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

**CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO**

**EXCHANGE      ACT RULE 15D-14(B) AND**

**18      U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

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

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

|     |                                                                                                        |   |   |
|--------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|
| By:           | /s/ Gary                C.                Evans                                                        |   |   |   |
|               | Name: Gary                  C. EvansTitle: President                  and Chief Executive Officer |   |   |  |
|               |                                                                                                        |   |   |   |
|               | Date: April                30, 2007                                                                    |   |   |  |

----
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

July 23, 2015

No. 04-15-00164-CR

Leandre V. HILL,

Appellant

v.

The State of TexasAppellee/s

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 379th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2009CR10328

Honorable Ron Rangel, Judge Presiding

ORDER

The Appellant’s Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief has this date been received 

and filed in the above styled and numbered cause. Extension of time to file the Appellant’s brief 

is this date GRANTED. Time is extended to August 24, 2015.

PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO: ____________________________

KEITH E. HOTTLE

CLERK OF COURT

cc: Nicolas A. LaHood

District Attorney, Bexar County

101 W. Nueva, Suite 370

San Antonio, TX 78205

Richard B. Dulany Jr.

Bexar County Public Defender's Office

Paul Elizondo Tower

101 W. Nueva St., Suite 370

San Antonio, TX 78205
#### KILLINGSWORTH ENVIRONMENT, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 01-5028.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Aug. 30, 2001.

Before PAULINE NEWMAN, RADER, and SCHALL, Circuit Judges.

SCHALL, Circuit Judge.

*ORDER*

The United States moves to summarily affirm the Court of Federal Claims’ judgment dismissing Killingsworth Environment, Inc.’s complaint. Killingsworth has not responded.

Killingsworth filed a complaint in the Court of Federal Claims challenging the actions of state officials in Florida. The Court of Federal Claims dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction, noting that its jurisdiction “is limited to claims against the United States not sounding in tort. See 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1).” Killingsworth appealed.

The United States argues that the Court of Federal Claims’ judgment should be summarily affirmed. Killingsworth has not responded to the motion. However, in its brief, Killingsworth argues that the Court of Federal Claims had jurisdiction because the state officials along with its business competitors are alleged to have committed antitrust violations. Killings-worth also argues that the state’s immunity to suit is waived because of the antitrust violations. However, the Court of Federal Claims correctly held that it has jurisdiction over an action if the “United States” is named by the plaintiff as the defendant and not if actions of a state or state officials are challenged. Killingsworth’s other argument, that the case be remanded for a more definite statement, is without merit because Killingsworth seeks remand to remove the tort claims or more adequately explain the antitrust claims but not to add the United States as a defendant. Summary disposition of a case “is appropriate, *inter alia,*when the position of one party is so clearly correct as a matter of law that no substantial question regarding the outcome of the appeal exists.” *Joshua v. United States,*17 F.3d 378, 380 (Fed.Cir.1994). In the present case, it is clear that summary disposition is warranted. The complaint is not within the jurisdiction of the Court of Federal Claims.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) The United States’ motion for summary affirmance is granted.

(2) Each side shall bear its own costs.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 125 (Wednesday, July 1, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 31456]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-15589]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


Center for Scientific Review; Amended Notice of Meeting

    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Center for 
Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel, July 16, 2009, 9 a.m. to July 
17, 2009, 6 p.m., National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, 
Bethesda, MD 20892 which was published in the Federal Register on June 
15, 2009, 74 FR 28260-28262.
    The meeting times have been changed to 8 a.m. on July 16, 2009, to 
4 p.m. on July 17, 2009. The meeting dates and location remain the 
same. The meeting is closed to the public.

    Dated: June 18, 2009.
Jennifer Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. E9-15589 Filed 6-30-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
July 23, 2015

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

CURTIS JAMES SIMOND, Appellant

NO. 14-14-00633-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

________________________________

This cause was heard on the transcripts of the record of the court below, and 

having inspected the record, the Court holds there was no error in the judgment 

requiring reversal, but there was error in the judgment as entered, which is capable 

of reformation by this Court. Therefore, the judgment is REFORMED to reflect 

appellant pled “true” to the first enhancement paragraph.

The Court orders the judgment AFFIRMED as REFORMED.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
Order entered July 22, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-14-01299-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF J.C., ET AL

On Appeal from the 303rd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DF-76-08723-V

ORDER

We GRANT appellant’s motion for extension of time to file brief and ORDER the brief 

tendered to the Clerk of the Court July 14, 2015 filed as of the date of this order.

/s/ CRAIG STODDART 

JUSTICE
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Cory Shane Fields, * From the 350th District Court

 of Taylor County, Texas

Trial Court No. 11208-D.

Vs. No. 11-15-00120-CR * July 23, 2015

The State of Texas, * Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

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

 Willson, J., and Bailey, J.)

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

appeal should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Therefore, in accordance 

with this court’s opinion, the appeal is dismissed.
EXHIBIT 32.2

 

Certification of Principal Financial Officer

 

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Owens-Illinois Group, Inc. (the “Company”) hereby certifies that to such officer’s knowledge:

 

(i)the Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2017 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

(ii)the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 

| 2                                       |                                  |
|-----------------------------------------|---------------------------------------|
| Dated: February 20, 2018 | /s/ Jan A. Bertsch                    |
|                                    | Jan A. Bertsch                        |
|                                    | President and Chief Financial Officer |

 

----

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

 

----
S04Y0844.

#### IN THE MATTER OF ERIC VANN ROSS.

(599 SE2d 185)

Per curiam.

This disciplinary matter is before the Court on the Notice of Discipline filed pursuant to Bar Rule 4-208.1 against Respondent Eric Vann Ross and to which he failed to respond. After an investigation, the State Bar filed the notice charging Ross with violating Rules 1.2,1.3,1.4,1.15 (I), 1.16 (d), 8.4, and 9.3 of the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct, see Bar Rule 4-102 (d). The State Bar properly served Ross by publication in accordance with Bar Rule 4-203.1 (b) (3) (ii), but he did not reject the notice as required by Bar Rule 4-208.3. Accordingly, Ross is in default, has no right to an evidentiary hearing, and is subject to discipline by this Court, under Bar Rule 4-208.1.

The facts as deemed admitted show that a client hired Ross to represent him in a matter and Ross settled the case for $20,000 and *214dismissed it with prejudice without consulting the client. He deposited the settlement funds into his bank account and told the client the case had been settled for $18,000. Ross has failed to deliver the settlement funds to his client or to render an accounting to his client regarding the funds.

Decided July 12, 2004.

*William P. Smith III, General Counsel State Bar, Jenny K. Mittelman, Assistant General Counsel State Bar,*for State Bar of Georgia.

We agree with the State Bar that Ross should be disbarred for his violations of the rules set forth above. Accordingly, we hereby order that Eric Vann Ross be removed from the rolls of persons authorized to practice law in the State of Georgia. He is reminded of his duties under Bar Rule 4-219 (c).

*Disbarred.*

*All the Justices concur.*
H. Res. 778 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

January 7, 2020. 

Resolved, That unless otherwise ordered, the hour of 

daily meeting of the House shall be 2 p.m. on Mondays; noon 

on Tuesdays (or 2 p.m. if no legislative business was conducted on the preceding Monday); noon on Wednesdays and 

Thursdays; and 9 a.m. on all other days of the week. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
Benefits and Beneficiaries Under the Railroad Retirement 

and Unemployment Insurance Systems - July 2002 

Benefit payments July 2002 July 2001 

Total $723,835,000 $703,871,000 

Retired employees 457,468,000 444,196,000 

Regular Retirement Spouses and divorced spouses 88,408,000 86,725,000 

and Survivor Benefits Widow(er)s - aged and disabled 156,588,000 151,534,000 

Other survivors 21,371,000 21,415,000 

Number Average1 Number Average1 

Total 645,300 ......... 3,300 ......... ......... 

Regular employee annuities, total 298,000 $1,524 1,600 $2,234 ......... 

Age 216,500 1,488 2 1,000 2 2,530 3 $1,144 

Disability, age 65 and over 37,000 1,360 ......... ......... ......... 

Disability, under age 65 44,400 1,833 400 2,086 

Spouses and divorced spouses 151,400 576 900 711 

Widow(er)s--aged and disabled 166,700 939 600 1,330 

Widowed mothers and fathers 1,100 1,221 4/ 1,170 

Widow(er)s--remarried and divorced 15,200 629 100 676 

Children 12,800 727 100 988 

Other survivors 100 612 ......... ......... ......... 

Average under 

Being paid 

end of month 

Awarded in 

month 

Social Security 

Monthly benefits July 2002

Being Paid Awarded 

......... 

......... 

$879 

......... 

625 646 

818 897 

431 328 

......... 

5/ / 

573 586 

833 718 

5

Supplemental 

Employee 

Annuities 

1

Railroad retirement benefits shown are net of reduction for social security benefit entitlement. 

Benefit payments 

July July 

2002 2001 Number Average 

$5,605,000 $5,664,000 132,200 $42 

Being paid 

end of month 

Awarded 

in month 

Number Average 

1,100 $42 

2

For employees retiring directly from the railroad industry with full age annuity (their years of service averaged 35); about 300 

other age annuities were awarded in the month. 

3

For men aged 65 or over insured on regular basis. 

4

Fewer than 50. 

5

Remarried and divorced widow(er)s included with aged and disabled widow(er)s and widowed mothers and fathers. 

Note. --Data are on a cash basis (unaudited) and are partly estimated. Detail may not add to totals due to rounding 

(Over) 
Benefits and Beneficiaries Under the Railroad Retirement 

and Unemployment Insurance Systems - (Continued) 

July 2002 

Unemployment and Sickness Benefits 

Unemployment 3,300 $251.05 

Sickness 6,600 251.40 

Unemployment 

Sickness 

Average payment 

Per 

full week 

$424.91 

Number of beneficiaries 

during month 

Per 2-week 

registration period 

443.35 

July 2002 

Benefit payments 

July 2001 

Total $6,123,000 $4,720,000 

2,685,000 1,650,000 

3,438,000 3,070,000 

Note. --Data are on a cash basis (unaudited) and are partly estimated. Detail may not add to totals due to rounding 

Recycled 

Paper 

Published by the U.S. Railroad Retirement Board 

Bureau of the Actuary and the Office of Public Affairs
Exhibit 32.1

Certification of Chief Executive Officer

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 Sharper Image Corporation, a Delaware corporation (Sharper Image), does hereby certify that:



| | a) | The Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended January 31, 2007 of Sharper Image fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | b) | The information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of Sharper Image.
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|             |  |                                      
|------------ |  | -------------------------------------
|By:          |  | /s/ Steven A. Lightman               
|             |  | Steven A. Lightman                   
|             |  | Chief Executive Officer and President
|May 31, 2007
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**Certificationpursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Qof Solera National Bancorp, Inc. (the “Company”) for the quarterly periodended March 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commissionon the date hereof (the “Report”), each of the undersigned hereby certifies, inaccordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)     The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

(2)     The information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company.

 
|                           | SOLERA NATIONAL BANCORP, INC.                |
|--------------------------------|----------------------------------------------|
| Dated: May 12, 2009       |                                         |
|                           |                                         |
|                           | By:  /s/ Douglas Crichfield             |
|                           |                                         |
|                           | Douglas Crichfield                           |
|                           | President & Chief Executive Officer |
|                           | (Principal Executive Officer)                |
|                           |                                         |
| Dated:  May 12, 2009 |                                         |
|                           |                                         |
|                           | By:  /s/ Robert J. Fenton               |
|                           |                                         |
|                           | Robert J. Fenton                             |
|                           | Vice President, Secretary and Treasurer      |
|                           | (Principal Accounting and Financial Officer) |

 

A signed original of this written statement requiredby Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (“Section 906”), orother document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting thesignature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of thiswritten statement required by Section 906, has been provided to SoleraNational Bancorp, Inc. and will be retained by Solera National Bancorp, Inc.and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff uponrequest.

 

----
#### RUMIG et al. v. RIPLEY MFG. CORPORATION et al.

Civ. A. No. 9763.

United States District Court E. D. Pennsylvania.

Dec. 1, 1949.

*468Harry O. Weinberg, Philadelphia, Pa., for plaintiff.

Sundheim, Folz, Kamsler & Goodis, Philadelphia, Pa., for defendant Neff.

Henry S. *Ambler*and Frank R. Ambler, Philadelphia, Pa., for defendants Ripley Mfg. Corp. and Ripies Clothes Phila. Inc.

McGRANERY, District Judge.

This is an action by plaintiffs against defendants as joint tort-feasors. Diversity of citizenship exists only 'between plaintiffs and the defendant Ripley Manufacturing Corporation, a corportion organized under the laws of New York. The other two defendants, residents of Pennsylvania, refused to consent to the jurisdiction of this court or to stipulate to the discontinuance of the action against the resident defendants only. Instead, resident defendants move to dismiss the complaint on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, and the nonresident defendant moves for a dismissal on the additional ground of improper service. Plaintiffs move for an order amending the complaint and discontinuing the action against resident defendants.

Under Rule 21 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A., “Parties may be dropped or added by order of the court on motion of any party or of its own initiative at any stage of the action and on such terms as are just.” Since joint tort-feasors are not indispensable or necessary parties under Rule 19, their liability being both joint and several, the resident defendants may be dropped.

The New York corporation’s averment of improper service is not a sufficient basis for dismissing the complaint as to it, in view of the affidavit of service by the marshal, to the effect that he served thé Philadelphia agent of that foreign corporation. On the record as it now- stands, it cannot be said that the plaintiffs will be unable to establish the necessary agency relationship. See Continental Collieries v. Shober, 3 Cir., 130 F.2d 631, 635.

Accordingly, an order will be entered denying the motions of the defendants to dismiss, and granting the motion of the plaintiffs to amend the complaint and discontinue the action against the resident defendants.
@conference{1209236,
  author = {Lorenzo Neil and Julie Haney and Kerrianne Buchanan},
  title = {Analyzing Cybersecurity Definitions for Non-experts},
  year = {2023},
  month = {2023-07-04 04:07:00},
  publisher = {IFIP International Symposium on Human Aspects of Information Security & Assurance (HAISA 2023), Kent, GB},
  url = {https://tsapps.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=936618},
  language = {en},
}
Benefits and Beneficiaries Under the Railroad Retirement 

and Unemployment Insurance Systems - July 2008 

Benefit payments July 2008 July 2007 

Regular Retirement 

and Survivor Benefits 

Total 

Retired employ

Spouses and d

Widow(er)s - ag

Other survivors 

ees 

ivorced spouses 

ed and disabled 

$836,165,000 

554,973,000 

101,484,000 

156,578,000 

23,129,000 

$814,613,000 

536,724,000 

97,724,000 

157,151,000 

23,014,000 

Average under 

Being paid Awarded in Social Security 

Monthly benefits end of month month July 2008 

Number Average1 Number Average1 Being Paid Awarded 

Total 566,200 ......... 2,800 ......... ......... .........

Regular employee annuities, total 275,100 $2,001 1,300 $2,638 ......... .........

 Age 191,000 1,972 2 800 2 3,059 $1,085 3 $1,509

 Disability, Full Retirement Age and Over 34,200 1,780 ......... ......... ......... .........

 Disability, Under Full Retirement Age 49,900 2,263 200 2,461 1,004 1,063 

Spouses and divorced spouses 136,100 739 900 925 518 386 

Widow(er)s--aged and disabled 129,100 1,209 500 1,656 1,027 847 

Widowed mothers and fathers 800 1,515 4/ 2,130 785 776 

Widow(er)s--remarried and divorced 14,100 805 100 947 5/ 5/ 

Children 10,800 877 4/ 1,225 705 688 

Other survivors 100 524 ......... ......... ......... .........

 Benefit payments 

Being paid 

end of month 

Awarded 

in month 

Supplemental 

Employee 

Annuities 

July 

2008 

$5,050,000 

July 

2007 

$5,049,000 

Number 

120,600 

Average 

$42 

Number 

800 

Average 

$42 

1

Railroad retirement benefits shown are net of reduction for social security benefit entitlement. 

2

For employees retiring directly from the railroad industry with full age annuity (their years of service averaged 35); about 300

 other age annuities were awarded in the month. 

3

For men aged 65 or over insured on regular basis. 

4

Fewer than 50. 

5

Remarried and divorced widow(er)s included with aged and disabled widow(er)s and widowed mothers and fathers. 

Note. --Data are on a cash basis (unaudited) and are partly estimated. Detail may not add to totals due to rounding. 

Regular retirement and survivor benefit payments total includes hospital insurance benefits for services in Canada. 

(Over) 
Benefits and Beneficiaries Under the Railroad Retirement 

and Unemployment Insurance Systems - (Continued) 

July 2008 

Unemployment and Sickness Benefits 

Average payment 

Number of beneficiaries 

during month 

Per 2-week 

registration period

 Per

 full week 

Unemployment 2,400 $495 $295 

Sickness 5,000 516 

July 2008 

Benefit payments 

296 

July 2007 

Unemployment

Total 

2,042,000 

$5,265,000 $5,499,000 

3,136,000 

Sickness 3,223,000 2,363,000 

Note. --Data are on a cash basis (unaudited). Detail may not add to totals due to rounding.

Published by the U.S. Railroad Retirement Board

Bureau of the Actuary

Recycled

 Paper