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


               INTEGRATED MICROMETALLURGICAL SYSTEMS, INC.
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 USC SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSANT TO SECTION
                  906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the periodic report of INTEGRATED MICROMETALLURGICAL
SYSTEMS, INC., a Nevada corporation (the "Company"), on Form 10-QSB for the
period ended September 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the "Report"), I, Hans-Werner Huss, Chief Executive Officer of
the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of
Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, that to the
best of my knowledge:

(1)  the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
     15(d), as applicable, 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 at the dates and for the periods indicated.

This Certification has not been, and shall not be deemed, "filed" with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.


Date:  May 9, 2008

By: /s/ H. Werner Huss
    -----------------------------
        H. Werner Huss, President
        Chief Executive Officer

<PAGE>
|   | 1. | The      Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q, for the fiscal quarter ended August 31,      2010, and to which this certification is attached as Exhibit 32.1 (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 consolidated financial condition and results of operations      of the Company. |
|--------|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| By:    | /s/      Christina Domecq        |
|--------|----------------------------------|
|   | Chief      Executive Officer and |
|   | Principal      Executive Officer |
|   | October      15, 2010            |

----
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 99(c)





                       SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

                             Washington, D.C. 20549

                                    FORM 8-K

                                 CURRENT REPORT

                     Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the
                       Securities and Exchange Act of 1934


Date of Report                                                   June 16, 1998
--------------                                                   -------------
(Date of earliest event reported)


                         TRANSPIRATOR TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
             (Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)


                                    DELAWARE
                 (State or other jurisdiction of incorporation)


      0-15654                                                    22-2789408    
------------------------                                  ----------------------
(Commission File Number)                                     (IRS Employer
                                                          Identification Number)



850-870 U.S. Highway #1, North Brunswick, New Jersey              08902
----------------------------------------------------           ------------  
(Address of Principal Executive Offices)                        (Zip Code)


                                 (732) 246-5900
                                 --------------                   
              (Registrant's telephone number, including area code)







                                                                 CONFORMED COPY


<PAGE>   2


                               
              ITEM 4. CHANGES IN REGISTRANT'S CERTIFYING ACCOUNTANT



(a)  At a meeting on June 16, 1998, the Board of Directors of Transpirator
     Technologies, Inc. selected the accounting firm of Hacker, Johnson, Cohen &
     Grieb PA as independent auditors for the Registrant for the fiscal years
     ended March 31, 1997 and 1998.

(b)  Not applicable. The registrant has not had audited financial statements
     since the fiscal year ended March 31, 1989. Therefore, there has not been
     an auditor for the registrant from March 31, 1989 until current time. The
     registrant has been inactive from 1991 until the current year.

(c)  Not applicable.

(d)  Not applicable.

                    ITEM 7. FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND EXHIBITS

(c)  None.


                                   SIGNATURES

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, the
registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the
undersigned hereunto duly authorized.

                                        TRANSPIRATOR TECHNOLOGIES, INC.




Date: June 23, 1998
      -------------                     By: /s/ Raymond Romano
                                            ------------------------
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Justice

###### Antitrust Division

                    Notice is hereby given that, on May 15, 2009, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the  National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301*et**seq.*                     (“the Act”), iRobot Corporation (“iRobot”) has filed written  notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade  Commission disclosing (1) the identities of the parties to the venture and (2) the nature and objectives of the venture. The notifications were filed for the  purpose of invoking the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust  plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances.                

Pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act, the identities of the parties to the  venture are: iRobot, Bedford, MA; Georgia Tech Research Corporation, Atlanta, GA; Lockheed Martin Advanced Technologies Laboratories, Cherry Hill, NJ; the  Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA; Sarnoff Corporation, Princeton, NJ; The Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University, Stanford, CA; and The Regents of the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM. The general area of iRobot's planned activity is to engage in cooperative  research and development in the area of robotic perception, intelligence, human-robot interaction, and dexterous manipulation and unique mobility.

Patricia A. Brink,

Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.

[FR Doc. E9-14983 Filed 6-24-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 97-10185

Summary Calendar

 

MICHAEL HOWARD BERTOK,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

GARY L. JOHNSON, DIRECTOR,

TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE,

INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION,

Respondent-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:96-CV-333-A

- - - - - - - - - -

September 2, 1997

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Michael Howard Bertok, Texas state prisoner #631579, appeals

from the district court’s dismissal of his petition for writ of

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. This court

previously granted Bertok a certificate of appealability on the

issue whether retroactive application of a TDCJ policy

discontinuing the restoration of forfeited good-conduct time

violates the Ex Post Facto Clause. We have reviewed the record
No. 97-10185

-2-

and find no reversible error. See Hallmark v. Johnson, ___ F.3d

___ (5th Cir. July 25, 1997, No. 95-20752), 1997 WL 420147. 

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
*This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court

generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order

and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

F I L E D

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

MAY 26 1999

PATRICK FISHER

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

SHARON MARIE PUENTE,

Plaintiff - Appellant, No. 99-1068

v. (D. Colorado)

UNITED STATES CRIMINAL AND

CIVIL DIVISION, FED V, FED VIII,

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT

OF JUSTICE, HOPKINS AND

TOCHLER, LLC, BARON

PROPERTIES, LLC,

Defendants - Appellees.

(D.C. No. 98-Z-2669)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before ANDERSON , KELLY , and BRISCOE , Circuit Judges.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of
-2-

this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is

therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

This matter is before us on Sharon Marie Puente’s motion for leave to

proceed in forma pauperis so as to appeal the dismissal of her civil action against

the United States Criminal and Civil Division, Social Security, and others. For

the reasons stated in the district court’s order of dismissal filed February 5, 1999,

we deny leave to proceed without prepayment of costs or fees and DISMISS the

appeal.

ENTERED FOR THE COURT

Stephen H. Anderson

Circuit Judge
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20-1669

BRENDA COLEMAN GILLIS,

Debtor - Appellant,

v.

SUZANNE WADE,

Trustee - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Richmond. John A. Gibney, Jr., District Judge. (3:20-cv-00244-JAG)

Submitted: October 22, 2020 Decided: October 26, 2020

Before WYNN, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Brenda Coleman Gillis, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Brenda Coleman Gillis appeals the district court’s order denying her leave to 

proceed in forma pauperis in her appeal from the bankruptcy court’s order in the underlying 

Chapter 13 proceeding. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. 

Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and we dismiss the appeal for 

the reasons stated by the district court. Gillis v. Wade, No. 3:20-cv-00244-JAG (E.D. Va. 

May 11, 2020). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions 

are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

DISMISSED
**Exhibit10.1**

 

 

 

 

 

September 4, 2007

 

 

James Schermerhorn

130 Crawford Road

Downingtown, PA 19335

 

Dear Jim:

 

                On behalf of theBoard of Directors, we are pleased to offer you the following retentionincentive opportunity based on your continued employment with the Bank on theterms outlined below:

 

                1.             If you remain employed in yourpresent position through the last day of the month in which you attain age 65,we will pay you a retention incentive of $130,000, less applicable taxwithholding. Such payment will be made in a lump sum not later than thirty (30)days after the date you become entitled to payment.

 

                2.             If, prior to the scheduled paymentdate, you terminate employment by reason of your death or disability (asdefined below) or if we terminate your employment without cause (as definedbelow), we will pay you (or your estate) the retention incentive amount notlater than thirty (30) days after your termination date.

 

                3.             Notwithstanding anything in thisletter to the contrary, we reserve the right to terminate your employment forcause (as defined below) at any time, in which case you will not be entitled toany retention incentive payment.

 

                4.             You agree that amount of theretention incentive will not be considered for purposes of determining your allocation,contribution or benefit under any other plan or program sponsored by Fox ChaseBank

 

                5.             For purposes of this letter, theterms “cause” and “disability” shall have the same meaning as under the FoxChase Bancorp, Inc. 2007 Equity Incentive Plan.

 

                We believe thisincentive opportunity is well deserved and is a reflection of the fact that youhave been integral to the successful operation of Fox Chase Bank.  Please acknowledge your acceptance of theterms and conditions described in the letter in the place provided below.

 
|   | Sincerely,          |
|--------|---------------------|
|   |                |
|   | /s/ Thomas M. Petro |
|   |                |
|   | Thomas M. Petro     |
|   | President & CEO |

Accepted and Agreed

 
| /s/ James Schermerhorn  |   |
|-------------------------|--------|
|                    |
| Date: September 6, 2007 |

 

----
STEVEN JOHNSON JR.,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D15-0431

_____________________________/

Opinion filed July 15, 2015.

An appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for Alachua County.

Mark W. Moseley, Judge.

Steven Johnson Jr., pro se, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Julian E. Markham, Assistant Attorney 

General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The appellant appeals an order granting a motion for postconviction relief 

filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. For the reasons 

discussed below, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.

The appellant entered a negotiated plea of guilty in three cases to two 

charges of possession of a controlled substance, and two counts of driving while 

license suspended or revoked (habitual offender revocation), a violation of section
2

322.34(5), Florida Statutes (2013), in exchange for concurrent sentences of 18 

months’ imprisonment for each count. The appellant filed a motion for 

postconviction relief alleging that he could not have been convicted of the driving 

while license suspended or revoked charges because he never had a valid license. 

He alleged that he would not have entered his plea had counsel advised him that he 

could not be convicted of those charges. The State conceded that the appellant’s 

convictions for driving while license suspended or revoked were improper. The 

trial court then granted the motion and reduced the appellant’s convictions to those 

for driving without a valid driver’s license (a misdemeanor offense). However, the 

trial court failed to address the appellant’s claim that he would not have entered the 

plea had he been advised that he could not be convicted of two felony driving 

offenses. Thus, we reverse and remand for the trial court to address that allegation. 

Cf. Gonzalez v. State, 829 So. 2d 323 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (affirming denial of 

post-conviction in part, but reversing and remanding for trial court to rule on issue 

not addressed in order).

REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings.

ROWE, SWANSON, and BILBREY, JJ., CONCUR.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6234

DONOVAN HENDERSON,

Petitioner – Appellant,

v.

JOSEPH MCFADDEN, Warden, Lieber Correctional Institution,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Beaufort. Timothy M. Cain, District Judge. 

(9:14-cv-00511-TMC)

Submitted: June 29, 2015 Decided: July 15, 2015

Before GREGORY and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Donovan Henderson, Appellant Pro Se. James Anthony Mabry, 

Assistant Attorney General, Donald John Zelenka, Senior 

Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Donovan Henderson seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 

denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The 

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues 

a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A)

(2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a 

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies 

relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by 

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the 

district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is 

debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 

(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). 

When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the 

prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural 

ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable 

claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. 

at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that 

Henderson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
1Pursuant 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.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

for the Fifth Circuit

_____________________________________

No. 96-20285

_____________________________________

PETROLEOS MEXICANOS,

Plaintiff-Counter Defendant-Appellee,

VERSUS

AMTRADE INTERNATIONAL, INC.

Defendant-Counter Claimant-Appellant.

______________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

(CA-H-95-1070)

______________________________________________________

December 9, 1996

Before WISDOM, DAVIS and DUHÉ, Circuit Judges:

PER CURIAM:1

Our review of the record and the briefs in this case leads us

to conclude that the district court correctly granted summary

judgment in favor of Petroleos Mexicanos. Amtrade International

failed to demonstrate that the promissory note or the settlement

agreement was ambiguous and the district court properly refused to

consider parole evidence.

 AFFIRMED.
2
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 120 (Wednesday, June 24, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 30181]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-14771]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION


Advisory Committee on Veterans Business Affairs

AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration.

ACTION: Notice of Federal Advisory Committee Meeting.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The SBA is issuing this notice to announce the location, date, 
time, and agenda for the next meeting of the Advisory Committee on 
Veterans Business Affairs. The meeting will be open to the public.

DATES: Tuesday, July, 14, 2009, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. and Wednesday, 
July 15, 2009, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Eastern Standard Time.

ADDRESSES: U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., 
Washington, DC 20416.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 10(a) (2) of the Federal 
Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C., Appendix 2), SBA announces the 
meeting of the Advisory Committee on Veterans Business Affairs. The 
Advisory Committee on Veterans Business Affairs serves as an 
independent source of advice and policy recommendation to the 
Administrator of the U.S. Small Business Administration.
    The meeting is scheduled as a full committee meeting. The agenda 
will include: Presentations and discussions regarding Small Business 
Administration and other public lending programs for veterans and 
Reserve component members of the U.S. Military who are small business 
owners or who aspire to small business ownership. The purpose is to 
study, research, and make recommendations regarding Veterans Business 
Development to the SBA Administrator, the SBA Associate Administrator 
for Veterans Business Development, the Congress, and the President of 
the United States.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anyone wishing to attend and/or make a 
presentation to the Advisory Committee on Veterans Business Affairs and 
will need accommodations because of a disability or require additional 
information, you must contact Cheryl Simms, Program Liaison, by July 
10, 2009, by fax or e-mail, in order to be placed on the agenda. Cheryl 
Simms, Program Liaison, U.S. Small Business Administration, Office of 
Veterans Business Development, 409 3rd Street, SW., Washington, DC 
20416, Telephone number: (202) 619-1697, Fax number: 202-481-6085, e-
mail address: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#26454e43545f4a08554f4b4b556655444708414950"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="bbd8d3dec9c2d795c8d2d6d6c8fbc8d9da95dcd4cd">[email protected]</span></a>.
    For more information, please visit our Web site at http://www.sba.gov/vets.

    Dated: June 9, 2009.
Meaghan K. Burdick,
SBA Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. E9-14771 Filed 6-23-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>