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

CERTIFICATION

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), Frank Litvack, M.D., Chief Executive Officer of Conor Medsystems, Inc. (the
Company), and Michael Boennighausen, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certify that, to the best of his knowledge:

1. The Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2005, and 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 their hands hereto as of the 16th day of March, 2006.



/s/    FRANK LITVACK,
M.D.Frank Litvack, M.D. Chief Executive Officer/S/    MICHAEL
BOENNIGHAUSENMichael Boennighausen Chief Financial Officer
----

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 Annual Report of Bellacasa Productions, Inc. (the "Company")  on Form 10-KSB/A for the year ending December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities  and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Steven  Preiss, President, 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; and

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

Date: June 27, 2005

| /s/ Steven Preiss                                                                                                                                                                             |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                                                                                                                                                                    |
| Steven Preiss, President and Chief Executive Officer (Principal        Executive Officer) and Acting Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial        Officer and Principal Accounting Officer) |
Exhibit 4.1

                        CERTIFICATE OF WARRANT ADJUSTMENT
                    REDEEMABLE COMMON STOCK PURCHASE WARRANTS


The undersigned,  being the Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of
FOCUS  Enhancements,  Inc. (the "Company")  hereby  certifies that,  pursuant to
Section  4.3 of that  certain  Warrant  Agreement  by and among the  Company and
Mellon  Securities  Trust  Company,  dated May 24,  1993,  that the terms of the
Company's  Redeemable  Common Stock Purchase  Warrants issued in connection with
the  Company's  public  offering on May 24, 1993,  (the "Public  Warrants")  are
hereby adjusted as follows:

         o        Each Public Warrant, with an exercise price of $6.75, entitles
                  the holder to purchase 1.774 shares of Common Stock,  which is
                  equal to $3.81 per Common  Share on a pro-rated  basis,  until
                  May 23, 1998.

The foregoing purchase price and numbers of shares of Common Stock issuable upon
exercise are primarily the result of adjustments during the period June 30, 1994
through  June  30,  1997  due to:  (a) the  sale of an  aggregate  of  5,974,631
additional  shares of Common  Stock for less than the  purchase  price of Common
Stock under the Public Warrant at the date of sale relating to Private Placement
Offerings;  (b) the  issuance  of "Non  Public  Warrants"  to  purchase  795,000
additional  shares of Common  Stock for less than the  purchase  price of Common
Stock  under the Public  Warrant  at the date of  issuance  relating  to Private
Placement  Offerings;  (c) the  issuance  of "Non Public  Warrants"  to purchase
250,000  additional  shares of Common Stock for less than the purchase  price of
Common Stock under the Public  Warrant at the date of issuance  relating to debt
refinancing;  (d) the  issuance of "Non  Public  Warrants"  to purchase  308,545
additional  shares of Common  Stock for less than the  purchase  price of Common
Stock  under  the  Public  Warrant  at the  date of  issuance  relating  to debt
conversions; (e) the grant of vested (through June 30, 1997) Non-Qualified Stock
Options to purchase 200,000  additional shares of Common Stock for less than the
purchase  price of Common  Stock  under the Public  Warrant at the date of grant
relating to Key  Officer  and  Director  Arrangements;  and,  (f) the sale of an
aggregate  of  732,869  additional  shares  of  Common  Stock  for less than the
purchase  price of Common  Stock  under the  Public  Warrant at the date of sale
relating to the acquisition of TVIEW, Inc.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certificate as of the 13th
day of August, 1997.



/s/ Harry G. Mitchell
Harry G. Mitchell
Senior Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

Pursuant to Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned, as chief executive officer of SMTC Corporation (the “Company”), does hereby certify that to the undersigned’s knowledge: 

1) Amendment Number 1 to the Company’s annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2007 fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and 

2) the information contained in Amendment Number 1 to theCompany’s annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2007 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. 

 

Date: April 29, 2008 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to SMTC Corporation and will be retained by SMTC Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or itsstaff upon request.
# 16SNR06_00

# image1.png
#### Karine KHACHATRYAN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 11-70775.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*669Submitted Dec. 19, 2012.*

Filed Dec. 21, 2012.

Robert Charles Marton, The Law Alliance, A.P.C., Pasadena, CA, for Petitioner.

Brooke Maurer, Trial, Nancy Ellen Friedman, Trial, DOJ — U.S. Department Of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office Of The Chief Counsel Department Of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Karine Khachatryan, a native of the former U.S.S.R. and citizen of Armenia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, and review de novo questions of law. *Mohammed v. Gonzales,*400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir.2005). We deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Khachatryan’s motion to reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel because she failed to show that she was prejudiced by her former counsel’s conduct. *See id.*at 793-94 (prejudice results when “the performance of counsel was so inadequate that it may have affected the outcome of the proceedings”). Khacha-tryan’s due process claim therefore fails. *See Lata v. INS,*204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.2000) (requiring error and prejudice for a petitioner to prevail on a due process claim).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Case 3:09-cr-00695-PGS Document 23 Filed 01/04/10 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 41
Case 3:09-cr-00695-PGS Document 23 Filed 01/04/10 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 42
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

September 28, 2009 

p0921 

Order 

 

September 28, 2009 

138302 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 138302 

 COA: 281528 

Kent CC: 07-003765-FH 

DERRICK DEMONES GUNN, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 8, 2009 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

KELLY, C.J., would grant leave to appeal for the reasons set forth in her opinion in 

People v Idziak, 484 Mich 549 (2009).
#### Julia H. Sultan, Appellant, *v.*Simantav Misrahi, Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term,

June, 1905.)

Appeal — Judgment absolute — Presumptive liability of husband for wife’s board — Suitable residence.

Upon appeal from a judgment absolute for the defendant rendered by the Municipal Court of the city of New York, it will be assumed that upon the whole case plaintiff was not entitled to recover as matter of law.

A husband who without adequate reason leaves his wife and fails to provide her with a home, or means to provide one for herself, is liable for the reasonable value of her board; but the wife’s agreement to pay a certain sum is not conclusive upon the husband. '

The fact that the husband and wife had lived together in the same house in which she remained after he deserted her, is *prima fade*evidence that it was a suitable residence with reference to the husband’s means.

Appeal by the plaintiff from a judgment rendered in favor of the defendant in the Municipal Court of the city of New York, ninth district, borough of Manhattan.

Simon Sultan, for appellant.

Goldfogle, Cohn & Lind, for respondent.

Scott, J.

The justice rendered judgment absolute for the defendant. We must, therefore, assume that he concluded that upon the whole case the plaintiff was not entitled to recover as a matter of law. Mun. Ct. Act., § 249. It appears that defendant voluntarily left his wife, without, so far as we can see, any adequate reason. It was his duty to provide proper support for her according to his means and their status in life. It does not appear that he fulfilled this duty in any way. He did not provide a home for her, or furnish her with means to provide her a home for her*656self. All that lie offers in his own behalf is an allegation that he told her to look for rooms and that she refused. This she denies, and the history of the previous relations between the parties renders her denial, at least, as probable as his assertion. We are of opinion that the defendant has failed to show that he fulfilled the duty which the law imposes upon him, and that plaintiff was entitled, upon the evidence now presented, to a recovery. 'Of course, all that may be recovered is the reasonable value of the board, and the wife’s agreement to pay a certain sum is not conclusive upon the husband. The fact that the husband and wife had lived together in the house, in which his wife remained after her desertion, is *prima facie*evidence that it was a suitable residence with reference to the husband’s means. That it was with the wife’s own family with whom she boarded is no reason why the husband should be relieved from his -legal liability.

DtroHto and 'IIacLean, JJ., concur. *¡ ■*

*■*Judgment reversed and new trial granted, with costs to appellant to abide event.
#### Charles Woodman, Appellant, *v.*The Needham Piano & Organ Co., Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term,

June, 1905.)

Municipal Court — Jurisdiction — Conditional sale — Retaking of goods — Action to recover installments paid — Lien Law, § n6 — Waiver.

The statutory right of action, given by section 116 of the Lien Law as amended in 1900, to the purchaser of goods upon the installment plan, to recover the amount of installments paid in case *684the vendor or his successor takes back the -goods, is, in effect, for money had and received and does not arise out of a contract of conditional sale and so not within the jurisdiction of the Municipal Court of the city of New York (Municipal Court Act, § 139).

But the purchaser of a piano upon the installment plan waives such right of action where the contract provides “that if default be made in the promised payments or any of them * * # all payments thereon shall be in full for 'the use thereof

Appeal by the plaintiff from a judgment rendered in favor of the defendant in the Municipal Court of the city of New York, sixth district, borough of Manhattan.

W. E, Oglesby, for appellant.

O. B. Plante, for respondent.

MacLean, J.

In 190.0, the plaintiff bought a piano from the defendant for $275 payable on the installment plan and defaulted after paying $181 for which sum is this action, under the Lien Law (Laws of 1897, chap. 418, § 116, as amd. by-Laws of 1900, chap. 762) providing that when a purchaser on the installment plan has defaulted and the article is taken back by the vendor or his successor the vendee shall have thirty days to redeem the article but if not redeemed the vendor or its successor thereafter may on due notice to its vendee and within thirty days sell the article at auction, and further if this be not done within thirty days the vendee has an action against the vendor for the full amount paid.

The piano was taken in replevin by the vendor’s assignee, May 5, 1904. Judgment therein was deferred until after the beginning of the present action in the spring of 1905, a circumstance deemed immaterial here. Such an action given by statute in effect as for money had and received, does not seem one *“*which arises on a written contract of conditional sale of personal property ” and, therefore, not maintainable in the Municipal Court. Laws'of 1902, chap. 580, § 139. But the plaintiff seems to have signed, away the right to this statutory and beneficial action by agreeing in *685writing *“*that if default he made in the promised payments or any of them, the Needham Piano and Organ Company may resume actual possession of said piano and all payments thereon shall be in full for the use thereof.” He was as competent to waive eventual resort to the provision made by statute for his benefit as he was to enter into the agreement at its inception.

Scott and Ditgbo, JJ., concur.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the Quarterly Report of PRIMEDIAInc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30,2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), I, Dean B. Nelson, Chairman, Chief Executive Officer andPresident of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adoptedpursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

(1)         The Report fully complieswith the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

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

| /s/ DEAN  B. NELSON                               |     |
|---------------------------------------------------|----------|
| Dean B. Nelson                                    |     |
| *Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President* | * * |

 

August 8, 2006

This certification accompanies each Report pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to theextent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by theCompany for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,as amended.

A signed original of this written statement requiredby Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained bythe Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or itsstaff upon request.

----
EX-10.2



 Exhibit 10.2 
 NOTE 
  

			
	$65,000,000	  	March 7, 2013

 FOR VALUE RECEIVED, the undersigned (the “Borrower”), hereby promises to pay to
CITIBANK, N.A. or registered assigns (the “Lender”), in accordance with the provisions of the Agreement (as hereinafter defined), the lesser of the principal sum of SIXTY-FIVE MILLION AND NO/00 DOLLARS ($65,000,000) or the aggregate
unpaid principal amount of all Loans from time to time made by the Lender to the Borrower under that certain Credit Agreement, dated as of March 7, 2013 (as amended, restated, extended, supplemented or otherwise modified in writing from time to
time, the “Agreement;” the terms defined therein being used herein as therein defined), among the Borrower, Landmark Apartment Trust of America, Inc., and certain subsidiaries of the Borrower from time to time party thereto, as
guarantors, the Lenders from time to time party thereto, and Bank of America, N.A., as Administrative Agent. 
 The Borrower
promises to pay interest on the unpaid principal amount of each Loan from the date of such Loan until such principal amount is paid in full, at such interest rates and at such times as provided in the Agreement. All payments of principal and
interest shall be made to the Administrative Agent for the account of the Lender in Dollars in immediately available funds at the Administrative Agent’s Office. If any amount is not paid in full when due hereunder, such unpaid amount shall bear
interest, to be paid upon demand, from the due date thereof until the date of actual payment (and before as well as after judgment) computed at the per annum rate set forth in the Agreement. 

This Note is one of the Notes referred to in the Agreement, is entitled to the benefits thereof and may be prepaid in whole or in part
subject to the terms and conditions provided therein. This Note is secured by the Collateral Documents and is also entitled to the benefits of the Guaranty. Upon the occurrence and continuation of one or more of the Events of Default specified in
the Agreement, all amounts then remaining unpaid on this Note shall become, or may be declared to be, immediately due and payable all as provided in the Agreement. Loans made by the Lender shall be evidenced by one or more loan accounts or records
maintained by the Lender in the ordinary course of business. The Lender may also attach schedules to this Note and endorse thereon the date, amount and maturity of its Loans and payments with respect thereto. 

The Borrower, for itself, its successors and assigns, hereby waives diligence, presentment, protest and demand and notice of protest,
demand, dishonor and non-payment of this Note. 







 THIS NOTE SHALL BE GOVERNED BY AND CONSTRUED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF NEW
YORK. 
  

							
	LANDMARK APARTMENT TRUST OF AMERICA HOLDINGS, LP
		
	By:	 	Landmark Apartment Trust of America, Inc., its general partner
			
		 	By:	 	/s/ Stanley J. Olander, Jr.
				
		 		 	Name:	 	Stanley J. Olander, Jr.
		 		 	Title:	 	Chief Executive Officer
Employment-population ratios by state,

2023 annual averages

(U.S. average = 60.3 percent)

SOURCE: Bureau of Labor Statistics

Local Area Unemployment Statistics

62.0% or higher

58.0% to 61.9%

57.9% or lower
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5230

To amend title 49, United States Code, to ensure that the National Driver 

Registry includes certain information. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

OCTOBER 6, 2004

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

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL

To amend title 49, United States Code, to ensure that the 

National Driver Registry includes certain information.

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

3 SECTION 1. NATIONAL DRIVER REGISTRY ENHANCEMENT. 

4 (a) INFORMATION REGARDING CERTAIN DRIVERS.—

5 Section 30304(b)(1) of title 49, United States Code, is 

6 amended—

7 (1) by redesignating subparagraphs (B) and 

8 (C) as subparagraphs (C) and (D), respectively; and 

9 (2) by inserting after subparagraph (A) the fol10 lowing: 
2

•HR 5230 IH 

1 ‘‘(B) information that specifies if an indi2 vidual has been convicted in the previous 10 

3 years under the laws of the State of operating 

4 a motor vehicle under the influence of, or im5 paired by, alcohol or a controlled substance;’’. 

6 (b) APPLICATION.—The amendments made by sub7 section (a) shall apply to a conviction described in section 

8 30304(b)(1)(B) of title 49, United States Code, that oc9 curs on or after the date of enactment of this Act. 

10 SEC. 2. ACCESS TO REGISTER INFORMATION. 

11 Section 30305(b) of title 49, United States Code, is 

12 amended by adding at the end the following: 

13 ‘‘(12) A State or local prosecutor and district 

14 attorney may request the chief driver licensing offi15 cial of a State to obtain information under sub16 section (a) about an individual who is under inves17 tigation for a traffic related offense. A prosecutor 

18 and a district attorney may receive the informa19 tion.’’.

Æ
DENY; and Opinion Filed August 10, 2015.

S

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-15-00954-CV

IN RE SONJA Y. WEBSTER, Relator

Original Proceeding from the Probate Court No. 2

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. PR-10-866-2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Francis, Myers, and Schenck

Opinion by Justice Francis

Relator filed this petition for writ of mandamus requesting that the Court order the trial 

court to vacate its July 2, 2015 order removing her as guardian of L.L. The facts and issues in 

this case are well-known to the parties. For the reasons discussed in In re Sonja Y. Webster, No. 

05-15-00945-CV (Tex. App. —Dallas August 10, 2015, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.), we 

conclude relator has an adequate remedy by appeal and deny the petition.

150954F.P05

/Molly Francis/

MOLLY FRANCIS

JUSTICE
# 2002