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

 CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of Velocity
Asset Management, Inc. for the period ended December 31, 2006, I, John C.
Kleinert, President and Chief Executive Officer, hereby certifies pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:

1.   Such Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2006,
     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 such Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year
     ended December 31, 2006, fairly presents, in all material respects, the
     financial condition and results of operations of Velocity Asset Management,
     Inc.


Dated:  April 5, 2007                  /s/ JOHN C. KLEINERT
                                       -----------------------------------------
                                       John C. Kleinert,
                                       President and Chief Executive Officer
|                                         | 31.1                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  
|---------------------------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                         |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       
|CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
|                                         |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       
|I, Lisa Norman, certify that:           
|1.                                       | I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of American Home Alliance Corporation.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                
|2.                                       | Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this annual report.
|3.                                       | Based on my knowledge, the financial statements and other financial information included in this annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results from operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report.                





|By:  /s/Lisa NormanLisa Norman
Chief Executive Officer & Chairman | Date:  October 16, 2013
|----------------------------------------------------------------- | -----------------------
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-40273

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

RODNEY STEVENSON, also known as Arod,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 9:12-CR-27-7

Before REAVLEY, OWEN, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Rodney Stevenson has moved for 

leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 

386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). 

Stevenson has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the 

relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s 

assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

February 21, 2014

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 13-40273 Document: 00512539927 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/21/2014
No. 13-40273

Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is 

excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 

See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

2

 Case: 13-40273 Document: 00512539927 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/21/2014
Case 2:11-cr-00208-SRC Document 63 Filed 12/15/11 Page 1 of 3 PageID: 486
Case 2:11-cr-00208-SRC Document 63 Filed 12/15/11 Page 2 of 3 PageID: 487
Case 2:11-cr-00208-SRC Document 63 Filed 12/15/11 Page 3 of 3 PageID: 488
#### BROWN v. SELECT THEATRES CORPORATION.

Civ. A. No. 2194.

District Court, D. Massachusetts.

March 15, 1943.

Anthony Brayton and Hale & Dorr, all of Boston, Mass., for plaintiff.

James C. Gahan, Jr., of Belmont, Mass., and Ropes, Gray, Best, Coolidge & Rugg, of Boston, Mass., for defendant.

*500FORD, District Judge.

The defendant’s motion for bill of particulars is denied. I see no reason why the defendant is not in a position to plead to the complaint. The matters it seeks to be informed about are evidential and can be secured by way of discovery.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA F OURTH D ISTRICT

WILBERT HOLLINS , Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA , Appellee

.

No. 4D 17

- 2525

[ October 12, 2017 ]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.800 motion from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County ; Cheryl A. Caracuzzo

, Judge; L.T. Case No. 50

- 1989

- CF

- 008105

- AXXX

- MB

.
Wilbert E. Hollins, Indiantown, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.
Affirmed.

G ERBER , C.J., W ARNER , and L EVINE , JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Exhibit 32.2

                  CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER
                           PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. 1350
                 (SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002)

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Blugrass Energy, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2008 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Leslie
A. Schaefer, 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 results of operations
          of the Company.


/s/ Leslie A. Schaefer
----------------------------------
Leslie A. Schaefer
Chief Financial Officer
November 11, 2008

This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed to be incorporated by
reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the
Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it
by reference.

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.
EX-10.26



 Exhibit 10.26 
 AMENDMENT TO APPENDIX A 
 Supplemental Retirement Benefits

 This Amendment to Appendix A of the Amended Employment Agreement (this “Amendment”) is entered into as of
December 21, 2012, by and between MKS Instruments, Inc. (the “Corporation”), and John A. Smith (the “Employee”). 
 WHEREAS, the Corporation and the Employee previously entered into an Appendix A to Employee’s Amended Employment Agreement, dated November 10, 2008 (the “Agreement”), which
Agreement may be amended by a written instrument executed by both parties; and 
 WHEREAS, the Corporation and the
Employee desire to amend the Agreement to comply with Internal Revenue Service Notice 2010-80, as set forth below. 
 NOW,
THEREFORE, in consideration of the promises and mutual covenants contained herein, and intending to be legally bound hereby, the parties agree to amend Section 4.7 of the Agreement to provide as follows: 

 

	 	“4.7	Release.    Benefits payable under Section 6.1 of this Appendix A attributable to Employee’s Company Contribution Subaccount are
specifically conditioned upon and provided in exchange for Employee signing a separation agreement that releases the Company from any liabilities that may have arisen as a result of Employee’s employment and/or termination of employment with
the Corporation. The time period for returning such separation agreement shall be designated by the Corporation and shall not be less than 21 days nor more than 45 days following Employee’s Separation from Service. If such time period
(including any period for revocation) begins in one taxable year and ends in a subsequent taxable year, any payments conditioned upon such separation agreement shall be made in the later taxable year. Payments of benefits hereunder shall not be made
unless and until the separation agreement has been signed and timely returned by Employee and the specified period for revocation of the separation agreement has expired without revocation. In the event Employee terminates employment with the
Corporation for any reason other than death (including Retirement) without satisfying the requirements of this Section 4.7 Employee’s Company Contribution Subaccount shall be forfeited, and no amount attributable to such Subaccount shall
be payable under this Appendix A.” 

 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment as
of the date and year first above written. 
  

	
	MKS INSTRUMENTS, INC.
	
	/s/ Leo Berlinghieri
	
	 
	
	EMPLOYEE
	
	/s/ John A. Smith
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4991 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

9130 Markville Drive in Dallas, Texas, as the ‘‘Vaughn Gross Post 

Office Building’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 22, 2004 

Mr. SESSIONS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Government Reform 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 9130 Markville Drive in Dallas, Texas, as 

the ‘‘Vaughn Gross Post Office Building’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. VAUGHN GROSS POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

4 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

5 Postal Service located at 9130 Markville Drive in Dallas, 

6 Texas, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Vaughn 

7 Gross Post Office Building’’. 

8 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg9 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 
2 

•HR 4991 IH 

1 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

2 be deemed to be a reference to the Vaughn Gross Post 

3 Office Building. 

Æ
|  | (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 theCompany. |
|--|-----------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| August      14 , 2009 | By:    | /s/      Wu,      Man-Shing                                  |   |
|-----------------------|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                  |   | Wu,      Man-Shing                                           |   |
|                  |   | Chief      Executive OfficerPrincipal      Executive Officer |   |

----
Case 2:11-mj-04022-CCC Document 19 Filed 02/28/11 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 74
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE 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 Coronado Corp. (the "Company") onForm 10-QSB for the period ending December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Alejandro Quesada,Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sect. 1350, asadopted pursuant to Sect. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

> - The Report 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 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 the13th day of February, 2007.

/s/ Alejandro Quesada

_______ 

Chief Executive 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 Coronado Corp. (the "Company") onForm 10-QSB for the period ending December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Shawn Phillips,Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sect.1350, asadopted pursuant to Sect. 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 the13th day of February, 2007.

/s/ Shawn Phillips

___

Chief Financial Officer
##### 



EXHIBIT 31.2 STRATEX NETWORKS, INC.
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, Carl A. Thomsen, certify that:  1.
    
    I have reviewed this Amendment No 1 to the
Annual Report on Form 10-K of Stratex Networks,
Inc. (the registrant); and  2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not
contain any untrue statement of a material fact
or omit to state a material fact necessary to
make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were
made, not misleading with respect to the period
covered by this report. Date: September 20, 2004
    By:
    /s/ Carl A. ThomsenCarl A. ThomsenChief Financial Officer
#### BLANE v. LOSH.

Civ. No. 26996.

United States District Oourt. N. D. Ohio, E. D.

April 11, 1950.

Marvin L. Gardner, Theodore R. Spilka, Cleveland, Ohio, for plaintiff.

M. Morgenstern, B. B. Direnfeld, Cleveland Ohio, John D. Pincura, Jr., Lorain, Ohio, for defendant.

JONES, Chief Judge.

This is an action to set aside and recover a preferential transfer.

Defendant has retained two firms of attorneys to represent him in this action. One firm is located in Lorain, the other in Cleveland. For some reason unknown to the Court these two firms of attorneys were unable to contact each other as the final date for filing an answer approached. Each firm, therefore, acted independently of the other. The Lo'rain firm filed an answer and the Cleveland firm a motion for a more definite statement. The attorneys for the defendant, having now reached agreement, have filed a motion to withdraw the answer and to have the Court proceed with the motion for a more definite statement.

The facts here present a forceful argument for the elimination of Rule 12(e) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. Too often such motion is used solely for the purpose of delay, in violation of the mandate found in Rule 1. Its elimination would cause no serious inconvenience to any party. Adequate procedure has been provided *274for discovery of necessary information in Rules 26 to *37.*

This case is a perfect example of how the motion is continuously misused. If one firm of defendant’s attorneys could file an answer in response to the complaint it would seem to follow without fear of contradiction that the other firm of attorneys could do the same. (We must reach this conclusion or decide that the Cleveland attorneys are incapable of practicing before this Court.) The only purpose then, for filing the motion for a definite statement was delay. The Court cannot condone such conduct although it often must do so because of Rule 12(e), but it should not be forced to consider frivolous motions.

It is even more inexcusable for defendant’s attorneys, when faced with the insoluble contradiction of a motion for a more definite statement and an answer to the same complaint, to move to withdraw the answer and to have the Court consider the motion for a more definite statement. A moment’s consideration of the Court’s time on the part of defendant’s attorneys should have produced a motion to withdraw the motion for a more definite statement. The Court can only conclude that this motion is also frivolous and was filed only for the purpose of delay.

The motion will be denied.
IB 

Union Calendar No. 432

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5009

[Report No. 108–704] 

To extend water contracts between the United States and specific irrigation 

districts and the City of Helena in Montana, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 7, 2004

Mr. REHBERG introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Resources 

SEPTEMBER 28, 2004

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union 

and ordered to be printed 

A BILL

To extend water contracts between the United States and 

specific irrigation districts and the City of Helena in 

Montana, and for other purposes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Montana Water Con5 tracts Extension Act of 2004’’. 
2

•HR 5009 RH 

1 SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF WATER CONTRACTS. 

2 (a) AUTHORITY TO EXTEND.—The Secretary of the 

3 Interior may extend each of the water contracts listed in 

4 subsection (b) until the earlier of—

5 (1) the expiration of the 2-year period begin6 ning on the date on which the contract would expire 

7 but for this section; or 

8 (2) the date on which a new long-term water 

9 contract is executed by the parties to the contract 

10 listed in subsection (b). 

11 (b) EXTENDED CONTRACTS.—The water contracts 

12 referred to in subsection (a) are the following: 

13 (1) Contract Number 14–06–600–2078, as 

14 amended, for purchase of water between the United 

15 States of America and the City of Helena, Montana. 

16 (2) Contract Number 14–06–600–2079, as 

17 amended, between the United States of America and 

18 the Helena Valley Irrigation District for water serv19 ice. 

20 (3) Contract Number 14–06–600–8734, as 

21 amended, between the United States of America and 

22 the Toston Irrigation District for water service. 

23 (4) Contract number 14–06–600–3592, as 

24 amended, between the United States and the Clark 

25 Canyon Water Supply Company, Inc., for water 

26 service and for a supplemental supply. 
3

•HR 5009 RH 

1 (5) Contract number 14–06–600–3593, as 

2 amended, between the United States and the East 

3 Bench Irrigation District for water service. 
Union Calendar No. 432

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5009

[Report No. 108–704] 

A BILL

To extend water contracts between the United 

poses. City of Helena in Montana, and for other purStates and specific irrigation districts and the 

SEPTEMBER 28, 2004

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 

State of the Union and ordered to be printed
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v John Abdullah, Appellant.

[852 NYS2d 800]

We have reviewed the record and agree with the defendant’s *658assigned counsel that there are no nonfrivolous issues which could be raised on appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is granted *(see Anders v California,*386 US 738 [1967]; *People v Paige,*54 AD2d 631 [1976]; *cf. People v Gonzalez,*47 NY2d 606 [1979]). Mastro, J.P., Dickerson, Belen and Chambers, JJ., concur.
#### Jackson, *ex dem.*Newkirk and others, *against*Embler.

NEW- YORK,

May, 1817.

A devise of iaod of^perpetuit-y! is nothing in the will from ■which a fee can be raised by imoniyta0niifeeesS ths

THIS was an action of ejectment, brought to recover five eighths of a farm in the town of Montgomery, in the county of *Orange.*The cause wás tried before Mr. Justice *Platt,*at the . . . t. . *Orange*circuit, in *September,*1816, when a verdict was taken 07 * ^or plaintiff for five eighths of the premises in question, ject to the opinion of the court.

The lessors of the plaintiff were five of the heirs at law oí *Henry*Newkirk, who died about the year 1798, leaving eight children his heirs at law, after having made his will, dated, the 19th of *June,*1797, in which were contained the following and devises : “ I give, devise, and bequeath, to my wife, *Agnes Newkirk,*during her natural life, one working horse, one breeding mare, three milk cows, and six sheep, to be kept on the place.” “ I give, devise, and bequeath, to my son, *James Newkirk,*the two lots of land Nos. 5 and 6, (which are the premises in question,) in the last division of the five thousand-acre tract, containing one hundred and forty acres.” “ Also, all the hogs belonging to the place, with giving two to my wife every year, to fatten with her own grain, for her own use.” *James Newkirk,*by deed dated the 26 th of *December,*1805, conveyed the premises to *Sears,*who, in 1897, conveyed them to the defendant. *James Newkirk*died on the 25th of January, 1815, before the commencement of this suit.

The case was submitted to the court without argument.

*199
      *Per Curiam.*

The lessors of the plaintiff claim five eighths of the premises as heirs at law of *Henry Newkirk,*deceased ; •and the defendant claims under title derived from the will of *Henry Newkirk,*by which the premises are claimed as devised to his son *James Newkirk.*The words of the will are, “ I give, devise, and bequeath, to my son, *James Newkirk,*the two lots of land Nos. 5. and 6. in the last division of the five thousand acre tract, containing one hundred and forty acres.” *James Newkirk*died before the commencement of this suit; and the only question is, whether, under the above devise, he took a fee or only a life estate. A life estate only passed under this devise. There are no words of perpetuity, nor is there any thing in the will from which a fee, by implication, may be inferred. We are'accordingly of opinion, that the plaintiff is entitled to judgment for five eighths of the premises.