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 the Quarterly Report of Grace 2, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form
10-Q for quarter ended November 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Douglas A. Dyer,
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 results of operations of the Company.
 
  Dated:
      December 17, 2008
              /s/ Douglas
      A. DyerDouglas
      A. Dyer
                President
                (Principal
      Executive Officer)
                (Principal
      Financial Officer)
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

J an u ar y Term 2014

JACOBRIAN BRAY
, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA
, Appellee

.

No. 4D 14

- 1168

[ July 2, 2014 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit,

Broward County ; Martin J. Bidwill , Judge; L.T. Case No s

. 06

- 12082 CF10A

and 06

- 4676 CF10A

.

Jacobrian Bray, Crawfordville, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

The defendant appeals the trial court’s denial of a motion to correct illegal sentence

, p ursuant to Rule 3. 800(a) of the Florida Rules of Criminal

Procedure

. The motion raised the same sentencing challenge as did his pri or motions for post

- conviction relief . T he issues are therefore barred by

collateral estoppel. We affirm and caution the defendant that the filing of further frivolous appeals will result in sanctions.

In this rule 3.800(a) motion, the defendant cha llenged a ten

- year mandatory minimum sentence imposed for actual possession of a firearm

in count one , and the three

- year mandatory minimum for actual possession of a firearm i n count four. He argued that even though he pled guilty to the charges

, the trial court was required to make a specific finding of actual possession to impose the mand atory minimum term under

s ect ion 775.087(1), Florida Stat utes (2006). The defendant ’s argument is

merit less

. His guilty pleas to the counts charging actual possession of a

firearm mandated imposition of the mandatory minimum terms. See State

v. Moore , 8 54 So. 2d 832 (Fla. 5 th DCA 2003).2

The defendant is also procedurally barred from raising this challenge

because h e rais ed the same or similar challenges in Bray v. State , 995 So. 2d 976 (Fla. 4 th DCA 2008) , and Bray v. State , 68 So. 3d 247 (Fla. 4 th DCA 2011). See State v. McBride , 848 So. 2d 287 (Fla. 2003); Kittles v.

State , 83 So. 3d 958 (Fla. 4 th DCA 2012).

The defendant’s motion is procedurally barred, an abuse of the post

conviction procedure

, and merit less

. We therefore find this appeal

f rivolous, and caution the defendant that any future frivolous filing in this court will result in referral to prison officials for consideration of disciplinary procedures

, which may incl ude forfeiture of gain

- time. §§ 944.279(1), 944.28(2)(a), Fla. Stat. (2012). The defendant is also cautioned that future frivolous filings may result in sanctions by this

court

, including a prohibition against pro se filings. State v. Spencer , 751 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 1999).

Affirmed.

M AY
, C ONNER and F ORST
, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Exhibit 32.1 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report On Form 10-QSB of Crescendo Capital Corp. (the "Company") for the quarter ending November 30, 2007, I, Anthony E. Lombardo, Chief Executive Officer of the Company hereby certify 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 my knowledge and belief, that: 1. Such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ending November 30, 2007, 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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ending November 30, 2007, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. Dated:  January 8, 2008 Crescendo Capital Corp. By:/s/ Anthony E. Lombardo Anthony E. Lombardo  Exhibit 32.2 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report On Form 10-QSB of Crescendo Capital Corp. (the "Company") for the quarter ending November 30, 2007, I, Margaret L. Sollish, Chief Financial Officer of the Company hereby certify 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 my knowledge and belief, that: 1. Such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ending November 30, 2007, 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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ending November 30, 2007, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. Dated:  January 8, 2008 Crescendo Capital Corp. By: /s/ Margaret L. Sollish Margaret L. Sollish
#### Irby *v.*The State.

Bleckley, C. J. — 1. The showing for a continuance not stating that the witness who was confined in the county jail was too unwell to appear and testify, there was no error in denying the continuance; the court, at the conclusion of the State’s evidence, offering to have the witness brought from the jail for the purpose of testifying in behalf of the accused, and the offer being declined.

2. Before admitting a confession in evidence, the presiding judge should see to it that the confession was made freely and voluntarily ; but where it affirmatively appears by the witness who heard the confession, that he held out no inducement and did nothing to excite either hope or fear and knew of nothing done by others to induce the confession, it is *prima fade*admissible, and the court, before admitting it, is not bound to hear evidence offered by the accused which might show coercion or the excitement of fear or hope as -inducement to confess. Such evidence, however, may afterwards he adduced to the jury, and it will be for them to determine, under all the evidence submitted, whether or not the confession was free and voluntary. *Dawson*v. *The State,*59 *Ga.*333.

3. There being nothing in the evidence or in the prisoner’s statement tending to show that the confession admitted in evidence was influenced by reward or the hope thereof, a request to charge the jury that the confession should not be considered if the jury believed, from the evidence and the statement of the defendant taken *468together, that it was influenced by fear of injury or by reward or hope thereof, and that whether it was so induced was a fact for the jury to find, was properly denied. The language of the request was more comprehensive than the statement, whether taken with the evidence or without it, rendered pertinent or appropriate.

4. There being nothing in the evidence touching the element of self-defense or any grade ,of homicide except murder, and no request having been made to charge the jury on self-defense, failure to charge on it was not error, although the prisoner’s statement may have presented the question, the court having charged on the statement in terms of the statute. ■ *Darby*v. *The State,*79 *Ga.*63; *Underwood*v. *The State,*88 *Ga.*47.

October 8, 1894.

Indictment for murder. Before Judge Milner. Bar-tow superior court. Januai-y terra, 1894.

J. B. Conyers, T C. Milner aud J. *W.*Harris, Jr., for plaintiff in error. • J. M. Terrell, attorney-general, and A. W. Fite, solicitor-general, *contra.*

*Judgment affirmed.*
#### State *vs.*Hudson, B. and P. Ackerman, prosecutors.

This cause involves the same facts, and the same principles apply with the same result.
EX-10.24



 Exhibit 10.24 
 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 Leo Berlinghieri (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 4.5 of the Agreement to provide as follows: 

 

	 	“4.5	Release.    Benefits payable under this Appendix A (other than death benefits payable under Section 6) are specifically conditioned upon
and provided in exchange for Employee signing a separation agreement that releases the Corporation 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 4.5 all benefits shall be forfeited, and no amount 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/ Seth H. Bagshaw
	
	 
	
	EMPLOYEE
	
	/s/ Leo Berlinghieri
Case 2:11-cr-00281-DMC Document 9 Filed 03/12/12 Page 1 of 6 PageID: 48
Case 2:11-cr-00281-DMC Document 9 Filed 03/12/12 Page 2 of 6 PageID: 49
Case 2:11-cr-00281-DMC Document 9 Filed 03/12/12 Page 3 of 6 PageID: 50
Case 2:11-cr-00281-DMC Document 9 Filed 03/12/12 Page 4 of 6 PageID: 51
Case 2:11-cr-00281-DMC Document 9 Filed 03/12/12 Page 5 of 6 PageID: 52
Case 2:11-cr-00281-DMC Document 9 Filed 03/12/12 Page 6 of 6 PageID: 53
Case 3:11-cv-03262-JAP-TJB Document 137 Filed 08/05/13 Page 1 of 4 PageID: 4918
Case 3:11-cv-03262-JAP-TJB Document 137 Filed 08/05/13 Page 2 of 4 PageID: 4919
Case 3:11-cv-03262-JAP-TJB Document 137 Filed 08/05/13 Page 3 of 4 PageID: 4920
Case 3:11-cv-03262-JAP-TJB Document 137 Filed 08/05/13 Page 4 of 4 PageID: 4921
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5198

To clarify issues of criminal jurisdiction within the exterior boundaries of 

Pueblo lands. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 30, 2004

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico (for himself and Mr. PEARCE) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Resources 

A BILL

To clarify issues of criminal jurisdiction within the exterior 

boundaries of Pueblo lands.

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

3 SECTION 1. INDIAN PUEBLO LAND ACT AMENDMENTS. 

4 The Act of June 7, 1924 (43 Stat. 636, chapter 331), 

5 is amended by adding at the end the following: 

6 ‘‘SEC. 20. CRIMINAL JURISDICTION. 

7 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—Except as otherwise provided by 

8 Congress, jurisdiction over offenses committed anywhere 

9 within the exterior boundaries of any grant from a prior 

10 sovereign, as confirmed by Congress or the Court of Pri-
2

•HR 5198 IH 

1 vate land Claims to a Pueblo Indian tribe of new Mexico, 

2 shall be as provided in this section. 

3 ‘‘(b) JURISDICTION OF THE PUEBLO.—The Pueblo 

4 has jurisdiction, as an act of the Pueblos’ inherent power 

5 as an Indian tribe, over any offense committed by a mem6 ber of the Pueblo or of another federally recognized Indian 

7 tribe, or by any other Indian-owned entity. 

8 ‘‘(c) JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES.—The 

9 United States has jurisdiction over any offense described 

10 in chapter 53 of title 18, United States Code, committed 

11 by or against a member of any federally recognized Indian 

12 tribe or any Indian-owned entity, or that involves any In13 dian property or interest. 

14 ‘‘(d) JURISDICTION OF THE STATE OF NEW MEX15 ICO.—The State of New Mexico shall have jurisdiction 

16 over any offense committed by a person who is not a mem17 ber of a federally recognized Indian tribe, which offense 

18 is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.’’.

Æ
In the Senate of the United States,

October 4, 2004.

Resolved, That the bill from the House of Representatives (H.R. 5122) entitled ‘‘An Act to amend the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 to permit members of the

Board of Directors of the Office of Compliance to serve for

2 terms.’’, do pass with the following

AMENDMENT:

1 Page 2, line 11, strike out øthe date of the enactment

2 of this Act¿ and insert: September 30, 2004

Attest:

Secretary.
108TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 5122

AMENDMENT
Case 2:11-cv-03208-ES Document 5 Filed 07/12/11 Page 1 of 4 PageID: 14
Case 2:11-cv-03208-ES Document 5 Filed 07/12/11 Page 2 of 4 PageID: 15
Case 2:11-cv-03208-ES Document 5 Filed 07/12/11 Page 3 of 4 PageID: 16
Case 2:11-cv-03208-ES Document 5 Filed 07/12/11 Page 4 of 4 PageID: 17
V 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5036

To extend the patent numbered RE 38,014 (BIEBERSTEIN) for a period 

of 2 years. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 8, 2004

Mr. BACA introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on the Judiciary 

A BILL

To extend the patent numbered RE 38,014 

(BIEBERSTEIN) for a period of 2 years.

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

3 SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF PATENT. 

4 The Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual 

5 Property and Director of the United States Patent and 

6 Trademark Office shall, when patent numbered RE 

7 38,014 (BIEBERSTEIN) (relating to the Maglite flash8 light) expires, extend such patent for 2 years, with all the 

9 rights pertaining to such patent.

Æ
**Exhibit      32.1**

**CERTIFICATE        PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT        OF        2002 **

| 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                D.                Burchetta                            |
|        |   |   | James                D. Burchetta                                                    |
|   |   |   | Co-Chairman,                  President and Chief Executive                  Officer |
|   |   |   |                                                                          |
|--------|--------|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   |   | /s/ Katherine                A. Dering                                   |
|        |   |   | Katherine                A. Dering                                            |
|   |   |   | Chief                  Financial Officer, Treasurer and                  Secretary |
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICERS

Pursuant to the
requirement set forth in Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the Exchange Act), and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code (18 U.S.C. § 1350), Nick Jensen, Chief
Executive Officer and President of Dialogic Inc. (the Company), and Jean Gagnon, Principal Financial and Accounting Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:

(1) The Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2011, to which this Certification is attached as
Exhibit 32.1 (the Periodic Report), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Exchange Act; and

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

In Witness Whereof, the undersigned have set his hand hereto as of the 16th day of May, 2011.



|                                                                         |  |  |  |                                                                    
|------------------------------------------------------------------------ |  |  |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Nick Jensen                                                          |  |  |  | /s/ Jean Gagnon                                                    
|Name: Nick Jensen Title: Chief
Executive Officer, President and Director |  |  |  | Name: Jean Gagnon Title:
Principal Accounting and Financial Officer

This certification accompanies the Form 10-Q to which it relates,
is not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of Dialogic Inc. under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether
made before or after the date of the Form 10-Q), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.
----

EXHIBIT 13.1 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350) 

Pursuant to the requirements of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002(18 U.S.C. Sections 1350(a) and (b)), the undersigned hereby certifies asfollows: 

- I, William Bruce Hicks, am the Group Managing Director of SUNDAY  Communications Limited (the "Company").    
- To the best of my knowledge: 

> 
(A) The Company's Form 20-F    accompanying this Certification, in the form filed with the Securities and    Exchange Commission (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of    Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act");    and 

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

Dated: June 30, 2005 

| By: /s/ WILLIAM BRUCE HICKS    |
|--------------------------------|
| _________________________      |
| Name: William Bruce Hicks      |
| Title: Group Managing Director |

A SIGNED ORIGINAL OF THIS WRITTEN STATEMENT REQUIRED BYSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO SUNDAY COMMUNICATIONSLIMITED AND WILL BE RETAINED BY SUNDAY COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED AND FURNISHED TOTHE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION OR ITS STAFF UPON REQUEST. 

THE FOREGOING CERTIFICATION IS BEING FURNISHED SOLELYPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002. IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE INTERIM GUIDANCE FOR SECTION906 CERTIFICATION ISSUED BY THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION ON MARCH 21,2003 IN RELEASE NO. 33-8212, THIS CERTIFICATION WILL NOT BE DEEMED "FILED" FORPURPOSES OF SECTION 18 OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, OR OTHERWISESUBJECT TO THE LIABILITY OF THAT SECTION. 

----
A06A0648.

#### BRANTON v. THE STATE.

(630 SE2d 787)

SMITH, Presiding Judge.

Theadio Branton appeals from the trial court’s denial of his motion to dismiss an October 2004 indictment on the ground that he was denied the right to a speedy trial. Because Branton’s demand for speedy trial was untimely, we affirm.

Branton was indicted for various offenses in October 2004. On March 16, 2005, Branton filed a demand for speedy trial. The same day, the State moved to dismiss the demand on the ground that it was *301untimely. The trial court granted the State’s motion to dismiss, and Branton filed a motion to vacate that order. Following the trial court’s denial of his motion to vacate, Branton moved to dismiss the indictment on the ground that he was denied the right to a speedy trial. He now appeals from the denial of that motion.

Decided April 27, 2006

Reconsideration denied May ll, 2006

*Herbert Shafer,*for appellant.

*Gwendolyn Keyes Fleming, District Attorney, Barbara B. Conroy, Assistant District Attorney,*for appellee.

In three enumerations, Branton argues that the trial court erred in dismissing his demand for speedy trial without holding a hearing, and erred in dismissing his motions to vacate and to dismiss the indictment. The underlying issue to be decided here, however, is whether Branton’s demand for speedy trial was timely.

OCGA§ 17-7-170 (a) provides that “[a]ny person against whom a true bill of indictment or an accusation is filed with the clerk for an offense not affecting the person’s life may enter a demand for trial at the court term at which the indictment or accusation is filed or at the next succeeding regular court term thereafter.” The terms for DeKalb County Superior Court begin the first Monday in January, March, May, July, September, and November. OCGA § 15-6-3 (37). Since Branton was indicted in October 2004, he was required to file his demand for speedy trial during either the September term or the November term. But Branton did not file his demand until March 2005, *three*terms following the term in which he was indicted. Branton’s demand for speedy trial was therefore untimely. See *Smith v. State,*207 Ga. App. 762, 763 (429 SE2d 149) (1993).

Although Branton argues that he was not served with the State’s motion to dismiss his demand for speedy trial, the record reveals a certificate of service filed by the State with the same address as that shown for Branton’s counsel in the demand for speedy trial. See generally OCGA § 17-1-1 (filing and service of motions). In any case, no hearing was required. The trial court would have had authority to dismiss Branton’s demand for speedy trial even in the absence of a motion by the State, since the demand clearly was untimely.

Because the trial court properly dismissed as untimely Branton’s demand for speedy trial, it follows that there was no error in denying his subsequent motions to vacate that dismissal and to dismiss the indictment against him.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Ruffin, C. J., and Phipps, J., concur.*
Case 2:11-cr-00404-SDW Document 18 Filed 07/14/11 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 27
Case 2:11-cr-00404-SDW Document 18 Filed 07/14/11 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 28