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 amended quarterly report of ThermoEnergy Corporation (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q/A for the period ended June 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report"), I, Dennis C.
Cossey, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify to the best
of my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec.
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.





Date:  December
22, 2009





By:
              /s/ Dennis C. CosseyName:
      Dennis C. CosseyTitle:
      Chairman and Chief Executive
Officer
### IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10

- 11

- 00171

- CV

ZEKE'S TRUCKING CO., INC.

, Appellant

v.

ROBERT GRAYSON

, Appellee

From the 12th District Court

Walker County, Texas

Trial Court No. 24,476

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Zeke’s Trucking Co., Inc. appeal s from a judgment finalizing an arbitration

award to Robert Grayson. The judgment was filed on January 10, 2011. By letter dated

May 2, 2011, the Clerk of this Court notified Zeke’s Trucking Co. that the appeal was

subject to dismissal because it appeare d the notice of appeal was untimely. T EX

. R. A PP

.

P . 26.1. Because it appeared that a motion for new trial was filed, the notice of appeal

would have been due on April 11, 2011. See id . (a). It was not filed until May 13, 2011.

The Clerk also warned Z eke’s Trucking Co. that the appeal would be dismissed unless,Zeke’s Trucking Co., Inc. v. Grayson Page 2

within 21 days of the date of the letter, a response was filed showing grounds for

continuing the appeal. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 42.3, 44.3. We have not received a response.

Accordingly, this a ppeal is dismissed.

TOM GRAY

Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Scoggins

Appeal dismissed

Opinion delivered and filed June 1 5 , 2011

[CV06]
Case 2:11-mj-03651-MF Document 9 Filed 02/09/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 19
EX-32.1

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

In connection with the accompanying Report on Form 10-KSB
of Capital Group One, Inc. I, Matthew McNeally Chief Executive Officer
of Capital Group One, Inc. and I, V. Terence Franzke, Chief Financial
Officer of Capital Group One, Inc. 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 Annual Report on Form 10-KSB 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, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
and results of operations of Capital Group One, Inc.

October 15, 2007


                                By:/s/ Matthew McNeally
                                   --------------------------
                                    Matthew McNeally
                                    Chief Executive Officer


                                By:/s/ V. Terence Franzke
                                  ---------------------------
                                    V. Terence Franzke
                                    Chief Financial Officer


<PAGE>
#### Esther M. TAGTMEIER v. Harry *J.*SMITH, individually and trading as Doriss & Smith.

Civ. A. No. 24510.

United States District Court E. D. Pennsylvania.

Nov. 17, 1958.

Samuel- Diamond, Newman & Master, Philadelphia, Pa., for plaintiff.

James F. McMullan, Clark, Ladner, Fortenbaugh & Young, Philadephia, Pa., for defendant.

EGAN, District Judge.

This is a motion for summary judgment. A similar motion was refused when it was considered before by Judge Leahy sitting specially.1 At that time, among other things, he said:

> “Such a judgment is only available when there is no genuine issue of fact presented. Moreover, such judgment is granted only where there is certainty plaintiff is not entitled to relief under any stated facts which may be proved in support of such plaintiff’s claim. Plaintiff here alleges an oral agreement to pay her not only salary but a percentage of profits. She claims she was dismissed without justification. These present factual issues. Any doubt as to existence of a material fact issue must be decided against the party moving for summary judgment.

> “Summary judgment is denied. A *full trial*will better bring out the disputed facts "as to plaintiff’s employment, its tenure, and what happened between the parties.” (Emphasis supplied.)

Since that decision, defendant has taken plaintiff’s deposition and now renews his request.

Although the introduction of depositions is sometimes proper on a motion for summary judgment, we are of the opinion that in a case where the terms of an oral contract are complex and involved, the matter should be tried in its entirety and not merely upon questions and answers which have been highlighted by defendant’s counsel. The pleadings and the inherent nature of this suit make it apparent that genuine and material is*33sues of fact are in controversy. Fed. Rules Civ.Proc. rule 56, 28 U.S.C.A., offers no short cut in this type of case.

For the reasons given, as well as those given by the very learned and able Judge Leahy, this motion must be denied. It is so ordered.

1

 Tagtmeier v. Smith, D.C.E.D.Pa., 167 F.Supp. 292.
###                                                           AMENDMENT NO. 16
EXHIBIT 31.2
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 17 CFR 240.13(a)-14(a)
(SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION)
      a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our
supervision, to ensure that material information relating to China
Healthcare Acquisition Corp., 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)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of China Healthcare Acquisition Corp.s
disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our
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; andc)
    
    Disclosed in this report any changes in China Healthcare Acquisition
Corp.s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during
China Healthcare Acquisition Corp.s most recent fiscal year that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect,
China Healthcare Acquisition Corp.s internal control over financial
reporting.
  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 China
Healthcare Acquisition Corp.s ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial
information; andb)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves
management or other employees who have a
significant role in China Healthcare Acquisition
Corp.s internal controls over financial reporting.
 Date: November 17, 2008
    /s/ Steven WangSteven Wang, Chief Financial Officer
#### The City of Chester.1 Rutter *v.*The City *of*Chester.

*(District Court, E. D. New York.*

April 7, 1886.)

Ooixtston—Steam-Boat and Tug—Confusion of Lights—Lookout—Negligence.

Where two tugs hound from the East river into the North river, in New York harbor, were approaching the steam-boat 0., in the night, one at a course to pass outside of the s1eam-boat, and the other inside; and the steam-boat apparently confused their lights, and so sheered in, under the supposition that there was but one tug approaching, and so collided with and sank one of the vessels; *heM,*that more careful attention on the part of the steam-boat would have prevented the mistake, and also the collision, for which the steamboat was held liable.

In Admiralty.

*Carpenter & Mosher,*for libelant, James H. Rutter.

*Wilcox, Adams & Macklin,*for claimants.

1

 Reported by R. R. & Wyllys Benedict, Esqs., of the New York bar.

Benedict, J.

I am unable to discover how the fact that the Alice carried two vertical lights in addition to her side lights was a fault conducing to this collision. Her vertical lights were seen, and her side lights ought to have been seen. If due attention had been paid *320by those on the City of Chester, they would have discovered the Alice coming towards the North river on a course inside of theirs, and would have held their course, instead of sheering in to the New York shore, as they did, under the supposition that a single boat was approaching, and outside of them. The explanation of the collision is doubtless this: The Alice and the Eagle both left the pier in the Eafct river, one soon after the other. Both these tugs were bound into the North river, and both, after leaving their pier in the East river, rounded about to gain a course for the North river. The Eagle went down outside of the Alice. The City of Chester was seen by both of the tugs to be approaching them from the North river. The Eagle took a course outside of the City of Chester, and passed her safely on the outside. The Alice took a course inside the City of Chester, and was sunk by the City of Chester, because of a sheer by the City of Chester towards the docks, and upon the Alice, then inside of her. There are many things in the testimony indicating that the City of Chester, although she may have at first seen the vertical lights of the Alice as she says, afterwards confounded those lights with the lights of the Eagle, which was passing outside, and so sheered in, under the supppsition that there was but one tug approaching, and that on a course outside, when the fact was that there were two tugs approaching, one outside and the other inside of her. More careful attention on the part of those on the Chester would have prevented this mistake, and also prevented the collision.

The libelant must have a decree.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPI RES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT

HARRY LEE DAVIS, JR., ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D13-3383 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ) Opinion filed May 6, 2015.

A ppeal from the Circuit Court for Polk County; William D. Sites, Judge. Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Maureen E. Surber, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Katherine Coombs Cline, A ssistant Attorney General, Tampa, for A ppellee.

CASANUEVA, Judge. Harry Lee Davis, Jr., appeals the summary denial of his motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). Mr. D avis's motion alleged that he received two mandatory sentences of life in prison with out the possibility of parole for two counts of first-degree murder that he committed when he was seventeen- 2 - years old. The motion was denied based on Geter v. State, 115 So. 3d 375 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012), and Gonzalez v. State, 101 So. 3d 886 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012), which held that Miller v. Alabama, 132 S. Ct. 2455 (2012), did not apply r etroactively. The Florida Supreme Court has recently held that the Miller decision applie s retroactively to all juvenile offenders whose convic tions and sentences were final w hen Miller was decided. Falcon v. State, 40 Fla. L. Weekly S151, S151 (Fla. M ar. 19, 2015). Accordingly, we reverse the postconviction court's order summar ily denying the claim. We note that the Florida Supreme Court has further held in Hor sley v. State, 40 Fla. L. Weekly S155, S155 (Fla. Mar. 19, 2015), that the proper remedy in cases involving juvenile offenders whose sentences are unconsti tutional under Miller is to apply chapter 2014–220, Laws of Florida. The court conclude d that "applying chapter 2014–220, Laws of Florida, to all juvenile offenders whose sent ences are unconstitutional under Miller is the remedy most faithful to th e Eighth Amendment principles established by the United States Supreme Court, to t he intent of the Florida Legislature, and to the doctrine of separation of powers." Id. at S160. The relevant provisions of chapter 2014–220 have been codified in sections 7 75.082, 921.1401, and 921.1402, Florida Statutes (2014). A ccordingly, we reverse the order denying Mr. Davis's motion and remand for a resentencing proceeding consist ent with this new juvenile sentencing legislation. See Horsley, 40 Fla. L. Weekl y S155; Falcon, 40 Fla. L. Weekly S151.

Reversed and remanded with directions.

WALLACE and KHOUZAM, JJ., Concur.
Exhibit 99.2

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 filing of the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended January 31, 2003 (the "Report") by ADE
Corporation (the "Company"), the undersigned, as the Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



| | /s/BRIAN C. JAMESName: Brian C. James
Title:Chief Financial Officer
| | -------------------------------------------------------------------

---

QuickLinks
**CERTIFICATION      OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

**AND      CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

**PURSUANT      TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

| 1.     | Such                  amended                  Quarterly                  Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ending November 30, 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 amended                  Quarterly                  Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ending November 30, 2006,                  fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition                  and                  results of operations of Cruisestock,                  Inc. |

| Dated:                January                23, 2007December                19, 2006 |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

**CRUISESTOCK,      INC.**

| By: | */s/                Ruth Shepley*Chief                Executive Officer and Chief                Financial Officer |
|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
Case 2:11-cr-00554-KSH Document 18 Filed 12/22/11 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 63
Case 2:11-cr-00554-KSH Document 18 Filed 12/22/11 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 64
Case 2:11-cv-01701-ES-JAD Document 1-2 Filed 03/24/11 Page 1 of 25 PageID: 18
Case 2:11-cv-01701-ES-JAD Document 1-2 Filed 03/24/11 Page 2 of 25 PageID: 19
Case 2:11-cv-01701-ES-JAD Document 1-2 Filed 03/24/11 Page 3 of 25 PageID: 20
Case 2:11-cv-01701-ES-JAD Document 1-2 Filed 03/24/11 Page 4 of 25 PageID: 21
Case 2:11-cv-01701-ES-JAD Document 1-2 Filed 03/24/11 Page 5 of 25 PageID: 22
Case 2:11-cv-01701-ES-JAD Document 1-2 Filed 03/24/11 Page 6 of 25 PageID: 23
Case 2:11-cv-01701-ES-JAD Document 1-2 Filed 03/24/11 Page 7 of 25 PageID: 24
Case 2:11-cv-01701-ES-JAD Document 1-2 Filed 03/24/11 Page 8 of 25 PageID: 25
Case 2:11-cv-01701-ES-JAD Document 1-2 Filed 03/24/11 Page 9 of 25 PageID: 26
Case 2:11-cv-01701-ES-JAD Document 1-2 Filed 03/24/11 Page 10 of 25 PageID: 27
Case 2:11-cv-01701-ES-JAD Document 1-2 Filed 03/24/11 Page 11 of 25 PageID: 28
Case 2:11-cv-01701-ES-JAD Document 1-2 Filed 03/24/11 Page 12 of 25 PageID: 29
Case 2:11-cv-01701-ES-JAD Document 1-2 Filed 03/24/11 Page 13 of 25 PageID: 30
Case 2:11-cv-01701-ES-JAD Document 1-2 Filed 03/24/11 Page 14 of 25 PageID: 31
Case 2:11-cv-01701-ES-JAD Document 1-2 Filed 03/24/11 Page 15 of 25 PageID: 32
Case 2:11-cv-01701-ES-JAD Document 1-2 Filed 03/24/11 Page 16 of 25 PageID: 33
Case 2:11-cv-01701-ES-JAD Document 1-2 Filed 03/24/11 Page 17 of 25 PageID: 34
Case 2:11-cv-01701-ES-JAD Document 1-2 Filed 03/24/11 Page 18 of 25 PageID: 35
Case 2:11-cv-01701-ES-JAD Document 1-2 Filed 03/24/11 Page 19 of 25 PageID: 36
Case 2:11-cv-01701-ES-JAD Document 1-2 Filed 03/24/11 Page 20 of 25 PageID: 37
Case 2:11-cv-01701-ES-JAD Document 1-2 Filed 03/24/11 Page 21 of 25 PageID: 38
Case 2:11-cv-01701-ES-JAD Document 1-2 Filed 03/24/11 Page 22 of 25 PageID: 39
Case 2:11-cv-01701-ES-JAD Document 1-2 Filed 03/24/11 Page 23 of 25 PageID: 40
Case 2:11-cv-01701-ES-JAD Document 1-2 Filed 03/24/11 Page 24 of 25 PageID: 41
Case 2:11-cv-01701-ES-JAD Document 1-2 Filed 03/24/11 Page 25 of 25 PageID: 42
* 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 C IR
. R. 47.5.4. 

### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-40491 Summary Calendar

MICHAEL C ANTONELLI Petitioner-Appellant

v. MICHAEL B MUKASEY, U S ATTORNEY GENERAL; R D MILES, Warden Respondents-Appellees
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 1:03-CV-1121
Before KING, DAVIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Michael C. Antonelli, federal prisoner 04053-164, filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition, asserting that the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) had failed to comply with the orders of the sentencing court that he be incarcerated in a BOP facility in Minnesota where he could receive psychologi cal testing and treatment. The district court dismissed the petition, finding that the claims were not properly presented under § 2241 and al ternatively thatAntonelli was not entitled torelief
on the merits of his allegations. On appeal, Antonelli contends that the district United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D April 18, 2008 Charles R. Fulbruge III ClerkNo. 07-40491

2 court should have converted his § 2241 petition into the proper vehicle for seeking relief. He also contends that the district court could grant him injunctive, declaratory, or mandamus relief in habeas and that he was entitled to relief under the Administrative Procedures Act or the Declaratory Judgment Act. Even ifit isassumed thatAntonelli’schallenge tohis placementwithin the BOP was properly presented under § 2241, or alternatively even ifit is assumed that the district court should have converted the § 2241 petition to a more appropriate procedural vehicle, Antonelli has not established that he is entitled to relief. A prisoner has no constitutional right to be housed in a particular facility. See Tighe v. Wall , 100 F.3d 41, 42 (5th Cir. 1996). Although the sentencing court may recommend a location ofimprisonment, such a suggestion is not binding on the BOP. See 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b)(4)(B); United States v. Voda, 994 F.2d 149, 1 51-52 (5th Cir. 1993). Therefore, Antonelli was not entitled to declaratory, injunctive, mandamus, or habeas relief on the merits of his allegations. The judgment of the district court is thus AFFIRMED.
#### Albert BRONT, Petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, Respondent.

No. 2012-3121.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

April 2, 2013.

Albert Bront, of Marina del Ray, CA, pro se.

Courtney S. McNamara, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, of Washington, DC. With her on the brief were Stuart F. Delery, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Jeanne E. Davidson, Director, and Deborah A. Bynum, Assistant Director.

NEWMAN, DYK, and PROST, Circuit Judges.

JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM.

This Cause having been heard and considered, it is

Ordered and Adjudged:

AFFIRMED. *See*Fed. Cir. R. 36.
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 Ben Franklin Financial, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ending September 30, 2006 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, C. Steven Sjogren, President and 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:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) 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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: November 13, 2006



|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|/s/ C. Steven Sjogren                
|C. Steven Sjogren                    
|President and Chief Executive Officer
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Sammie Curtis, Appellant.

[821 NYS2d 918]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County (Hayes, J.), rendered April 13, 2004, convicting him of assault in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The plea minutes demonstrate that the defendant’s plea was entered knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently, and that he understood the crime to which he was pleading guilty *(see People v Harris,*61 NY2d 9 [1983]). Further, the defendant’s guilty plea precludes him from challenging claimed defects in the grand jury proceedings *(see People v Hansen,*95 NY2d 227 [2000]; *People v Miller,*306 AD2d 294 [2003]). Moreover, the sentence imposed was not excessive *(see People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80 [1982]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Schmidt, J.E, Santucci, Skelos and Covello, JJ., concur.
Case 3:11-cr-00469-FLW Document 7 Filed 07/12/11 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 23
Case 3:11-cr-00469-FLW Document 7 Filed 07/12/11 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 24
# National Compensation Survey Latest Numbers

Latest Numbers for National Compensation Survey, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

- National Compensation Survey Latest Numbers EMPLOYER COSTS FOR EMPLOYEE COMPENSATION (ECEC)																							Total compensation: per hour worked											           Civilian workers					$45.42  in 4th Qtr of 2023					Historical Data								           Private industry workers					$43.11  in 4th Qtr of 2023					Historical Data								           State and local government workers					$60.56  in 4th Qtr of 2023					Historical Data