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

                                                                    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

I, Randall L. Herrel, Sr., in my capacity as Chairman, President and Chief
Executive Officer of Ashworth, Inc. (the "Registrant"), do hereby certify in
accordance with 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

      1. the Quarterly Report of the Registrant, on Form 10-Q for the quarter
ended July 31, 2004 (the "Report"), to which this certification is attached as
an exhibit fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section
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: September 14, 2004        /s/Randall L. Herrel, Sr.
                                 -------------------------
                                 Randall L. Herrel, Sr.,
                                 Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 915 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 915

    To provide for the duty-free entry of certain tramway cars and 
    associated spare parts for use by the city of Portland, Oregon.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 27, 2005

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To provide for the duty-free entry of certain tramway cars and 
    associated spare parts for use by the city of Portland, Oregon.

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

SECTION 1. CERTAIN TRAMWAY CARS AND ASSOCIATED SPARE PARTS.

    (a) In General.--The Commissioner of the Bureau of Customs and 
Border Protection of the Department of Homeland Security shall admit 
free of duty 3 tramway cars (provided for in subheading 8603.10.00 of 
the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States) manufactured in 
Ostrava, Czech Republic, for the use by the city of Portland, Oregon, 
and imported pursuant to a contract with the city of Portland, Oregon, 
and associated spare parts for such tramway cars (provided for in 
applicable subheadings of heading 8607 or other headings of the 
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States) imported pursuant to 
such contract, the foregoing to be entered into the customs territory 
of the United States by not later than December 31, 2006.
    (b) Reliquidation; Refund of Amounts Owed.--If the liquidation of 
the entry of any of the tramway cars or associated spare parts 
described in subsection (a) becomes final before the date of the 
enactment of this Act, the Commissioner of the Bureau of Customs and 
Border Protection, notwithstanding any other provision of law, shall--
            (1) within 15 days after such date, reliquidate the entry 
        in accordance with the provisions of this Act; and
            (2) at the time of such reliquidation, make the appropriate 
        refund of any duty paid with respect to the entry.
                                 <all>
```
<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
    <meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width" />
    <meta name="robots" content="noindex">
    <title>Contact Us - NIDDK</title>
    
<meta name="VIcurrentDateTime" content="638490780604869874" />
<meta name="VirtualFolder" content="/" />
<script type="text/javascript" src="/layouts/system/VisitorIdentification.js"></script>

</head>
<body>
    <div></div>
</body>
</html>
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2631 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2631

       To suspend temporarily the duty on certain time switches.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            November 2, 2009

Mr. Schumer (for himself and Mrs. Gillibrand) introduced the following 
  bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
       To suspend temporarily the duty on certain time switches.

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

SECTION 1. CERTAIN TIME SWITCHES.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``     9902.01.00      Indoor/Outdoor      Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/  ''.
                        programmable and                                                   31/2011.......
                        countdown timers
                        for greater than
                        60 minute
                        control, valued
                        over $5 each
                        (provided for in
                        subheading
                        9107.00.80)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 31.1I, Randall L. Herrel, Sr., Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of Ashworth, Inc.,certify that: 1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of Ashworth, Inc.;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light ofthe circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiod covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periodspresented in this report;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure thatmaterial information relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness ofthe disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter(the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and 5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions):(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.Date:September 9, 2005      /s/ Randall L. Herrel, Sr.     Randall L. Herrel, Sr.  Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
exhib10-21.htm


     

    
      

      

    

    
 

    Shareholders'
      current account

    


    between

    


    Mr
      Heinz Jürgen Scholz, Horgen

    (hereafter
      referred to as HJS)

    


    and

    


    DWM
      Petroleum AG, Baar

    (hereafter
      referred to as DWM)

    


    I.
      PREAMBLE

    


    A
      current account-based loan exists between HJS and DWM, with the possibility
      of
      an alternating obligation.

    


    Il.
PAYING
      OUT/PAYING
      lN

    


    Withdrawals
      and deposits by HJS are debited from or credited to the current account on
      a
      continual basis. Further claims by HJS or DWM against the other party to the
      contract are also debited tram or credited to the current account on a continual
      basis.

    


    III.
LIMITS

    


    CHF
      1,000,000 on both sides.

    


    IV.
      INTEREST / REPAYMENT
      OBLIGATION

    


    1.
      Interest

    
      	
               

            	
              a.
                The current account interest is laid down once a year, each year,
                taking
                into account the underlying tax conditions laid down by the Swiss
                tax
                authorities.

            


    

    


    2.
      Repayment obligation

    a.
      For the time being, there is no specified repayment obligation.

    


    V.
      SURETIES

    


    1.
      None

    


    VI.
      TERM OF THE CONTRACT

    


    1.
      None

    



    
      
         

      

      
         

        
          

        

      

      
         

      

    


    


    VII.
      APPLICABLE LAW AND COURT OF JURISDICTION

    


    The
      legal relationship is subject to Swiss law. The court of jurisdiction
      and

    place
      of fulfillment of the contract is that of the head office of DWM.

    


    Date,
      place: 05/09/2005, Horgen

    


    Heinz
      Jűrgen ScholzDWM Petroleum
      AG

    


    /s/
      Heinz Jűrgen
      Scholz/s/
      DWM Petroleum AG
**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 Quarterly Report
      of Cistera Networks, Inc. on Form 10-QSB/A for the period ending June 30, 2007,
      as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
      “Report”), I, Cynthia Garr, Interim C.F.O. 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 and belief:





(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/    Cynthia
      A. Garr


Cynthia
      A. Garr


Chief
      Financial Officer


(Principal
      Financial Officer)








November
      19, 2007








A
      signed original of this written
      statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating,
      acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form
      within the electronic version of this written statement 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.
#### Griffith Oil Company, Inc., et al., Respondents, v National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, Pa., Appellant, et al., Defendants.

Submitted August 9, *2010;*

decided August 26, 2010

*781Motion by Complex Insurance Claims Litigation Association for leave to file a brief amicus curiae on the appeal herein granted and the proposed brief is accepted as filed. Two copies of the brief must be served and 24 copies filed within seven days.
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: Gonzalo Sosa v. Julio Garza

Appellate case number: 01

- 1 3

- 0 1033

- CV

Trial court case number: 1036389

Trial court: County Civil Court at Law No. 1 of Harris County

Appellant has filed a motion for rehearing and his appellant’s brief in this appeal

. The

Court requests a re sponse to the motion for rehearing from appellee. Rule 9.2(b) of the Texas

Rules of Appellate Procedure, the “mailbox rule,” is suspended for the filing of the response.

The response must be filed no later than 5:00 p.m., 10 days from the date of this or der

. See

T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 2, 9.2(b), 49.2.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Evelyn V. Keyes

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: May 29, 2014
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

JUSTIN W. YIM,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 645 MAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 18th day of March, 2019, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 95-50084 Conference Calendar

__________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus DAVID L. BISHOP, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. SA 93 CR 262
- - - - - - - - - - April 18, 1996 Before DUHÉ, DeMOSS, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * This is an appeal from a guilty-plea conviction for two counts of accepting a bribe to influence the performance of the appellant's official duties in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 201(b)(2). Appellant argues that the district court misapplied the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines because it erroneously believed that it did not have the authority to grant a downward departure under U.S.S.G. § 5K2.13 unless the appellant's diminished mental capacity was the sole cause of the appellant's commission of theNo. 95-50084 -2- offense. Because the appellant did not object to the district court's refusal to depart downward after the imposition of the sentence, the plain error standard of review applied. United States v. Vontsteen , 950 F.2d 1086, 1091 (5th Cir.)(en banc), cert. denied , 112 S. Ct. 3039 (1992). Although the district court used the word "cause" in explaining its decision, the record as a whole indicates that the district court considered all of the evidence presented at the sentencing hearing and determined that a downward departure was not warranted because the appellant's background did not contribute to the commission of the offense. The record does not indicate that the district court plainly erred in refusing to grant the downward departure. Id. This court lacks jurisdiction to review the district court's refusal to grant a downward departure because it was not a violation of the law or a misapplication of the guidelines. See United States v. DiMarco , 46 F.3d 476, 477 (5th Cir. 1995). DISMISSED.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

JAMES DAY SHANKLIN, III,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 2D2022-4016

June 7, 2024

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Pinellas County; Susan St. John, 

Judge.

Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Robert D. Rosen, Assistant 

Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and William C. Shelhart, 

Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

KELLY, LaROSE, and LABRIT, JJ., Concur.

Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.
Exhibit 10(d)

SECOND AMENDMENT TO        HAGGAR CORP.        1992 LONG TERM INCENTIVE PLAN

1.Introduction. The following resolutions amending the Haggar Corp. 1992
Long Term Incentive Plan
(the "1992 Plan") were adopted and approved at the Annual Meeting of Stockholders of Haggar Corp. held on February 9, 1995.



2.Amendment. In accordance with Section 17 of the 1992 Plan Section 5 of the 1992 Plan
is hereby amended in accordance with the foregoing resolutions.

3.Effect on Other Provisions. Except as expressly amended hereby, the 1992 Plan shall remain in full
force and effect as originally adopted.

---

QuickLinks
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Norman Eric TAYLOR, also known as Robert Lewis, also known as Buggs, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 05-30579.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Oct. 16, 2006.*

Filed Oct. 23, 2006.

Joshua A. Van De Wetering, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Missoula, MT, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Edmund F. Sheehy, Jr., Esq., Helena, MT, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Norman Eric Taylor appeals from the district court’s judgment after a remand to conduct further proceedings pursuant to *United States v. Ameline,*409 F.3d 1073 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

*585Taylor contends that his sentence remains infirm under the Sixth Amendment because the district court calculated an offense level based on drug amounts found by the district judge rather than proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. This contention is unavailing because the district court applied on remand the very procedure prescribed by this court to remedy the constitutional infirmity of allowing a sentence based on judge-found facts under mandatory Sentencing Guidelines. *See Ameline,*409 F.3d at 1084. The district court took into account relevant considerations under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) in formulating the original sentence, and stated that the sentence imposed would not have been materially different had it known the Guidelines were advisory.

On review of the record, we conclude the sentence imposed was not unreasonable. *See United States v. Plouffe,*445 F.3d 1126, 1131-32 (9th Cir.), *cert. denied,*— U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 2314, 164 L.Ed.2d 832 (2006).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
EXHIBIT 21        Subsidiaries of the Company

|Name of Subsidiary                   |  | Jurisdiction of Incorporation
|------------------------------------ |  | -----------------------------
|Haggar Clothing Co.                  |  | Nevada                       
|Haggar Canada, Inc.                  |  | Nevada                       
|Haggar Canada Co.                    |  | Canada                       
|Haggar Direct, Inc.                  |  | Nevada                       
|Jerell Clothing Management, Inc.     |  | Texas                        
|Jerell, Ltd.                         |  | Texas Limited Partnership    
|San Gabriel Enterprises, Inc.        |  | Texas                        
|Multiples USA, Inc.                  |  | Texas                        
|Haggar Apparel Limited               |  | England                      
|Dallas Pant Manufacturing Co.        |  | Nevada                       
|McKinney Pant Manufacturing Co.      |  | Nevada                       
|Waxahachie Garment Co.               |  | Nevada                       
|La Romana Maufacturing Corp.         |  | Nevada                       
|Bowie Manufacturing Co.              |  | Nevada                       
|Weslaco Cutting, Inc.                |  | Nevada                       
|Weslaco Sewing, Inc.                 |  | Nevada                       
|Olney Manufacturing Co.              |  | Nevada                       
|Duncan Manufacturing Co.             |  | Oklahoma                     
|Haggar Japan Co., Ltd.               |  | Japan                        
|Haggar Services, Inc.                |  | Texas                        
|Edinburg Direct Garment Co., Inc.    |  | Texas                        
|Corsicana Co.                        |  | Nevada                       
|Haggar Mex Manufacturing, S.A.       |  | Mexico                       
|Greenville Pant Manufacturing Co.    |  | Nevada                       
|Weslaco Direct Cutting Company, Inc. |  | Texas                        
|Haggar.com, Inc.                     |  | Texas                        

---

QuickLinks
#### Bunting *against*Brown.

f0JndaTMgef rTM iyofgXfsIpultract, theC<ieheld to bail, a rested and held tfonnpttaiiaMe, an affidavit of’ the cause of ae^“po^’^e a?í rest'

THIS was an action on the case, to recover damages for the nondelivery of a quantity of salt, which the defendant had sold to the .plaintiff, and contracted to deliver to him, at *Turks-Island.*The defendant was arrested and held to bail, without a judge’s order. The plaintiff being summoned before the recorder of the city of *Neve-Yorlc,*to show cause, &c. made an affidavit of the cause of action: but the recorder being of opinion that the defendant . f 1 . . . could not be held to bail, without an order of a fudge for that purpose, previously obtained,- ordered him to be discharged, on filing common bail, and the bail-bond to be cancelled.

*G.arr,*for the plaintiff,

moved to vacate the order of the recorder,

*E. W. King,*contra.

*Per Curiam.*

Wfajeye the action is not bailable, an affidavit of the cause of action, made subsequent to the arrest, will not support the holding to bail. But this suit was on a contract on which the defendant might have been held to bail originally without a judge’s order. If the sum in which the defendant is held,to bail fie too large, application may be made to a judge to mitigate it.

Motion granted.
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Charles Strauss, Appellant, v New York State Department of Correctional Services, Respondent.

[964 NYS2d 55]

Appeal dismissed as moot. Counsel’s motion to be relieved of assignment granted. (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Wyoming County, Mark H. Dadd, A.J.—CPLR article 78.) Present— Scudder, PJ., Centra, Carni, Sconiers and Martoche, JJ.