alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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 this Quarterly Report of Network Communications, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 13, 2009, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),
I, Daniel R. McCarthy, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
hereby certify, pursuant to and for purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to
my knowledge:






(1) The
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section
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.






















October
26,
2009                                                                           /s/ Daniel R.
McCarthy


Daniel
R. McCarthy


Chairman
and Chief Executive Officer
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED JULY 24, 2015

NO. 03-13-00509-CR

Terry Atkins, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 331ST DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES PURYEAR, PEMBERTON, AND BOURLAND

AFFIRMED -- OPINION BY JUSTICE BOURLAND

This is an appeal from the judgment adjudicating guilt entered by the trial court. Having 

reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no reversible error 

in the trial court’s judgment adjudicating guilt. Therefore, the Court affirms the trial court’s

judgment adjudicating guilt. Because appellant is indigent and unable to pay costs, no 

adjudication of costs is made.
II 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 134 

To amend title 18, United States Code, with regard to stalking. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 15, 2019 

Mr. TOOMEY (for himself and Mr. CASEY) introduced the following bill; which 

was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend title 18, United States Code, with regard to 

stalking. 

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 ‘‘Combat Online Preda5 tors Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. ENHANCED PENALTY FOR STALKERS OF CHILDREN. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 110A of title 18, United 

8 States Code, is amended by inserting after section 2261A 

9 the following: 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•S 134 IS

1 ‘‘§ 2261B. Enhanced penalty for stalkers of children 

2 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in subsection 

3 (b), if the victim of an offense under section 2261A is 

4 under the age of 18 years, the maximum imprisonment 

5 for the offense is 5 years greater than the maximum term 

6 of imprisonment otherwise provided for that offense in sec7 tion 2261. 

8 ‘‘(b) LIMITATION.—Subsection (a) shall not apply to 

9 a person who violates section 2261A if— 

10 ‘‘(1) the person is subject to a sentence under 

11 section 2261(b)(5); and 

12 ‘‘(2)(A) the person is under the age of 18 at 

13 the time the offense occurred; or 

14 ‘‘(B) the victim of the offense is not less than 

15 15 nor more than 17 years of age and not more 

16 than 3 years younger than the person who com17 mitted the offense at the time the offense oc18 curred.’’. 

19 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections 

20 at the beginning of chapter 110A of title 18, United States 

21 Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating to 

22 section 2261A the following new item: 

‘‘2261B. Enhanced penalty for stalkers of children.’’. 

23 (c) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section 2261A of 

24 title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking ‘‘secVerDate Sep 11 2014 04:21 Jan 23, 2019 Jkt 089200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S134.IS S134

kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
3 

•S 134 IS

1 tion 2261(b) of this title’’ and inserting ‘‘section 2261(b) 

2 or section 2262B, as the case may be’’. 

3 SEC. 3. REPORT ON BEST PRACTICES REGARDING EN4 FORCEMENT OF ANTI-STALKING LAWS. 

5 Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment 

6 of this Act, the Attorney General shall submit a report 

7 to Congress, which shall— 

8 (1) include an evaluation of Federal, Tribal, 

9 State, and local efforts to enforce laws relating to 

10 stalking; and 

11 (2) identify and describe those elements of such 

12 efforts that constitute the best practices for the en13 forcement of such laws. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Joseph Villane, Appellant.

[851 NYS2d 880]

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in upwardly departing from the defendant’s presumptive sex of*518fender level based upon clear and convincing evidence of aggravating factors of a degree not taken into account by the risk assessment instrument and the guidelines *(see People v Leibach,*39 AD3d 1093 [2007]; *People v Agard,*35 AD3d 568 [2006]). The defendant’s remaining contentions need not be addressed in light of our determination *(see People v Turner,*45 AD3d 747 [2007]) and, in any event, are without merit *(see People v Johnson,*47 AD3d 140 [2007]; *People v Lawless,*44 AD3d 738 [2007], *lv denied*9 NY3d 816 [2007]). Miller, J.P., Covello, Eng and Chambers, JJ., concur.
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D22-2026

_____________________________

SEAN WEBKING,

Appellant,

v.

EMILY NORWOOD (F.K.A. 

Webking),

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Santa Rosa County.

J. Scott Duncan, Judge.

September 7, 2022

PER CURIAM.

DISMISSED.

KELSEY, JAY, and M.K. THOMAS, JJ., CONCUR.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Sean Webking, pro se, Appellant.

No appearance for Appellee.
#### UNITED STATES v. HECHT et al. (LUCAS COUNTY BANK, Third-Party Defendant).

Civ. No. 6111.

United States District Court N. D. Ohio, W. D.

Aug. 17, 1949.

Don C. Miller, United States Atty., Cleveland, Ohio, Marcus L. Friedman, Asst. U. S. Atty., Toledo, Ohio, for plaintiff.

Ivo J. Flory, Toledo, Ohio, Joseph Nathanson, Toledo, Ohio, for defendants.

KLOEB, District Judge.

This matter -came up before the Court some time ago on the motion of the defendants Hecht for leave to file answer and cross petition making new party defendant. Considering the motion as a' motion for leave as a third party plaintiff to serve a *341summons and complaint upon the Lucas County Bank, as a third party defendant, as provided in Rule 14(a), Federal Rules Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A., the Court granted the motion. D.C. 9 F.R.D. 339.

The matter now comes up on the motion of the third party defendant, The Lucas County Bank, to dismiss the complaint of the third party plaintiffs, Harry Hecht and Eleanor Hecht, on the ground that the complaint fails to state a claim against it upon which relief can be granted and that it does not conform to Rule 8(e) R.C.P., and also to vacate the order granting leave to said defendants, as third party plaintiffs, to file the third party complaint.

The third party complaint contains the allegation (par. 3) that the defendants Hecht are entitled to recover from the defendant, The Lucas County Bank, all that the United States of America may recover from these defendants Harry Hecht and Eleanor Hecht, or which the United States of America is entitled to recover from the Lucas County Bank and not from defendants Harry Hecht and Eleanor Hecht. It is further alleged (pars. S, 6, and 7) that the defendants Hecht advised the bank that the note sued upon was without consideration and that payment had been made to the White Construction Company prior to the date of the note, that these facts were known to the bank at the time the original note described in the petition was received by it from the White Construction Company, and that it was not a holder in due course or in good faith. The prayer of the complaint is that Harry Hecht and Eleanor Hecht, as third party plaintiffs, have judgment against The Lucas County Bank, third party defendant, for all sums which may be adjudged against them, as defendants, in favor of the plaintiff United States of America.

Under the provisions of Rule 14(a), the plaintiff may assert any claim against the third party defendant arising out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of plaintiff’s claim against the third party plaintiff.

Whatever the facts are which may be developed on the trial of this case, it would seem that the allegations of the third party complaint are such that they bring this case within the provisions of Rule 14(a), R.C.P., and that the Court cannot decide the issues as a matter of law on the pleadings as they now stand. The motion of The Lucas County Bank should be overruled.
CERTIFICATION

I,  Gilles  Addison,  hereby  certify  that:

(3)  I have reviewed this annually report on Form 10-KSB of GSI Technologies USA
     Inc.;

(4)  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;  and

(5)  Based  on  my  knowledge,  the  financial  statements,  and other financial
     information  included  in  this  report,  fairly  present  in  all material
     respects  the  financial position, results of operations, and cash flows of
     the  issuer  as  of,  and  for,  the  periods  presented  in  this  report.

(6)  I  am  responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
     procedures  for  the  issuer  and  have:

     1.   Designed  such  disclosure  controls  and  procedures  to  ensure that
               material  information relating to the issuer is made known to me,
               particularly  during the period in which the periodic reports are
               being  prepared;
     2.   Evaluated  the  effectiveness  of the issuer's disclosure controls and
               procedures  as  of  October  31st,  2003;  and
     3.   Presented in the report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
               disclosure  controls  and procedures based on my evaluation as of
               the  Evaluation  Date;

(7)  I  have  disclosed,  based  on  my  most recent evaluation, to the issuer's
     auditors  and  the  audit  committee  of the board of directors (or persons
     fulfilling  the  equivalent  function):

     1.   All  significant  deficiencies  in the design or operation of internal
               controls  which  could  adversely  affect the issuer's ability to
               record,  process,  summarize  and  report financial data and have
               identified  for  the issuer's auditors any material weaknesses in
               internal  controls;  and
     2.   Any  fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
               employees  who  have  a significant role in the issuer's internal
               controls;  and

(8)  I  have  indicated  in  the  report  whether  or not there were significant
     changes  in  internal controls or in other factors that could significantly
     affect  internal  controls  subsequent  to  the  date  of  our  most recent
     evaluation,  including  any  corrective  actions with regard to significant
     deficiencies  and  material  weaknesses.


Date: February 3, 2004


By:  /s/  Gilles  Addison
________________________________
Gilles  Addison
President  and  CEO


<PAGE>
EXHIBIT 32.1

# CERTIFICATE 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 Annual Report
of National Medical Health Card Systems, Inc. (the Company) on
Form 10-K for the year ended June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, James Smith, Chief Executive
Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to
§ 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:

(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/ James Smith
James SmithChief Executive Officer
| |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------

September 28, 2004

---

EXHIBIT 32.2

# CERTIFICATE 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 Annual Report
of National Medical Health Card Systems, Inc. (the Company) on
Form 10-K for the year ended June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Stuart Fleischer, Chief Financial
Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to
§ 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:

(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.

| |  | /s/ Stuart Fleischer
Stuart FleischerChief Financial Officer
| |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------

September 28, 2004
EXHIBIT 99.1
                              C.E.O. CERTIFICATION




                            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 Annual Report of Vapor Fuel  Technologies,  Inc. on Form
10-KSB for the period  ending March 31, 2002, as filed with the  Securities  and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, C. Thomas Davis, Chief
Executive 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, to
the best of my knowledge and belief:

         (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.



/s/ C. Thomas Davis
C. Thomas Davis
Chief Executive Officer
January 22, 2003
**Exhibit 31.2**

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Larry Reid, certify that:

 

1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Cleartronic, Inc.;

 

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;

 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

 

4. I am the only certifying officer responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:

 

(a)

Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under my supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b)

Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under my supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;

 

(c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report my conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

 

(d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

 

5. I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the Board of Directors:

 

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

 

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
##### 



Exhibit 13.1
 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
UNDER SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES OXLEY ACT
  (i)
    
    the accompanying Annual Report on Form 20-F of our company for the year ended March
31, 2007 (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 our company.
  By:

/s/  B.
Rama RajuManaging Director and Chief Executive Officer
MOHAMED ALESSA : SCHEDULING ORDER

This matter having come before the Court upon the

application of defendant MOHAMED ALESSA (Stanley L. Cohen, Esq.,appearing) in the presence of the government (Paul J. Fishman,

United States Attorney, counsel for the United States, L. Judson

Welle and Andrew Kogan, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, appearing), for

an order adjourning the sentencing hearing in this matter; and

for good cause shown,

It is on this 

day of November 2Q11

ORDERED that the sentencing hearing in this matter is hereby

adjourned to March 20, 2012 at 10:00 a.m.; and

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that:1. On or before December 7, 2011, each party shall provide

the other party with notice of any and all experts who may submit

reports or testify in support of the party’s argument during the

sentencing hearing. This notice shall include at least: (a) the

name of the expert; (b) the expert’s qualifications; and (c) a

summary of the expert’s anticipated report and/or testimony.

1
least: (a) the name of the expert; (b) the expert’s

qualifications; and (c) a summary of the expert’s report and/ortestimony.

3. On or before February 17, 2011, each party shall

provide the other party a copy of any report it intends to submit

on behalf of an expert noticed pursuant to paragraph one (1) ofthis Order.

4. On or before March 15, 2011, each party shall provide

the other party a copy of any report it intends to submit on

behalf of an expert noticed pursuant to paragraph two (2) of this

Order.

5. On or before March 16, 2011, each party shall provide

the other party the names of the experts noticed pursuant to

paragraph one (1) or two (2) of this Order that the party intends

to call to testify during the sentencing hearing.

United States Senior District Judge

2
905 A.2d 874

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. LEON CLARK, DEFENDANT-PETITIONER.

August 8, 2006.

ORDERED that the petition for certification is granted on the issue of defendant’s sentence, and the matter is summarily remanded to the trial court for resentencing in light of the Court’s decision in *State v. Pierce,*188 *N.J.*155, 902 A.2d 1195 (2006).
EX-10.6



 EXHIBIT 10.6 
 Hub Group, Inc. 
 Directors’ Compensation For 2013 

Directors’ Compensation 
 Each non-employee director receives an annual retainer fee of $75,000 in 2013, paid in quarterly installments. In addition, expenses are paid for attendance at each Committee meeting. Directors who are
also officers or employees of the Company receive no compensation for duties performed as a director. 
 Stock Plan 

The Company makes periodic grants of restricted stock to the directors. In connection with their 2013 compensation package, each
independent director received 5,000 shares of restricted stock in January 2013. These shares vest over three years.
#### In the Matter of Laura C. Pennino, Appellant, v David M. Lipsky, Respondent.

[854 NYS2d 407]

Contrary to the mother’s contention, the Support Magistrate properly credited the father for child support payments made to the mother on the basis of two checks, in the amounts of $10,000 and $11,000, respectively. “Great deference should be given to the determination of the Support Magistrate, who is in the best position to assess the credibility of the witnesses and the evidence proffered” *(Matter of Strella v Ferro,*42 AD3d 544, 545 [2007]). As the record supports the determination, the Family Court properly denied the mother’s objection on this basis *(see*
      *544
      *Matter of Strella v Ferro,*42 AD3d at 545; *Matter of Kahl-Lapine v Lapine,*35 AD3d 611, 612 [2006]; *Matter of Mahoney v Goggins,*24 AD3d 668, 669 [2005]; *Matter of Penninipede v Penninipede,*6 AD3d 445, 446-447 [2004]; *Matter of Saren v Palma,*3 AD3d 572 [2004]).

The Family Court also properly denied the mother’s objections with respect to the Support Magistrate’s determination as to her child support obligation. In light of the mother’s admission as to her annual expenses, the Support Magistrate properly imputed to her an annual income of $172,800 *(see Matter of Strella v Ferro,*42 AD3d at 545; *DeVries v DeVries,*35 AD3d 794, 795 [2006]; *Peri v Peri,*2 AD3d 425, 426 [2003]; *Gleicher v Gleicher,*303 AD2d 549, 550 [2003]). Since the combined parental income exceeded $80,000, the Support Magistrate, in the exercise of his discretion, could apply either the statutory percentage or the factors set forth in Family Court Act § 413 (1) (f), or both, to the parental income in excess of $80,000 *(see*Family Ct Act § 413 [1] [c] [3]; *Matter of Cassano v Cassano,*85 NY2d 649, 655 [1995]; *Matter of Strella v Ferro,*42 AD3d at 546). Under the circumstances presented here, the Family Court correctly concluded that the Support Magistrate providently exercised his discretion in computing child support by applying the statutory percentage to the combined parental income over $80,000 *(see Matter of Strella v Ferro,*42 AD3d at 546; *Matter of Lachman v LeJemtel,*19 AD3d 421, 421-422 [2005]; *Matter of Lava v Damianou,*10 AD3d 420, 421 [2004]; *Bains v Bains,*308 AD2d 557, 559 [2003]; *Zaremba v Zaremba,*237 AD2d 351, 352-353 [1997]) and sufficiently set forth his reasons for doing so *(see Matter of Strella v Ferro,*42 AD3d at 546). Mastro, J.P., Rivera, Spolzino and Dickerson, JJ., concur.