                     
| | Perry J. Grace                                      
| | Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

---
**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**

| (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. |
|   |                                                                                                                                                                                              |

----
**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**

| a.   | The                Report 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 |
|----------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| b.   | The                information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material                respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the                Company. |
|----------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
#### Heritage Realty Advisors, LLC, et al., Appellants, v Mohegan Hill Development, LLC, et al., Respondents, et al., Defendant.

Submitted February 23, 2009;

decided May 5, 2009

Motion for leave to appeal as against all defendants except Tarragon Corporation, as to whom the motion was withdrawn, denied.
#### In the Matter of Jimmy D., a Person Alleged to be a Juvenile Delinquent, Appellant.

Submitted July 20, 2009;

decided November 19, 2009

Reported below, 63 AD3d 737.

Motion for leave to appeal granted. Motion for poor person relief granted.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SALVADOR ZARATE,

Petitioner,

v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 14

- 72434
Agency No. A070

- 814

- 780

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted July 26, 2016 **

Before: SCHROEDER, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Salvador Zarate, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum,
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

AUG 3 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 14

- 72434

(“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. §1252. We review for
substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales , 453 F.3d

1182, 1184

- 85 (9th Cir. 2006). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition

for review.
We lack jurisdiction to consider Zarate’s ineffective assistance of counsel

cla im because he did not exhaust it before the BIA. See Ontiveros

- Lopez v. INS ,
213 F. 3d 1121, 1124 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring an alien who argues ineffective
assistance of counsel to exhaust his administrative remedies by first p resenting the

issue to the B IA )

. The IJ denied Zarate’s claims for relief based on an adverse credibility
determination and independently denied his claims on the merits

. The BIA

affirmed the IJ’s denial only on the merits. Although Zarate challenges the IJ’s
adverse credibility de termination and the BIA’s failure to address the IJ’s adverse
credibility findings, he does not raise any challenge to the BIA’s dispositive denial

on the merits. See Martinez

- Serrano v. INS , 94 F.3d 1256, 1259

- 60 (9th Cir.
1996) (issues not argued in ope ning brief deemed waived). Thus, we deny the
petition as to Zarate’s asylum, withholding of removal and CAT claims.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part ; DENIED in part

.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 440 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 440

To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to include podiatrists as 
   physicians for purposes of covering physicians services under the 
                           medicaid program.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           February 17, 2005

  Mr. Bunning (for himself and Ms. Mikulski) introduced the following 
  bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to include podiatrists as 
   physicians for purposes of covering physicians services under the 
                           medicaid program.

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

SECTION 1. INCLUDING PODIATRISTS AS PHYSICIANS UNDER THE MEDICAID 
              PROGRAM.

    (a) In General.--Section 1905(a)(5)(A) of the Social Security Act 
(42 U.S.C. 1396d(a)(5)(A)) is amended by striking ``section 
1861(r)(1)'' and inserting ``paragraphs (1) and (3) of section 
1861(r)''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
apply to services furnished on or after January 1, 2006.
                                 <all>
```
#### In re T.H.

Case below: 183 N.C. App. - (5 June 2007)

No. 294P07

1. Respondent’s (Mother) PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31 (COA07-25)

2. Respondent’s (Mother) Alternative PWC to Review Decision of COA

3. Respondent’s (Father) PWC to Review Decision of COA

1. Denied 10/11/07

2. Denied 10/11/07

3. Denied 10/11/07