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





**AMENDED
      CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO**


**RULE
      13a-14(b)/15d-14(b) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
      AND**


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




In
      connection with the Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report of Eugene Science,
      Inc.
      (the “Company”) on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007 as
      filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
“Report”), I, Christopher Craney, President and Chief Executive Officer of the
      Company, certify, pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) under the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and 18 U.S.C. 1350, that to the best of my
      knowledge:





(1)
      The
      Amended 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 Amended Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.





Date:
                August 18, 2008
            
            /s/
                Christopher CraneyChristopher
                CraneyPresident
                and Chief Executive Officer(Principal
                Executive Officer)





This
      certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) or 15d-14(b)
      under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and shall
      not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities
      Exchange Act of 1934.
Page 30

Exhibit 31.2  Certification of the Chief Financial Officer

Chief Financial Officer Certification
Pursuant To Section 302 Of 
The Sarbanes-Oxley Act Of 2002

|I, Robert S. Johnson, certify that:
|-----------------------------------
|                                   
|1.                                 
|                                   
|2.                                 
|                                   
|3.                                 
|                                   
|4.                                 
|                                   
|                                   
|                                   
|                                   
|                                   
|                                   
|                                   
|5.                                 
|                                   
|                                   
|                                   
|                                   



|May 10, 2005 | /s/ Robert S. Johnson  
|------------ | -----------------------
|             | Robert S. Johnson      
|             | Chief Financial Officer
| Delaware                                                      |   | 04-3510455                           |
|---------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------------------------------------|
| (State or other jurisdiction ofincorporation or organization) |   | (I.R.S. Employer Identification No.) |
| 24 North Street, Pittsfield, Massachusetts |   | 01201      |
|--------------------------------------------|--------|------------|
| (Address of principal executive offices)   |   | (Zip Code) |
|   | Title of each class                     |   | Name of Exchange on which registered |   |
|--------|-----------------------------------------|--------|--------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Common stock, par value $0.01 per share |   | New York Stock Exchange              |   |

----

| Large Accelerated Filer ☒       |   | Accelerated Filer ☐         |
|---------------------------------------|--------|-----------------------------------|
| Non-Accelerated Filer ☐    |   |                              |
| Emerging Growth Company ☐  |   | Smaller Reporting Company ☐ |

----

|   |
|--------|
|   |   |   |   |
| 31.1   |   |   | Certification of Chief Executive Officer pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 |
| 31.2   |   |   | Certification of Chief Financial Officer pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 |
| 32.1   |   |   | Certification of Chief Executive Officer pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 |
| 32.2   |   |   | Certification of Chief Financial Officer pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 |

----

|               | Berkshire Hills Bancorp, Inc.  |
|--------------------|------------------------------------------|
| Date: May 19, 2017 | By:                                      | /s/ Michael P. Daly |
|               |                                     | Michael P. Daly |
|               |                                     | President & Chief Executive Officer |
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

KAREEM BARNES,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 288 EAL 2019

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 17th day of September, 2019

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED

.
#### RENEAU v. PANHANDLE EASTERN PIPE LINE CO.

No. 7145.

United States District Court W. D. Missouri, W. D.

Jan. 24, 1952.

Homer Cope, Kansas City, Mo., for plaintiff.

Rogers, Field & Gentry, Kansas City, Mo., for defendant.

REEVES, Chief Judge.

The defendant has objected to answering interrogatories 6, 10 and 11 of those submitted by the plaintiff to the defendant. Answers were made to the other eight. Interrogatory No. 6 asks, in effect, the defendant to “state the identity and locations of persons having knowledge of the relevant facts.”

Rule 26, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A., provides by paragraph (b) the scope of examination, whether by deposition or interrogatories. And it particularly provides that the deponent or the one interrogated “may be examined regarding any matter * * * whether it relates to the claim or defense of the examining party or to the claim or defense of any other party, including the existence, description, nature, custody,' condition and location of any ¡books, documents, or other tangible things *and the identity and location of persons having knowledge of relevant facts.”*(Emphasis mine.) This is precisely what interrogatory numbered 6 calls for.

Interrogatory No. 10, to which objection is made, sought information as follows: “ * * * did any person or persons with your knowledge, consent or direction obtain the names and addresses of any persons known to have been present at the time and place of the casualty, or who arrived at the scene of the casualty after the same had occurred ?”

Unquestionably the information sought by interrogatory 6 would cover in full the information sought by this interrogatory and the defendant need not answer.

*258In like manner interrogatory No. 11 need not be answered for the reason that it assumes an affirmative answer to said No. 10, and then it asks 'for the names and addresses of such persons.

It may Ibe suggested that all of this information would ibe elicited by interrogatory No. 6. It follows that the objections to interrogatory No. 6 should be overruled and the objection to interrogatories Nos. 10 and 11 should be sustained.
11 TH C OURT OF A PPEALS

E ASTLAND

, T EXAS

J UDGMENT

Kirsten T. Lewis

, * From the 118th District

Court of Howard County,

Trial Court No. 14035

.

Vs. No. 11

- 15

- 00113

- CR * June 11, 2015

The State of Texas

, * Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

(Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

Willson, J. , and Bailey, J. )

This court has considered Kirsten T. Lewis’s motion to dismiss her appeal

and concludes that the motion should be granted. Therefore, in accordance with

this court ’ s opinion, the appeal is dismissed.
#### Walter D. SOUTHARD, Plaintiff, v. PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD COMPANY, Defendant.

Civ. A. No. 23793.

United States District Court E. D. Pennsylvania.

Dec. 15, 1959.

Richter, Lord & Levy, B. Nathaniel Richter, Philadelphia, Pa., for plaintiff.

Barnes, Dechert, Price, Myers & Rhoads, Matthew J. Broderick, Philadelphia, Pa., for defendant.

WOOD, District Judge.

This is a Motion for Sanctions pursuant to the provisions of Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S. C.A.1*457Plaintiff contends that defendant wilfully filed false answers to plaintiff’s interrogatories. Plaintiff requests, therefore, that judgment in his favor be entered in this case.

 We conclude, from a study of the interrogatories and answers in issue here and from oral argument by the attorneys, that the defendant answered in good faith, intending neither to mislead plaintiff nor to withhold information requested by plaintiff. We do think, however, that in answering plaintiff’s interrogatories Nos. 29 and 30, defendant should have included the names of those men whose statements, taken by defendant, revealed their *claims*of having made complaints about the switch to defendant’s yardmasters.2 Defendant reasonably explained its failure to include the names of these men in its answer by pointing out that the records of defendant’s personnel authorized to receive such complaints did not show any notation of complaints allegedly made by these men. We think this explanation is adequate to exculpate defendant from plaintiff’s charge of wilfully filing false answers.

We wish to note also that Rule 37(b) (2) (iii) empowers the Court to enter a judgment against a party who refuses to *obey an order*made under subdivision (a) of Rule 37. There was no such order outstanding against defendant in this case. Furthermore, Rule 37 deals with a “Refusal to Make Discovery,” e. g., a refusal to answer an interrogatory. Defendant here filed answers to all plaintiff’s interrogatories. Even if the defendant had filed false answers, it is extremely doubtful that such filing should be considered tantamount to a refusal to answer.3

Therefore, on this 15th day of December, 1959, it is ordered that plaintiff’s motion for sanctions is denied.

1

. Although plaintiff does not mention Rule 37 specifically in either his motion or brief in support of his motion, Rule 37 is the only source of the Court’s power to impose sanctions for refusal to make discovery.

2

. For a remarkably similar case, see Stom v. Pennsylvania R. Co., D.C.E.D.Pa.1953, 15 F.R.D. 284.

3

. “The rules make no provision for a remedy against incomplete, evasive, and false answers. In such cases the courts usually order further answers on motion of tbe propounding party. [Citing eases.] It has been held that false answers cannot be held to be a contempt of court without a dear showing of perjury or obstruction of justice. [Citing cases.]” Barron and Holtzoff, Federal Practice and Procedure, VoL 2, p. 480.
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 601

To direct the Architect of the Capitol to enter into a contract to revise 

the statue commemorating women’s suffrage located in the rotunda of 

the United States Capitol to include a likeness of Sojourner Truth. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 5, 2003

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

on House Administration 

A BILL

To direct the Architect of the Capitol to enter into a contract 

to revise the statue commemorating women’s suffrage 

located in the rotunda of the United States Capitol to 

include a likeness of Sojourner Truth.

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

3 SECTION 1. FINDINGS. 

4 Congress finds as follows: 

5 (1) Sojourner Truth was a towering figure 

6 among the founders of the movement for women’s 

7 suffrage in the United States, and no monument 
2

•HR 601 IH 

1 that does not include her can accurately represent 

2 this important development in our Nation’s history. 

3 (2) The statue known as the Portrait Monu4 ment, originally presented to Congress in 1920 in 

5 honor of the passage of the Nineteenth Amendment 

6 guaranteeing women the right to vote and presently 

7 exhibited in the rotunda of the Capitol, portrays sev8 eral early suffragists who were Sojourner Truth’s 

9 contemporaries but not Sojourner Truth herself, the 

10 only African American among the group. 

11 SEC. 2. REVISION OF WOMEN’S SUFFRAGE STATUE. 

12 Not later than the final day on which the One Hun13 dred Ninth Congress is in session, the Architect of the 

14 Capitol shall enter into a contract to revise the statue com15 memorating women’s suffrage located in the rotunda of 

16 the United States Capitol (commonly known as the ‘‘Por17 trait Monument’’) to include a likeness of Sojourner 

18 Truth.

Æ
**Exhibit 32**

** **

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C.SECTION 1350,**

**ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

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

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Skagit State Bancorp, Inc.  on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30,2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), we, Cheryl Bishop, Chief Executive Officer, and Carla F.Tucker, Executive Vice-President/Chief Financial Officer, certify, pursuant to18 U.S.C Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)                                  The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)                                  The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of Bancorp, Inc.

 

 
| /s/ Cheryl R. Bishop      |   |
|---------------------------|--------|
| Cheryl R. Bishop          |   |
| Chief Executive Officer   |   |
|                      |   |
|                      |   |
| /s/ Carla F. Tucker       |   |
| Carla F. Tucker           |   |
| Executive  Vice-President |   |
| Chief Financial Officer   |   |
|                      |   |
|                      |   |
| August 13, 2009      |   |
| Date                      |   |

 

----
<PAGE>   1
                                   Exhibit 24




POWER OF ATTORNEY


         The undersigned officer and/or director of SIMULA, INC. (the "Company")
does hereby constitute and appoint Bradley P. Forst and Sean K. Nolen with full
power of substitution, my true and lawful attorney and agent, to do any and all
acts and things in my name in the capacity indicated below, and to execute any
and all instruments for me and in my name in the capacities indicated below that
he may deem necessary or advisable to enable the Company to register securities
and comply with the Securities Act of 1933, the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
and any rules, regulations and requirements of the Securities and Exchange
Commission in connection with periodic reports on Form 3, Form 4, Form 5, or
Form 144, covering such shares of preferred stock, common stock, options,
warrants, or other securities of the Company that I may acquire or dispose of,
including specifically, but not limited to, the power and authority to sign for
me in the capacity indicated below any and all amendments thereto; and I do
hereby ratify and confirm all that Bradley P. Forst or Sean K. Nolen shall do or
cause to be done by virtue hereof.

         Dated this 17th day of October, 1997.



                                                      /s/   Fred J. Musone
                                                     ---------------------------
                                                     Fred J. Musone, Director
#### Donny SIUN HOK TJAN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 10-73071.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 19, 2012.*

Filed Dec. 28, 2012.

Cindy Siuhuei Chang, Law Offices of Cindy S. Chang, Walnut, CA, for Petitioner.

Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Oil, David V. Ber-nal, Assistant Director, Lauren Fascett, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, 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 **

Donny Siun Hok Tjan, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, *Wakkary v. Holder,*558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir.2009), and we deny the petition for review.

Tjan testified he was robbed three times as a youth and was beaten up once while working as a rent collector for a commercial property owner. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that the harm Tjan suffered was not on account of his ethnicity, religion, or other protected ground. *See Parussimova v. Mukasey,*555 F.3d 734, 740 (9th Cir.2009) (“[t]he REAL ID Act requires that a protected ground represent ‘one central reason’ for an asylum applicant’s persecution”); *Gormley v. Ashcroft,*364 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir.2004) (random criminal acts bore no nexus to race). Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s finding that Tjan failed to establish sufficient individualized risk of harm under a disfavored group analysis to establish a well-founded fear of persecution. *See Halim v. Holder,*590 F.3d 971, 977-979 (9th Cir.2009); *cf. Sael v. Ashcroft,*386 F.3d 922, 927-29 (9th Cir.2004).

Because Tjan failed to meet the lower burden of proof for asylum, his claim for withholding of removal necessarily fails. *See Zehatye v. Gonzales,*453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir.2006).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>  BD
<LEGEND>
This  schedule   contains   summary   financial information  extracted  from the
financial  statements  for the six months ended November  30,  1999  and is
qualified  in its  entirety  by  reference  to such financial statements.

</LEGEND>

<S>                                                      <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                            6-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                        May-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                           Jun-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                             Nov-30-1999
<CASH>                                                              24,249,689
<RECEIVABLES>                                                      110,342,989
<SECURITIES-RESALE>                                                          0
<SECURITIES-BORROWED>                                                        0
<INSTRUMENTS-OWNED>                                                173,035,592
<PP&E>                                                              18,903,121
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                     347,086,883
<SHORT-TERM>                                                                 0
<PAYABLES>                                                          47,382,671
<REPOS-SOLD>                                                                 0
<SECURITIES-LOANED>                                                          0
<INSTRUMENTS-SOLD>                                                  40,752,576
<LONG-TERM>                                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                                        0
<PREFERRED>                                                                  0
<COMMON>                                                               173,332
<OTHER-SE>                                                         258,778,304
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                       347,086,883
<TRADING-REVENUE>                                                   85,269,761
<INTEREST-DIVIDENDS>                                                 9,546,498
<COMMISSIONS>                                                       26,068,794
<INVESTMENT-BANKING-REVENUES>                                                0
<FEE-REVENUE>                                                        2,808,718
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                      87,130
<COMPENSATION>                                                      45,004,103
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                      8,946,431
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                                          25,344,825
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                              0
<CHANGES>                                                                    0
<NET-INCOME>                                                        25,344,825
<EPS-BASIC>                                                               1.53
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                             1.50



</TABLE>
# exports

https://www.bls.gov/mxp/data/home.htm
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 140 (Thursday, July 23, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36495-36496]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-17437]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Human Genome Research Institute; Notice of Closed 
Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: Center for Inherited Disease Research Access 
Committee.
    Date: September 11, 2009.
    Time: 11:30 a.m. to 4 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, 5635 Fishers Lane, Suite 
4076, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).
    Contact Person: Camilla E. Day, PhD, Scientific Review Officer, 
CIDR, National Human Genome Research Institute, National Institutes 
of Health, 5635 Fishers Lane, Suite 4075, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-
402-8837, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#dab9bbb7b3b6b6bbf4bebba39ab4b3b2f4bdb5ac"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="ceadafa3a7a2a2afe0aaafb78ea0a7a6e0a9a1b8">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.172, Human 
Genome Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)


[[Page 36496]]


    Dated: July 16, 2009.
Jennifer Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. E9-17437 Filed 7-22-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>