alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT
32





WOOZYFLY,
INC.





CERTIFICATION


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)





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), the
undersigned officer of WoozyFly, Inc. (the “Company”), does hereby certify with
respect to the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the period ended
June 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the “Report”), to the best of the undersigned’s knowledge
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 results of operations of the Company.








August
      13, 2009/s/
      ERIC STOPPENHAGENInterim
      President
#### Eugene Tenenbaum, Appellant, v State Commissioner of Housing and Community Renewal, Respondent.

Decided September 10, 2013

Appeal dismissed, without costs, by the Court of Appeals, sua sponte, upon the ground that it does not lie *(see*CPLR 5601).
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman, Chief Justice

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 March 31, 2017

a0328

Order 

Clerk

March 31, 2017

152778

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 152778

COA: 315209

Alger CC: 2012-001997-FC

ISRAEL A. VELEZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

_____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 13, 2015 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered. We direct the Clerk to schedule oral 

argument on whether to grant the application or take other action. MCR 7.305(H)(1). 

We further ORDER the Alger Circuit Court, in accordance with Administrative Order 

2003-03, to determine whether the defendant is indigent and, if so, to appoint attorney 

Mitchell T. Foster, if feasible, to represent the defendant in this Court. If this 

appointment is not feasible, the trial court shall, within the same time frame, appoint 

other counsel to represent the defendant in this Court.

The parties shall file supplemental briefs within 42 days of the date of the order 

appointing counsel, or of the ruling that the defendant is not entitled to appointed counsel, 

addressing: (1) whether the defendant’s claim regarding the preliminary sentence 

evaluation under People v Cobbs, 443 Mich 276 (1993), is properly before this Court, 

given his failure to file a motion to withdraw his plea in the trial court, see MCR 

6.310(D), and notwithstanding the prosecutor’s failure to raise and preserve this issue, 

see People v Oliver, 417 Mich 366, 385-386 n 17 (1983); and (2) if so, whether the trial 

court failed to impose a sentence in accordance with the preliminary evaluation. The 

parties should not submit mere restatements of their application papers.
A\h^V

AvST/jJ T&X/LS COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

JUL 14 2015

Abe! Acosta, Clef

FILED IN ;

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

JUL 14 2015

fao/yi Jtf£/9L Jo /y-A/-<?o7 oj~<LI?

/._ . A Abel Acosta, Clerk

/MrLtkxs toJniy

To r#c tfo»oa/i@L£ Tooi-ez of mcccofljn ^

6>rt>€£Aj0H As**/I'W/J JtJ^lJ T&~ /^//gn<^. <S*Jfi/*f

Mi's tnoHon &>r er> 4*+e*$ion ofi fdo) QAy3 /A ksAic* he

fife * ftehJiOf\ &/i fitSose/jotntf'y flewe** J5>* $*<sp/>0ft~

,-'*
/» cr^ie yi/o /1&04V11... S-tyAJ* STAT* O/^ T^kAS

r$ &s/*J6t1va/a//J»a/a/ Tli . 7~/>* A*'"0"^ 4/>/?e</**/+o

$,i+r*^±, T"Ae Case. t~AS A-FPirr**efi o<* A/>r</9, 2aif

^iV^/A-/^< ^/^Sic^ files A> -hA'S. /feezesJ~*

T~Ae /2r4t£/Q*ess re^^rs^ hf &* extras ic* 'S oc&^jr

fi»*#*r. Ms Atfosney *"-£=*-- /*/>/?<§'J *"/«* ^ &# ^

/l*j./»/**/**<S. t^^^Ao**'- /**>/ At <~<//"of rytsr***}'

*• • ' •".•'•' ' '•»• }i..l>- ' ,-::••'•../' "-' *• •'' '"'" * / • /J

(b<?) &y £*ti.f^S* &*: jfo fide- A'i /%o &£ /^e^,//d^i ^&C

r. • •

•$w
#     High School, Undergraduate, & Post-Baccalaureate  

institutional programsIntramural Research Program

## High School and Undergraduate

SUP*NIH HEAL Initiative Research Supplements to Promote Diversity

Administrative supplements to currently active NINDS research HEAL grants to support the training of individuals from diverse backgrounds and enhance the diversity of the research workforce.

SUP*NIH BRAIN Initiative Research Supplements to Promote Diversity

Administrative supplements to currently active NINDS research BRAIN grants to support the training of individuals from diverse backgrounds and enhance the diversity of the research workforce.

SUP*Alzheimer’s Disease and Alzheimer’s Disease-Related Dementias (AD/ADRD) Research Supplements to Promote Diversity in Health-Related Research

Administrative supplements to currently active NINDS research AD/ADRD grants to support the training of individuals from diverse backgrounds and enhance the diversity of the research workforce.

SUP*Supplements to Promote Diversity in Research and Development Small Businesses-SBIR/STTR

Administrative supplements to active NIH SBIR/STTR grants to enhance the diversity of the research workforce and increase the participation of women and socially and economically disadvantaged individuals in small businesses.

SUP*Research Supplements to Promote Diversity in Health-Related Research

Administrative supplements to currently active NIH research grants to provide support for research experiences for individuals from diverse backgrounds to enhance the diversity of the research workforce.

* Institutional & Individual Diversity Awards Eligibility

> 
Related Topics 

Summer Internship Programs at NINDS

Post-Baccalaureate Program at NINDS

NIH Office of Intramural Training & Education

NIH Programs for Undergraduate Students

NINDS’s podcast, Building Up the Nerve, provides an introduction to the grant cycle from NINDS staff
#### Ayodele Sandiford, Respondent, v City of New York Department of Education et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants.

Submitted August 5, 2013;

decided August 22, 2013

*1030Motion by National Employment Lawyers Association/New York for leave to appear amicus curiae on the appeal herein granted only to the extent that the proposed brief is accepted as filed. Two copies of the brief must be served and nine copies filed within seven days.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             JUL-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                AUG-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                  JUL-31-1996
<CASH>                        6,098
<SECURITIES>                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                 43,571
<ALLOWANCES>                  1280
<INVENTORY>                   32,992
<CURRENT-ASSETS>              84,516
<PP&E>                        98,586
<DEPRECIATION>                52,978
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                178,064
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>         49,760
<BONDS>                       125,000
<COMMON>                      83   
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>         0
<PREFERRED>                   0
<OTHER-SE>                    (5,346)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>  178,064
<SALES>                       253,361
<TOTAL-REVENUES>              253,361
<CGS>                         191,427
<TOTAL-COSTS>                 223,959
<OTHER-EXPENSES>              63
<LOSS-PROVISION>              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>            18,132
<INCOME-PRETAX>               11,207
<INCOME-TAX>                  5,582
<INCOME-CONTINUING>           5,625
<DISCONTINUED>                (2,126)
<EXTRAORDINARY>               0
<CHANGES>                     0
<NET-INCOME>                  3,499
<EPS-PRIMARY>                 .42
<EPS-DILUTED>                 .42
        


</TABLE>
#### Kenneth E. Ramseur, Appellant, v Hudsonview Company et al., Respondents.

Submitted July 16, 2012;

decided October 18, 2012

Motion for reargument of motion for leave to appeal denied *[see*19 NY3d 804 (2012)].
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                         11,481
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  126,614
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               138,095
<PP&E>                                         415,051
<DEPRECIATION>                                 159,464
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 617,537
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          642,961
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       185,425
<OTHER-SE>                                     495,575
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   617,537
<SALES>                                        1,575,826
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               1,575,826
<CGS>                                          1,388,703
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  657,229
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             90,654
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                0
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (560,760)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.04)



</TABLE>
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, November 20, 2018. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, November 20, 2018 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A19D0158. JOHN LONGO v. CITY OF DUNWOODY.
Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby GRANTED. The Appellant may file a Notice of Appeal within 10 days of the date of this order. The Clerk of Superior Court is directed to include a copy of this order in the record transmitted to the Court of Appeals.
LC NUMBERS: 2016CV8013
# Post Review: Next Steps

> 
Get answers to common questions about steps to take once an application has gone through the review process. Use the links above to quickly navigate to a section on this page.

## How do I know if my application will be funded?

exclamation

chevron-circle-right

published paylines

chevron-circle-right

NINDS Paylines and Funding page

chevron-circle-right

Select Pay

> 
To ensure that your application is considered for the ESI extended R01 payline, make sure your degree information is current and accurate in the "Education" section of your eRA commons personal profile.

## When will I know the definitive funding decision? 

This depends on a number of factors highlighted below. Be aware that while NINDS aims to issue awards by project start dates, there instances in which this may not always be feasible.

user-clock

question-circle

puzzle-piece

negotiations prior to award

tasks

JIT, IRB or IACUC certificationrevised milestones

> 
Learn more about funding decisions by reviewing the application process overview.

## Who can I contact with further questions?

When seeking additional information about the status of your award, it is usually best to start with the business official in the sponsored research office at your institution. Post review, your main point of contact is the Program Officer (PO) assigned to your application. The name of your PO is listed on your summary statement and within eRA Commons. Your PO can help you assess whether your application is likely to be funded, advise you on whether you should revise and resubmit, and provide an idea of when you might expect to receive your award. 

Find your PO

## What to do if my application is unlikely to be funded?

If your application seems unlikely to be funded, consider the options below.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS RESTATED SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
UNAUDITED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF SYBRON INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION
FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1997, AS RESTATED TO REFLECT THE MERGERS
OF LRS ACQUISITION CORP. AND PINNACLE PRODUCTS OF WISCONSIN, INC., WHICH ARE
ACCOUNTED FOR AS POOLING OF INTERESTS AND THE RECLASSIFICATION OF NALGE PROCESS
TECHNOLOGIES GROUP, INC. TO DISCONTINUED OPERATIONS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS 
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.  
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                          21,104
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  168,773
<ALLOWANCES>                                     4,416
<INVENTORY>                                    157,074
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               433,661
<PP&E>                                         203,430
<DEPRECIATION>                                 160,519
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,327,957
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          156,016
<BONDS>                                        705,981
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,017   
<OTHER-SE>                                     403,562
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,327,957
<SALES>                                        214,820
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               214,820
<CGS>                                          103,348
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   63,887
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   110
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              13,275
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 34,200
<INCOME-TAX>                                    13,386
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             20,814
<DISCONTINUED>                                   1,132
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    21,946
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .22<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .21<F1>
<FN>
<F1>See notes to unaudited consolidated financial statements.  (As adjusted for the
two for one stock split effective February 20, 1998.  Financial Data Schedules
prior to December 31, 1996 have not been restated to reflect the stock split.)
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Anthony Austin Metts, * From the 385th District

 Court of Midland County,

 Trial Court No. CR29170.

Vs. No. 11-13-00204-CR * July 16, 2015

The State of Texas, * Memorandum Opinion by Willson, J.

 (Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

 Willson, J., and Bailey, J.)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that 

there is no error in the judgment below. Therefore, in accordance with this 

court’s opinion, the judgment of the trial court is in all things affirmed.
#### Vincent C. DONOVAN, Appellant, v. Alberto GONZALES, United States Attorney General; R. Martinez, Warden, FPC Yankton, Appellees.

No. 05-3596.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: July 3, 2006.

Filed: July 5, 2006.

Vincent C. Donovan, Yankton, SD, pro se.

James E. McMahon, Mark Edward Salter, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Sioux Falls, SD, for Appellees.

Before RILEY, MAGILL, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Vincent Donovan is serving a 212-month prison sentence imposed in the Eastern District of Wisconsin after a jury found him guilty of participating in a drug conspiracy and related offenses. *See United States v. Donovan,*24 F.3d 908 (7th Cir.), *cert. denied,*513 U.S. 905, 115 S.Ct. 269, 130 L.Ed.2d 187 (1994). From his current place of confinement at the Federal Prison Camp in Yankton, South Dakota, Donovan filed this 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition in June 2005, challenging the government’s legal authority to charge him under 21 U.S.C. § 841, because “he was/is not [a member] of the ‘class’ of persons whom the statute sweeps into its criminal ambit.” The district court1 dismissed Donovan’s petition, finding his inability to file a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion did not make section 2255 inadequate or ineffective, and he appeals. Following careful review, *see Hill v. Morrison,*349 F.3d 1089, 1091 (8th Cir. 2003), we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *See*8th Cir. R. 47B. The government’s pending motion to expand the appellate record and take judicial notice of the previous 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition is granted.

1

. The Honorable Lawrence L. Piersol, United States District Judge for the District of South Dakota.
#### Elizabeth A. Spielfogel, Appellant, v Larry R. Spielfogel, Respondent.

Submitted April 29, 2013;

decided June 25, 2013

Motion for leave to appeal denied with $100 costs and necessary reproduction disbursements.

Motion for a stay dismissed as academic.
#### Trump Securities, LLC, et al., Respondents, v Purolite Company et al., Appellants, et al., Defendant.

Submitted May 6, 2013;

decided June 26, 2013

*988Motion for leave to appeal dismissed as untimely. The prior motion for leave to appeal made to the Appellate Division was untimely *(see*Karger, Powers of the New York Court of Appeals § 12:3 at 436-437 [3d ed rev]).

Judge Abdus-Salaam taking no part.
#### In the Matter of Kevin Peoples, Petitioner, v Donald Selsky, as Director of Special Housing and Inmate Disciplinary Programs, Respondent.

[822 NYS2d 824]

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) *1180to review a determination of the Commissioner of Correctional Services which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

Petitioner was charged in a misbehavior report with violating prison disciplinary rules that prohibit attempting to assault staff, interference with an employee and conduct involving a threat of violence. According to the misbehavior report, petitioner was pushing a cart of dirty dishes from the mess hall into the kitchen area when he informed a correction officer that he was unable to fit the cart through the door. When the correction officer told petitioner that no other inmates had a problem getting through the door and that he should try again, petitioner rolled his eyes and intentionally ran the cart into the door. The correction officer then issued petitioner a direct order to try it again without hitting the door. Petitioner backed up and proceeded to push the cart directly at the correction officer in what was described as a “blatant attempt” to run the cart into the correction officer’s leg. Following a disciplinary hearing, petitioner was found guilty of attempting to assault staff and interference with an employee. The determination was affirmed upon administrative appeal and this CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued.

The misbehavior report and corroborating testimony at the hearing provide substantial evidence to support the determination of guilt *(see Matter of Larkins v Goord,*27 AD3d 810 [2006]; *Matter of Goncalves v Donnelly,*9 AD3d 721 [2004]; *Matter of Bonez v Senkowski,*265 AD2d 713 [1999]). Although petitioner contends that he did not intentionally try to strike the correction officer and that the misbehavior report is fabricated, this presented a credibility issue for the Hearing Officer to resolve *(see Matter of Black v Goord,*12 AD3d 1005, 1006 [2004]). Furthermore, although petitioner was charged with the offense of attempted assault, it is nevertheless punishable to the same degree as the completed offense *(see*7 NYCRR 270.3 [b]). Petitioner’s remaining contentions, including his claim of hearing officer bias and challenge to the penalty imposed, are not preserved for our review inasmuch as he failed to raise them at the hearing or on administrative appeal *(see Matter of Cunningham v Selsky,*29 AD3d 1254, 1255 [2006]).

Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Peters, Rose and Kane, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.
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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the three-month
period ending August 31, 2007 of Carlateral, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the
"Company"), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the "Quarterly Report"), I, Don Cameron, Chairman, President and 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 Quarterly Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
     or15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

2.   The information contained in this Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all
     material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the
     Company.



/s/ DON CAMERON
_____________________________________________________________
Don Cameron

President, Secretary Treasurer, Principal Executive Officer,
Principal Financial Officer and sole Director


Date: September 26, 2007