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

SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of MedPro Safety Products, Inc. (the Company) for the fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, W. Craig Turner, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, do hereby certify, in accordance with 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), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and   
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
| | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

|                     | MEPRO SAFETY PRODUCTS, INC.
|-------------------- | ---------------------------
|                    
|                    
|Dated: June 24, 2009 | By:                        
|                     |                            
|                     |                            
|                     |                            

30

---
Case 2:11-cr-00051-SDW Document 15 Filed 02/23/11 Page 1 of 3 PageID: 28
Case 2:11-cr-00051-SDW Document 15 Filed 02/23/11 Page 2 of 3 PageID: 29
Case 2:11-cr-00051-SDW Document 15 Filed 02/23/11 Page 3 of 3 PageID: 30
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH CIR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED April 25, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-40464 Summary Calendar WARDELL MOORE, Petitioner-Appellant,

versus DOUG DRETKE, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION, Respondent-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas

(6:03-CV-27) Before BARKSDALE, STEWART, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Wardell Moore appeals, pro se, the dismissal of his successive 28 U.S.C. § 225 4 application, which challenged his sentence following his conviction for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. The district court ruled the application was moot due to Moore’s release from prison. Moore contends his claim is not moot. The respondent claims the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider Moore’s successive application.2

Moore’s first § 2254 application was denied in October 2001. Moore v. Vandel , No. H-99-3739 (S .D. Tex. 30 Oct. 2001) (unpublished). The district court could consider Moore’s successive petition only if he had obtained an order from this court authorizing the district court to do so. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3) ; United States v. Key, 205 F.3d 773, 774 (5th Cir. 2000). Because Moore did not do so, the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider the successive petition. K ey, 205 F.3d at 774. Consequently, we vacate the judgment of the district court and remand this matter with instructions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. See Crone v. Cockrell , 324 F.3d 833, 838 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 910 (2003). JUDGMENT VACATED; REMANDED
10 CR 437 (SRC)

-against- ORDER

Leonid Zaltsberg

Defendant.

———----—--------------— x

AN APPLICATION having been made to this Court on behalf of

defendant, Leonid Zaltsberg by his attorney James I. DiPietro, Esq,, for an

Order allowing the defendant to travel to Ukraine from September 26, 2010

through November 9, 2010.

Upon having heard James 3. DiPietro, Esq., in support ofsaid

application, and having been informed by AUSA Stacey Levine and USPO

Diane Rivera that they consent to the relief requested as noted by their

signatures below, as well as Pre-trial Officer Laurie Nadler who takes no

position to the relief requested.
J)atd: September 23 OI0

JtZUti

1. DPitr,

M24 7

Bsq

AWcoTueyAtLaw

186 3oralcir*on Street

Brookl N.Yi1201

K Stacey e

tJSPO Denc RiyáMs. LadPre-th-”

ENTR. 

—

C

Honorable Stanley dsler

2
Datei: Sptethbor 23,2010

3fies J ThPieo Esq.

AIoney At Law

186 Joraiaian Sueet

Brooki ,N.Y. I12

Lave

USPODiau eVa

Ms. LieNadler Pre-tiü1)

ENThR:JIonoab1e Stan1 C1is1er

2
### IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS No. 10
- 12
- 00382
- CV TOMMY LEON JONES , Appellant v. BRAZOS COUNTY SHERIF F'S DEPARTMENT , Appellee

From the County Court at Law No
. 2 Brazos County, Texas Trial Court No. 11.002166
- CV
- CCL2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Tomm y Leon Jones appeals the trial court’s granting of a no evidence motion for summary judgment. Jones’s docketing statement was due November 12, 2012. It was not received. By letter dated November 20, 2012, the Clerk of this Court notified Jones
that the docketing statement had not been filed and must be filed within 21 days from the date of the letter. No docketing statement was received. By letter dated December 20, 2012, the Clerk of this Court again notified Jones that the docketing statement had
not been filed and warned Jones that if the docketing statement was not filed within 14Jones v. Brazos County Sheriff’s Department Page 2

days from the date of the letter, the appeal would be dismissed. More than 14 days have passed and no docketing statement has been received. Further, by letter dated Dece mber 12, 2012, Jones was notified by the Clerk of this Court that he had not paid or failed to make arrangements to pay the clerk’s fee for the preparation of the clerk’s record. Jones was warned that unless within 21 days from the date of the letter he p aid or made arrangements to pay the clerk’s fee and notified this Court of the actions take n , the appeal would be dismissed for want of prosecution. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P . 37.3(b). More than 21 days have passed and we have received no notification that Jone s has paid or made arrangements to pay the clerk’s fee. This appeal is dismissed. T EX
. R. A PP
. P . 42.3(b), (c); 37.3(b). Absent a specific exemption, the Clerk of the Court must collect filing fees at the time a document is presented for filing. T EX
. R. A PP
. P . 12.1(b); Appendix to T EX
. R. A PP
. P ., Order Regarding Fees (Amended Aug. 28, 2007, eff. Sept. 1, 2007). S ee also T EX
. R.
A PP
. P . 5; 10 TH T EX
. A PP
. (W ACO ) L OC
. R. 5; T EX
. G OV ’ T C ODE A NN . §§ 51.207(b); 51.208 (West Supp. 2012); § 51.941(a) (West 20 05). Under these circumstances, we suspend the rule and order the Clerk to write off all unpaid filing fees in this case. T EX
. R. A PP
. P . 2. The write

- off of the fees from the accounts receivable of the Court in no way eliminates or reduces the fees owe d.

TOM GRAY Chief JusticeJones v. Brazos County Sheriff’s Department Page 3

Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Davis, and Justice Scoggins Appeal dismissed Opinion delivered and filed January 17, 2013 [CV06]
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

CAMDEN VICINAGE

JENNIFER KASILAG, et al.,

 

Plaintiffs,

v.

HARTFORD INVESTMENT FINANCIAL 

SERVICES, LLC,

 Defendant.

______________________________

JENNIFER KASILAG, et al.,

 Plaintiffs,

 v.

HARTFORD FUNDS MANAGEMENT 

COMPANY, LLC,

 Defendant.

 Civil No. 11-1083-RMB-KMW

 Civil No. 14-1611-RMB-KMW

AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER

This Scheduling Order confirms the directives given to 

counsel during the telephone status conference held on

September 5, 2014; and the Court noting the following appearances: 

Andrew W. Robertson, Esquire, appearing on behalf of the 

plaintiffs; and Robert C. Hora, Esquire, appearing on behalf of 

the defendant; and for good cause shown,

IT IS this 5th day of September, 2014, hereby ORDERED:

1. The dates set forth in the May 15, 2014 Scheduling

Order shall remain in effect. 

2. The Court will conduct a telephone status 

conference on December 3, 2014 at 11:00 a.m. Counsel for plaintiff

shall initiate the telephone call.

3. Any application for an extension of time beyond the 

deadlines set herein shall be made in writing to the undersigned 

Case 1:11-cv-01083-RMB-KMW Document 125 Filed 09/05/14 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 3706
and served upon all counsel prior to expiration of the period 

sought to be extended, and shall disclose in the application all 

such extensions previously obtained, the precise reasons 

necessitating the application showing good cause under FED. R. CIV. 

P. 16(b), and whether adversary counsel agree with the application. 

The schedule set herein will not be extended unless good cause is 

shown.

THE FAILURE OF A PARTY OR ATTORNEY TO OBEY THIS ORDER 

MAY RESULT IN IMPOSITION OF SANCTIONS UNDER FED. R. CIV. P. 

16(f).

s/ Karen M. Williams 

KAREN M. WILLIAMS

United States Magistrate Judge

cc: Hon. Renée M. Bumb 

 

Case 1:11-cv-01083-RMB-KMW Document 125 Filed 09/05/14 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 3707
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6424

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

v. 

BARRY LEE MILLER, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior 

District Judge. (5:11-cr-00229-F-1; 5:13-cv-00513-F) 

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

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

Circuit Judge. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Barry Lee Miller, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer P. May-Parker, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for 

Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2

PER CURIAM: 

Barry Lee Miller seeks to appeal the district court’s order 

denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order 

is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a 

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (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 motion 

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 

Miller 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
Prepared by MERRILL CORPORATION




QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document


Exhibit 10.79  


 
 

Consultancy Agreement    
    
    between    
    
    D. Felipe Fernandez Atela
  Orquidea No. 32, Madrid    
    
    (hereafter referred as "the Consultant")    
    
    and    


    4-D Neuroimaging Inc.
  9727 Pacific Heights Blvd., San Diego, CA 92121    
    
    (hereafter referred as "the Company")    




    Effective March 23, 2001, the Consultant will assume the position as Chairman of the Board of the Company. For the services to be rendered by the
Consultant in this capacity, both parties agree to the following: 



	1)
	The
Consultant is entitled as of April 1, 2001 to receive a consultancy fee of USD 250,000.-p.a., payable in monthly in arrears.



	2)
	Furthermore,
the Consultant is entitled to receive an administration reimbursement expense of USD 60,000.- p.a., payable monthly in arrears.



	3)
	Furthermore,
the Consultant is entitled to be reimbursed for travel expenses within reasonable limits.



	4)
	As
Member of the Board of Directors, the Consultant will be entitled to the benefits of the Company's Stock Option Plan.



	5)
	For
providing new financing to the Company, the Consultant will be entitled to receive the following fees: 







	3%	 	of the net financing received by the Company, if no other investment banking fees have to be borne by the Company;
	

1.5%	
 	

of the net financing received by the Company, if any investment banking fees have to be paid by the Company;
	

0%	
 	

of the net financing received by the Company, if the financing has been provided by existing major shareholders (with the exception of La Caixa)





	6)
	For
concluding any MEG sales in Spain, the Consultant is entitled to receive a commission of 5% of the net sales amount received by the Company.



	7)
	This
agreement has been concluded for an indefinite period. The agreement can be cancelled monthly by written notice. Exceptionally, this agreement has a guaranteed initial period
of one year. 









	8)
	At
the termination of this agreement, the Consultant is entitled to receive a termination fee of USD 187,500.-.



	9)
	This
agreement is governed by US law; place of jurisdiction is the domicile of the Company. 




Signed
and agreed, as of April 2, 2001 



	4-D Neuroimaging Inc., San Diego	 	D. Felipe Fernandez Atela
	

/s/ D. SCOTT BUCHANAN   
 The Company

D. Scott Buchanan

President & CEO	
 	

/s/ FELIPE FERNANDEZ   
 The Consultant

Felipe Fernandez
	

on behalf of the Compensation Committee:
	

/s/ MARTIN EGLI   
	
 	

March 20, 2001












QuickLinks


Consultancy Agreement between D. Felipe Fernandez Atela Orquidea No. 32, Madrid (hereafter referred as "the Consultant") and 4-D Neuroimaging Inc. 9727 Pacific Heights Blvd., San Diego, CA 92121 (hereafter
referred as "the Company")
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

ATIF MALIK,

Defendant.

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Criminal No. 11-130 (SRC)

ORDER

This matter having come before the Court on Defendant’s Motion for Reduction of

Sentence [docket item # 40]; and

IT APPEARING that Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35, which governs the

correction or reduction of a sentence, applies to the instant motion; and it further

APPEARING that Rule 35(b) provides that the government may move for a reduction of

sentence for substantial assistance provided by the defendant in investigating or prosecuting

another person; and it further

APPEARING that Rule 35 does not contemplate motions for the reduction of a sentence

filed by a defendant; and it further

APPEARING that Defendant has no standing under Rule 35 to obtain the relief sought; 

For the foregoing reasons, 

IT IS on this 28 day of January 2013, th
ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion For Reduction of Sentence [docket item # 40] be

and hereby is DENIED.

 s/ Stanley R. Chesler 

Stanley R. Chesler, U.S.D.J.
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 Homeland Security

###### U.S. Customs and Border Protection

# AGENCY:

U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.

# ACTION:

Notice of accreditation and approval of Inspectorate America Corporation, as a commercial gauger and laboratory.

# SUMMARY:

                        Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to 19 CFR 151.12 and 19 CFR 151.13, Inspectorate America Corporation, 16025-C Jacintoport Blvd., Houston, TX 77015, has been approved to gauge and accredited to test petroleum and petroleum products, organic chemicals and vegetable oils for customs purposes, in accordance with the provisions of 19 CFR 151.12 and 19 CFR 151.13. Anyone wishing to employ this entity to conduct laboratory analyses and gauger services should request and receive written assurances from the entity that it is accredited or approved by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection to conduct the specific test or gauger service requested. Alternatively, inquires regarding the specific test or gauger service this entity is accredited or approved to perform may be directed to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection by calling (202) 344-1060. The inquiry may also be sent to                         *cbp.labhq@dhs.gov.*                         Please reference the Web site listed below for a complete listing of CBP approved gaugers and accredited laboratories.                         *http://cbp.gov/​xp/​cgov/​import/​operations_​support/​labs_​scientific_​svcs/​commercial_​gaugers/​*

# DATES:

The accreditation and approval of Inspectorate America Corporation, as commercial gauger and laboratory became effective on November 10, 2008. The next triennial inspection date will be scheduled for November 2011.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Anthony Malana, Laboratories and Scientific Services, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Suite 1500N, Washington, DC 20229, 202-344-1060.

Dated: July 2, 2009.

Ira S. Reese,

Executive Director, Laboratories and Scientific Services.

[FR Doc. E9-16360 Filed 7-9-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9111-14-P
Q

S 

LC and Case No, 3:Il

CV

00597

JAP

LHG

GLOBAL SiGNAL ACQUISITiONS IV LLC,

Plaintiffs.

- against - FOURTH AME%DED

JOINT STIPULATION and

NASSAU BROADCASTING HOLDINGS INC., : ORDER of SETTLEMENT

NASSAU TOWER HOLDINGS LLC, NASSAU

TOWER REALTY LLC, and NASSAU

BROADCASTING I. LLC : ECF Case

Defendants.

x

WHEREAS, the above matter was terminated as a result of two (2) Joint Stipulations

and Orders of Settlement (“JSOS”) filed on November 18. 2011 by and among the Plaintiffs and

Nassau Broadcasting I, LLC (“NBI”) and Nassau Broadcasting Holdings, inc. (‘NBH”) in one

JSOS and Nassau Tower Realty, LLC (“NTR’) and Nassau Tower Holdings. LLC (“NTK”) in

the second JSOS; and

WHEREAS, both JSOS were explicitly conditioned upon the United States Bankruptcy

Court for the District of Delaware approving the JSOS of NBI. the debtor in a chapter 1 1

proceeding then pending. which approval has been received by Order dated September 25. 2012.

WHEREAS, the effective date of the JSOS was expressly conditioned upon the

completion of the amended documents provided for in each of the JSOS and filing of a

sttpulation of dismissal by June 1 , 201 2: and

LV1 1749658v1 11/09/12
evidentiary hearing, the Court administratively terminated the motion to allow the parties time to

work out a settlement or, if settlement is not reached, to allow NBH, NTR and NTH to refile the

Motion and proceed with an evident iary hearing: and

WHEREAS. without prejudice to the Motion of NBH. NTR and NTH. both the Plaintiffs

and the Defendants with the approval of this Court as set forth in amended joint stipulations and

orders of settlement executed by the Court on May 29, 2012, August 1, 2012 and September 27,

2012, previously extended the date by which all provisions of the first and second JSOS were to

he completed to October 30, 2012; and

WHEREAS, the parties, which are in talks to resolve the issues raised by Defendants’

Motion to Vacate the JSOS, wish to further extend the date of completion of all matters called

for by the JSOS up to and including December 15, 2012; and

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED:

(a) That the October 30, 2012 date set Iorth in each of the two (2) JSOS is deleted and

replaced with the date of December 15. 201 2; and

thi This Fourth Amended Joint Stipulation and Order of Settlement s without prejudice to

the Motion of NBH. TR and NTH to vacate the first and second JSOS.

LVI 1749658v1 11/09/12
3

Lvi i749658vi ii/09/i2
David L Snyder. Esq. (5936)

Snyder & Snyder LLP94 White Plains Road

Tarrytown, NY 10591

914.333.0700

Dated: November 9, 2012

Timothy R. Smith. Esq. (4798)

619 Alexander Road, Third Floor

Princeton, NJ 08540

609.987.8899

Dated: November 9, 2012

For Defendants,

Nassau Broadcasting Holdings, Inc,

assau Tower Realty, LLC, andNassau Tower Holdings, LLC

1

Is! James D. Young

James D. Young, Esq.

Fox Rothschild, LLP

997 Lenox Drive. Building 3

Lawrenceville, NJ 08648-2311

609.896.3600

Dated: November 9, 201

UI’ IS SO’ORDFRID:

IIi)N. IA)IS (;OODl.N

(titled States Iaisrale

United Slates District ‘our1

District t jersey

Dated: . 2012

LV1 1749658v1 11/09/12
Case 2:11-cv-00622-KSH -PS Document 9 Filed 09/23/11 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 49
Case 2:11-cv-00622-KSH -PS Document 9 Filed 09/23/11 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 50