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

                                  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), each of the
undersigned officers of National Datacomputer, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the
"Company"), does hereby certify, to such officer's knowledge, that:

The Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2007 (the
"Form 10-KSB") of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the information
contained in the Form 10-QKB fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.


Dated: March 28, 2008

/s/ William B. Berens
---------------------------
William B. Berens
President and Chief Executive Officer


Dated: March 28, 2008

/s/ Bruna Bucacci
---------------------------
Bruna Bucacci
Chief Accounting 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.
Case 2:10-cv-03400-DMC-JAD Document 3 Filed 07/21/10 Page 1 of 4 PageID: 21
Case 2:10-cv-03400-DMC-JAD Document 3 Filed 07/21/10 Page 2 of 4 PageID: 22
Case 2:10-cv-03400-DMC-JAD Document 3 Filed 07/21/10 Page 3 of 4 PageID: 23
Case 2:10-cv-03400-DMC-JAD Document 3 Filed 07/21/10 Page 4 of 4 PageID: 24
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
of Splinternet Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended
June 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
“Report”), the undersigned certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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.


Dated: August
      14, 2009
                  By:
                  /s/ James
      C. AckerlyJames
      C. Ackerly, Chief Executive Officerand
      President (Principal Executive Officer)
IV 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 887 

Recognizing a Space Coast Symbol of Kindness and urging acts of kindness 

throughout our Nation. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 5, 2020 

Mr. POSEY submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on Education and Labor 

RESOLUTION 

Recognizing a Space Coast Symbol of Kindness and urging 

acts of kindness throughout our Nation. 

Whereas we are kind when we act in the best interests of another without expecting anything in return; 

Whereas our national character is to lift one another up by 

being kind; 

Whereas the United States has been a beacon of kindness to 

the rest of the world; 

Whereas kindness for each other brings unity and makes our 

Nation stronger than any one of us to meet our challenges; 

Whereas we need the healing and compassion that kindness 

can bring us in these times; 

Whereas children are often the best teachers of kindness; 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 887 IH 

Whereas the students of the transitional kindergarten of 

Tropical Elementary School, Brevard County, Florida, 

have created a special Symbol of Kindness; and 

Whereas these special children have won the hearts of people 

from many States in appreciation and support for their 

Symbol of Kindness: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives ex2 presses support for the recognition of the Symbol of Kind3 ness created by the students of the transitional kinder4 garten of Tropical Elementary School, Brevard County, 

5 Florida. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiffs,

V.

ANDREW COX,

Defendants.

Criminal No.: 11-099 (JLL)

ORDER

Please be advised that oral argument on defendant’s motions as against the Government

[Docket Entry Nos. 88, 90, 92, 95 and 108] and his Motion for Release [Docket Entry No. 78] is

scheduled for Monday, July 16, 2012 at 1:30 p.m. in Courtroom 5D of the Martin Luther King

Jr., Federal Building, 50 Walnut Street, Newark, New Jersey. All parties are hereby required to

appear.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Linares,

States District Judge

Dated: June 6,2012
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

John A. Sosa,

Petitioner,

v.

United States of America,

Respondent,

Civil Action No. 10-3354(KSH)

NOTICE AND ORDER

You have filed a pro se pleading challenging your federal

conviction and incarceration. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals

has recently decided the case of United States v. Miller, 197

F.3d 644 (3d Cir. 1999). Pursuant to that decision, this is to

advise you as follows:

1. You may have your pleading ruled upon as filed; or

2. You may have your pleading re-characterized as a

Section 2255 motion and heard as such. If you do,

however, you will lose your ability to file a second or

successive pleading absent Certification by the Court

of Appeals; or

3. You may withdraw your pleading and file an all

inclusive Section 2255 Petition subject to the one (1)

year period described by the Antiterrorism Effective

Death Penalty Act [AEDPA] in 28 U.S.C. § 2255.

You have forty-five (45) days from today’s date within which

to advise the Court as to your decision. If you fail to notify

the Court, your pleading and motion will be ruled upon as filed.

SO ORDERED:

/s/ Katharine S. Hayden 

Dated: 7/12/10 Katharine S. Hayden 

U.S. District Judge

Case 2:10-cv-03354-KSH Document 2 Filed 07/12/10 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 22
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 Amended Quarterly Report of AOB Biotech, Inc. (the
        "Company") on Form 10-QSB/A for the period ending February 1, 2007 as filed
        with
        the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
        the
        undersigned, Nelson Liao, Chief Executive Officer of the Company and Haijing
        (Carrie) Wang, 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
        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.





February
                1, 2007
            ***/s/
                Nelson Liao****Nelson
                Liao**Chief
                Executive Officer*February
                1, 2007
            ***/s/Haijing
                (Carrie) Wang****Haijing
                (Carrie) Wang**Chief
                Financial Officer*
LEONID ZALTSBERG,

Defendant.

-

-- x

o. IO

CR

437 (SRC)

ORDER

AN APPLICATION HAVING BEEN MADE TO THIS COURT BY DEFENDANT LEONID

ZALTSBERG, for permission for him to travel internationally in Europe, and Government attorneys

Michael C. Vasiliadis, Esq., and AUSA Scott McBride, having no objection to said application and

consenting to the entty ofthe proposed order,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, that defendant is granted immediate permission to travel outside of

the United States for a three-month period from May 15, 201210 August 15, 2012.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that prior to commencing this period of international travel,

defendant shall provide his Probation Officer with an itinerary of his planned travel, and said itinerary shall

be subject to the approval ofthe Probation Officer.

Dated: May 4J 2012

Steven R. Kartagener, Esq.

Counse’ for Defendant

Counsel for the Goverutuent

United Stales District Judge
Ma 4.2012

Hon. Stanley R. Chesler

Lnnea taies uIsTrlci .iudge

Frank R. Lautenberg U.S. Post 0111cc

& Courthouse, Federal Square

P0 Box 999

Newark, NJ 07102

RE: United States v. Leonid Zaltsberg

Dkt. No. 1O-Cr.-437 (SRC)

Dear Judge Chesler:

I represent defendant Leonid Zaltsherg (hereinafter “defendant”) in the above-entitled

criminal matter. Enclosed please find the proposed order, signed by both parties, in connection with

our application, dated April 27, 2012. requesting that defendant be permitted to travel outside ofthe

United States from May 15. 2012 to August 15. 2012.

Respectfully submitted,

/7, 72

/ / -—-

0 ;

Steven R. Kartagener
**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. Section 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
In connection with the Quarterly Report of Craft College Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date here of (the "report"), I, Dario Passadore, Interim 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 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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated this 11th day of November, 2008.

BY:
/s/ DARIO PASSADORE                        Dario Passadore, Interim President and Principal Financial Officer**
EXHIBIT 32.2

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Maple Mountain Explorations Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending January 31, 2007 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Marvin Wosk, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
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 result of operations of
          the Company.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of the
9th day of March, 2007.


/s/ Marvin Wosk
------------------------------
Chief Financial Officer
#### Rhonda GOLDEN, Plaintiff-Appellant v. DOLLAR GENERAL CORPORATION; Michelle Hughes; Tom O’Connell, district manager; Ruth Greggory, risk management; Gaylon Keetis, regional manager; Kimberly Knaff; Ray LNU, store manager, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 12-3027.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: Feb. 14, 2013.

Filed: March 1, 2013.

Rhonda Golden, Grandview, MO, pro se.

James R. Holland, II, Ashley Shaney-felt, Fisher & Phillips, argued, Kansas City, MO, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before MURPHY, SMITH, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Rhonda Golden appeals the district court’s1 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) dismissal of her complaint. After careful de novo review, *see Palmer v. Ill. Farmers Ins. Co.,*666 F.3d 1081, 1083 (8th Cir.2012), we conclude that the dismissal was proper because Golden’s complaint did not allege sufficient facts to support any of her claims, *see Ashcroft v. Iqbal,*556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, that states facially plausible claim for relief). Accordingly, we affirm. *See*8th Cir. R. 47B.

1

. The Honorable Gary A. Fenner, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.
#### Christine Reese, Respondent, v Walter Reese, Appellant.

[975 NYS2d 900]

In a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by judgment entered December 18, 2007, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (J. Murphy, J.), entered April 5, 2012, which granted, without a hearing, those branches of the plaintiff’s cross motion which were for an upward modification of the defendant’s child support obligation set forth in a stipulation of settlement, which was incorporated but not merged into the judgment of divorce, and for an award of an attorney’s fee.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, with costs, and those branches of the plaintiffs cross motion which were for an upward modification of the defendant’s child support obligation and for an award of an attorney’s fee are denied.

A child support agreement based on a stipulation of settlement which is incorporated but not merged into the divorce judgment should not be disturbed absent a showing that the *603agreement was unfair or inequitable, that there was an unanticipated change in circumstances *(see Matter of Boden v Boden,*42 NY2d 210, 213 [1977]; *Nelson v Nelson,*75 AD3d 593, 593-594 [2010]; *Matter of Mason v Papol,*63 AD3d 942 [2009]), or that the children’s needs were no longer being met *(see Matter o Gravlin v Ruppert,*98 NY2d 1, 5 [2002]; *Matter of Imperato v Imperato,*54 AD3d 375, 3760[2008]). Here, the plaintiff failed to make the requisite showing to warrant an upward modification of child support. Accordingly, the Supreme Court should not have granted that branch of the plaintiff’s cross motion which was for an upward modification of the defendant’s child support obligation *(see Matter of Alexander v Strathairn,*69 AD3d 930, 931 [2010]; *Friedman v Friedman,*65 AD3d 1081, 1082 [2009]).

Further, under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court should not have granted that branch of the plaintiff’s cross motion which was for an award of an attorney’s fee *(see*Domestic Relations Law § 237 [b]; *Matter of Alexander v Strathairn,*69 AD3d at 931).

In light of our determination, the defendant’s remaining contentions need not be considered. Rivera, J.R, Skelos, Chambers and Hall, JJ., concur.
**EXHIBIT
      23.1**





Consent
      of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm





We
      hereby
      consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement of
      Patient Safety Technologies, Inc., f/k/a Franklin Capital Corporation, on Form
      S-8 of our report dated April 15, 2008, with respect to the consolidated
      financial statements of Patient Safety Technologies, Inc. as of December 31,
      2007 and 2006 and each of the years then ended.








/s/
      Squar, Milner, Peterson, Miranda & Williamson, LLP








San
      Diego, California


April
      21,
      2008
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     (Replace this text with the legend)
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. Dollars

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Jun-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 Jul-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   Jun-30-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         2,815,863
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  14,080,104
<ALLOWANCES>                                   846,344
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               22,167,103
<PP&E>                                         4,462,554
<DEPRECIATION>                                 1,708,032
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 30,846,011
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          28,847,696
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       5,313
<OTHER-SE>                                     1,993,002
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   30,846,011
<SALES>                                        134,031,026
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               134,031,026
<CGS>                                          121,536,733
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  121,536,733
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               82,904
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                2,915,011
<INCOME-TAX>                                   976,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            1,939,011
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   1,939,011
<EPS-BASIC>                                  0.37
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0.37



</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6447

SAMUEL R. JACKSON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

EDDIE HART; CHARLIE HARGROVE; JOYCE COZART; GREGORY GOULDMAN; 

ASCEE ANDERSON; DR. JOSEPH LIGHTSEY; PAMALA HENDERSON,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever, III, Chief 

District Judge. (5:13-ct-03202-D)

Submitted: July 23, 2015 Decided: July 27, 2015

Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed in part, affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam 

opinion.

Samuel R. Jackson, Appellant Pro Se. Donna Elizabeth Tanner, NORTH 

CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina; Kelly 

Street Brown, Elizabeth Pharr McCullough, YOUNG MOORE & HENDERSON, 

PA, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Samuel R. Jackson seeks to appeal the district court’s orders 

disposing of several motions filed in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) 

suit. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 

28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory and collateral 

orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. 

Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). The 

district court’s denial of Jackson’s motion to appoint counsel and 

the court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendant 

Lightsey are neither final orders nor appealable interlocutory or 

collateral orders. Accordingly, we dismiss this portion of the 

appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 

Jackson also appeals the district court’s denial of three 

motions for injunctive relief. The court’s order is an immediately 

appealable interlocutory order. 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). We have 

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we 

affirm the district court’s order denying injunctive relief.

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 IN PART,

AFFIRMED IN PART
Exhibit  21


                     Subsidiaries of Criticare Systems, Inc.


     The  subsidiaries  of  Criticare  Systems,  Inc.  are  as  follows:
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>



NAME                                       JURISDICTION OF ORGANIZATION
<S>                                              <C>
Criticare Service GmbH. . . . . . . . . . . . .  Germany
Sleep Care, Inc.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  Delaware
Criticare Biomedical, Inc.. . . . . . . . . . .  Wisconsin
CSI Trading, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  Wisconsin
Criticare International GmbH
 Marketing Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  Germany

</TABLE>


______________________

     All  subsidiaries  are  wholly  owned, directly or indirectly, by Criticare
Systems,  Inc.
ACCEPTED

01-15-00190-CV

FIRST COURT OF APPEALS

HOUSTON, TEXAS

7/27/2015 11:23:48 AM

CHRISTOPHER PRINE

CLERK

 FILED IN 1st COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 7/27/2015 11:23:48 AM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE Clerk
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT UNITED STATES OF AM ERIC A,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lle e , v. EARL SC OTT C HESNUT,

De fe nda nt-Appe l la

nt. No. 15-30368

D.C . No. 3:10-c r-00259-B R M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ore gon Anna J. B rown, Distric t Judge , Pre s iding Subm itte d Se pte m

be r 27, 2016 * * B e fore : TASHIM A , SILVER M AN, a nd M . SM ITH, C irc uit Judge s. Earl Sc ott C he snut a

ppe a ls from

the distric t c ourt’ s judgm e nt a nd c ha lle nge s the s e nte n c e of 12 m onths a nd one da y im pose d upon there voc ation of supervise d re le a se . W e have jurisdic tion under 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a nd we a ffirm . C he snut c onte nds tha

t the distric t c ourt viola

t e d his right to due

proc e ss by 

# FIL ED OCT 03 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).ba sing these nte nc e on ina c c urate inform ation re ga rding oneof his prior c onvic tions. W e re vie w for pla in e rror, Unite d State s v . Vande rw e rfhorst , 576 F.3d 929, 934 (9th C ir. 2009), a nd find none . The gove rnm e nt c onc e de s tha t it e rrone ously

re fe rre d to one of C he snut’ s prior c onvic tions a s be i ng for a ssa ult a nd m e na c ing whe n it wa s, in fa c t, just for me na c ing. Howe ve r, the re c o rd re fle c ts the distric t c o urt did not re ly

on this m issta te m e nt in im

posing C he snut’ s se nte nc e . R athe r, the re c ord de m onstra te s tha t the distric t c ourt prope rly ba se d the se nte nc e on C h e snut’ s history of dom e stic viole nc e and bre a c h of the c ourt’ s trust. Se e 18 U.S.C . § 3583(e ); Unite d State s v . Miqbe l , 444 F.3d 1173, 1182 (9th C ir. 2006). Ac c ordingly , the re wa s no dueproc e ss viola tion. Se e Unite d State

s v . C hriste nse n , 732 F.3d 1094, 1106 (9th C ir. 3013) (to e sta blish a due proc e ss viola

t ion, de fe nda nt m ust show tha

t the c ha lle nge d inform at ion “w a s de m onstra bly m a de the ba sis for these nte nc e im

pose d” ). C he snut’ s unoppose d m otion to supple m e nt there c ord is gra

nte d. AFFIRM E D .

1 5 - 3 0 3 6 8 2