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

                        CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350,  as adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of  2002,  each of the  undersigned  officers  of GS  Carbon
Corporation (the "Company"), certifies that:

1.   The  Quarterly  Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the Quarter  ended
     March 31, 2007 (the  "Report")  fully  complies  with the  requirements  of
     Section  13(a) or 15(d) of the  Securities  Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C.
     78m or 78o(d)); 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/      KEVIN KREISLER
                                     ------------------------------
Dated: May 21, 2007                           KEVIN KREISLER
                                              Chief Executive Officer



This certification is made solely for the purpose of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
subject to the knowledge standard contained therein, and not for any other
purpose.
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 Annual  Report of Quintek  Technologies,  Inc.  on Form
10-KSB for the period  ending  June 30,  2005 as filed with the  Securities  and
Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof,  I, Robert  Steele,  Chief  Executive
Officer of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  ss.  1350,  as adopted
pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1. The Report  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: October 12, 2005

/S/ ROBERT STEELE
----------------------------
Robert Steele,
Chief Executive Officer
November 21, 1996

Tax-Exempt California Money Market Fund
222 S. Riverside Plaza
Chicago, Illinois  60606

Re:    Rule 24f-2 for Tax-Exempt California Money Market Fund (the "Fund")
       File No. 33-12938                                                  

Ladies and Gentlemen:

     Reference is made to your Registration Statement under the Securities
Act of 1933 and the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the "1940 Act") on
Form N-1A and all amendments thereto and the Rule 24f-2 Notice ("Notice")
to be filed by you with the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to
Rule 24f-2 under the 1940 Act for the fiscal year ended September 30, 1996. 
Reference is also made to the 360,011,952 shares (the "Shares") specified in
said Notice as having been sold in reliance upon registration pursuant to Rule
24f-2.  

     Assuming that the Fund's Agreement and Declaration of Trust dated
February 25, 1987 and the By-Laws of the Fund adopted May 12, 1987 are
presently in full force and effect and have not been amended in any respect
and that the resolutions adopted by the Board of Trustees of the Fund on
May 12, 1987 relating to organizational matters and the issuance of shares are
presently in full force and effect and have not been amended in any respect,
it is our opinion that the Shares, the registration of which the Notice makes
definite in number, were legally issued, fully paid and nonassessable (although
shareholders of the Fund may be subject to liability under certain
circumstances described in the Statement of Additional Information in the
Registration Statement of the Fund under the caption "Shareholder Rights"). 
In rendering this opinion, we have relied upon an opinion dated March 25,
1987 from Ropes & Gray of Boston, Massachusetts and upon an Officer's
Certificate executed by the Treasurer of the Fund representing that all Shares
of the Fund have been issued at the net asset value determined in accordance
with the Fund's prospectus.

     This opinion is solely for the benefit of the Fund, the Fund's Board of
Trustees and the Fund's officers and may not be relied upon by any other
person without our prior written consent.  We consent to the use of this
opinion in connection with the aforementioned Notice to be filed pursuant to
Rule 24f-2 under the 1940 Act.

                               Sincerely,

                               /s/VEDDER, PRICE, KAUFMAN & KAMMHOLZ


                               VEDDER, PRICE, KAUFMAN & KAMMHOLZ

JAA/cy
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

 DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

 MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS

NEWARK DATE: March 18, 2013 

 

JUDGE: Susan D. Wigenton

 

COURT REPORTER: Carmen Liloia

 

DEPUTY CLERK: Carmen D. Soto

Title of Case: Docket# 11-470

U.S.A. v. ANDREW AUERNHEIMER 

 

Appearances:

Zach Intrater, AUSA for the Gov’t

Michael Martinez, AUSA for the Gov’t

Tor B. Ekeland, Esq. for Deft

Nace Naumoski, Esq. for Deft

Mark Jaffe, Esq. for Def

Probation Officer, Joshua R. MacAvoy

Nature of Proceeding: SENTENCING

Hearing on deft’s motion for Acquittal Under Fed. R. Crim. P. 29

Ordered motion DENIED

41 months Imprisonment on each of Counts 1(s) and 2(s) to run

concurrently

3 years Supervised Release on each of Counts 1(s) and 2(s) to run

concurrently

Fine: Waived

Special Assessment: $200.00 - due immediately

Restitution: $73,167

Special Conditions:

1. Alcohol/Drug Testing and Treatment

2. Computer Monitoring

3. Mental Health Treatment

4. New Debt Restrictions

5. Self-Employment/Business Disclosure

Ordered deft remanded immediately.

Time Commenced 11:00 a.m.

Time Adjourned 12:00 p.m.

cc: chambers Carmen D. Soto 

 Deputy Clerk

Case 2:11-cr-00470-SDW Document 91 Filed 03/18/13 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 1193
**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 Infinite Group, Inc. (the “Company”) on
      Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2007 as filed with the U.S.
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael
      S. Smith, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
      certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:




(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.




A
      signed
      original of this written statement has been provided to the Company and will
      be
      retained by the Company and furnished to the SEC or its staff upon
      request.




November
        12, 2007


/s/
                  MICHAEL S. SMITHMichael
                  S. SmithChief
                  Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer(Principal
                  Executive and Financial Officer)
**Exhibit31.1**

**Certification of the ChiefExecutive Officer**

(Pursuant to Rule13a-14(a))

I, Brett Moyer, certifythat:

1.     I have reviewed this Form10-Q of Focus Enhancements, Inc.;

2.     Based on my knowledge, thisreport does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit tostate a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this report;

3.     Based on my knowledge, the financialstatements, and other financial information included in this report, fairlypresent in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;

4.     The registrant’s othercertifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures,or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant,including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of theend of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

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

5.     The registrant’s other certifyingofficer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internalcontrol over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing theequivalent functions):

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

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting.

Date: November 14, 2006
|        | /s/    | Brett Moyer        |   |
|--------|--------|--------------------|--------|
|   |   |               |
|   |   | Brett Moyer        |
|   |   | President and  CEO |

 

----
# 2017

# 2018
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

September 9, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-50261

Summary Calendar

ALBERT DE LA GARZA,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

A.M. STRINGFELLOW; GARY JOHNSON, Executive Director,

Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division;

JANIE COCKRELL, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, 

Institutional Division; HECTOR BARRERA; TERRY FOSTER, SR.; 

DAN C. LEWIS; DELOIS TARVER; CALVIN DAVIS; MARTIN COBRRUBIAS; 

PATRICIA L. CHARLES,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

(A-02-CV-257-JN)

Before BARKSDALE, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Albert De La Garza, Texas prisoner # 645460, appeals the Rule

12(b)(6) dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. The dismissal

is reviewed de novo. (De La Garza’s motions for summary judgment,

sanctions, and to strike Appellees’ brief are DENIED.) 
2

De La Garza’s allegations concerning staff shortages at TDCJ

do not constitute an Eighth Amendment violation; for example, he

has not shown that the claimed staff shortages have led to any

specific problems with security or inmates’ access to food, medical

care, or sanitation. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832-33

(1994); see also Woods v. Edwards, 51 F.3d 577, 581 (5th Cir.

1995).

De La Garza also asserts the TDCJ must comply with the

staffing requirements of Ruiz v. Johnson, 37 F. Supp. 2d 855 (S.D.

Tex. 1999), reversed and remanded, 243 F. 3d 941 (5th Cir. 2001),

on remand, 154 F. Supp. 2d 975, 989 (S.D. Tex. 2001).

Noncompliance with Ruiz is not actionable under § 1983. See Green

v. McKaskle, 788 F.2d 1116, 1122 (5th Cir. 1986).

De La Garza has not shown a constitutional violation based on

the allegedly inadequate response to his grievances, being left

unsupervised on several occasions, or being without water for one

and a half hours. See Woods, 51 F.3d at 581; see also Daniels v.

Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 336 (1986)(negligence does not amount to a

constitutional violation). De La Garza’s claim that he was

verbally abused by a prison guard does not give rise to a § 1983

action. See Siglar v. Hightower, 112 F.3d 191, 193 (5th Cir.

1997). Further, De La Garza has not shown that prison officials

were deliberately indifferent to a risk of attack by other inmates;

they responded immediately by preparing a life endangerment report
3

and granting his request for new housing. See Farmer, 511 U.S. at

847; Woods, 51 F.3d at 581.

For the first time on appeal, De La Garza contends that the

magistrate judge and district judge were biased. De La Garza

failed to present this contention at a reasonable time in the

litigation. See Hollywood Fantasy Corp. v. Gabor, 151 F.3d 203,

216 (5th Cir. 1998). 

AFFIRMED; ALL OUTSTANDING MOTIONS DENIED
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

WILLIAM B. JOLLEY,

Petitioner

v.

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN 

DEVELOPMENT,

Respondent

______________________

2022-2061

______________________

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in Nos. SF-0752-13-0583-M-1 and SF-0752-14-0286-

M-1.

______________________

ON MOTION

______________________

PER CURIAM.

O R D E R

The Department of Housing and Urban Development 

(“HUD”) moves to waive Federal Circuit Rule 27(f) and dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. William B. Jolley 

opposes and moves for sanctions against HUD and for summary disposition in his favor. For the following reasons, 

we grant HUD’s motion and dismiss.

Case: 22-2061 Document: 31 Page: 1 Filed: 06/07/2023
2 JOLLEY v. HUD

“[A] petition to review a final order or final decision of 

the [Merit Systems Protection] Board shall be filed in the 

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit . . . within 60 days after the Board issues notice of the 

final order or decision.” 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(1)(A). This requirement is “mandatory and jurisdictional,” and thus cannot be waived or equitably tolled. Fedora v. Merit Sys. Prot. 

Bd., 848 F.3d 1013, 1016 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citation omitted). 

To be timely, the petition must actually be received by the 

court on or before this deadline, not just timely mailed. Id.; 

see Fed. R. App. P. 25(a)(2)(A).

Here, the Board issued notice of its final decision on

May 20, 2022, ECF No. 2 at 52, and the court received 

Mr. Jolley’s petition on Wednesday, July 20, 2022 (61 days 

later), ECF No. 1-2 at 1 (stamped receipt date). Mr. Jolley 

provides a United States Postal Service receipt indicating 

that he mailed his petition on July 13, 2022 (54 days after

the notice), but as noted above, that does not constitute “filing” with the court. Fed. R. App. P. 25(a)(2)(A). Nor is that 

receipt’s “Estimated Delivery Date” of July 18, 2022 

(59 days after the notice), ECF No. 26 at 14 (emphasis 

added), sufficient to show actual delivery of the petition to 

the court any earlier than the stamped date of

July 20, 2022. 

Accordingly,

Case: 22-2061 Document: 31 Page: 2 Filed: 06/07/2023
JOLLEY v. HUD 3

 IT IS ORDERED THAT: 

(1) The motion to dismiss is granted. The petition for 

review is dismissed.

(2) Each party shall bear its own costs.

(3) Any other pending motion is denied.

June 7, 2023

 Date

 FOR THE COURT

 /s/ Jarrett B. Perlow

 Jarrett B. Perlow

 Acting Clerk of Court

Case: 22-2061 Document: 31 Page: 3 Filed: 06/07/2023
#### In re: MEDTRONIC, INC., IMPLANTABLE DEFIBRILLATORS PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION Reginald Witcher, etc. v. Medtronic, Inc., M.D. Alabama, C.A. No. 2:07-989.

MDL No. 1726.

United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation.

April 8, 2008.

Before D. LOWELL JENSEN, Acting Chairman, JOHN G. HEYBURN II, Chairman*, J. FREDERICK MOTZ, ROBERT L. MILLER, JR., KATHRYN H. VRATIL, DAVID R. HANSEN, and ANTHONY J. SCIRICA*, Judges of the Panel.

*

 Judges Heyburn and Scirica took no part in the disposition of this matter.

TRANSFER ORDER

D. LOWELL JENSEN, Acting Chairman.

Before the entire Panel *: Plaintiff in an action pending in the Middle District of Alabama moves, pursuant to Rule 7.4, R.P.J.P.M.L., 199 F.R.D. 425, 435-36 (2001), to vacate our order conditionally transferring the action to the District of Minnesota for inclusion in MDL No. 1726. Defendant Medtronic, Inc., did not respond to plaintiffs motion.

*1372After considering all of plaintiffs’ arguments, we find that this action involves common questions of fact with the actions in this litigation previously transferred to the District of Minnesota, and that transfer of this action to the District of Minnesota for inclusion in MDL No. 1726 will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation. We further find that transfer of this action is appropriate for reasons that we set out in our original order directing centralization in this docket. In that order, we held that the District of Minnesota was a proper Section 1407 forum for actions involving allegations that certain Medtronic implantable defibrillator devices, known as implantable cardioverter defibrillators and cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillators, were defective and caused injury, or the threat of injury, to the plaintiffs and putative class members. *See In re Med-tronic, Inc., Implantable Defibrillators Products Liability Litigation,*408 F.Supp.2d 1351 (Jud.Pan.Mult.Lit.2005).

Should the circumstances regarding any action in MDL No. 1726 develop such that the transferee judge determines that continued inclusion of a claim or action no longer remains advisable, and accordingly the transferee court deems Section 1407 remand of any claim or action appropriate, procedures are available whereby this may be accomplished with a minimum of delay following a suggestion of remand to the Panel by the transferee judge. *See*Rule 7.6, R.P.J.P.M.L., 199 F.R.D. at 436-38.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, this action is transferred to the District of Minnesota and, with the consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable James M. Rosen-baum for inclusion in the coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings occurring there in this docket.
# 18SNR04_00

# image1.png
# 18SNR14_00

# image1.png
# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas** 

May 29, 2019

No. 04

- 19

- 00328

- CR
Betty ROJAS , Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas, Appellee
From the 227th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2017CR3790 Honorable Kevin M. O'Connell, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

The trial court’s certification in this appeal states “this criminal case is a plea

- bargain case, and the defendant has NO right of appeal.” The clerk’s record contains a written plea bargain, and the punishment assessed did not exceed the punishment recomme nded by the prosecutor and agreed to by the defendant; Rule 25.2(a)(2) applies. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P

. 25.2(a)(2). This court must dismiss this appeal “ if a certification that shows the defendant has a right of appeal has not been made part of the record und er these rules.” Id. R. 25.2(d); see Chavez v. State , 183 S.W.3d 675, 680 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006).
We ORDER A ppellant to cause an amended trial court certification to be filed in this court within T WEN TY days of the date of this order showing A ppellant h as the right of appeal. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 25.2(d) , 37.1; see also Dears v. State , 154 S.W.3d 610 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); Daniels v. State , 110 S.W.3d 174 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio 2003, no pet.). If no amended trial court certification is filed as ordered , this appeal will be dismissed

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 25.2(d)

. All other appellate deadlines are SUSPENDED pending further order of this court

._________________________________ Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on th is 29th day of May, 2019

.

___________________________________ KEITH E. HOTTLE , Clerk of Court
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 17 (Wednesday, January 28, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 4953]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-1760]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos.--ER06-615-000; ER07-1257-000]


California Independent System Operator Corporation; Notice of 
FERC Staff Attendance

January 21, 2009.
    The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) hereby gives 
notice that on the following dates members of its staff will 
participate in teleconferences and attend a stakeholder meeting of the 
California Independent System Operator (CAISO). Unless otherwise noted, 
the meeting will be held at the CAISO, 151 Blue Ravine Road, Folsom, CA 
or by teleconference. The agenda and other documents for the 
teleconferences and meetings are available on the CAISO's Web site, 
http://www.caiso.com.

January 20, 2009--Teleconference on MRTU Parallel Operations
January 22, 2009--MRTU Final Cutover and Reversion Meeting
January 27, 2009--Teleconference on MRTU Parallel Operations

    Sponsored by the CAISO, the teleconferences and meeting are open to 
all market participants, and the Commission staff's attendance is part 
of the Commission's ongoing outreach efforts. The teleconferences and 
meeting may discuss matters at issue in the above captioned dockets.
    For further information, contact Saeed Farrokhpay at 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#d0a3b1b5b5b4feb6b1a2a2bfbbb8a0b1a990b6b5a2b3feb7bfa6"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="9deefcf8f8f9b3fbfcefeff2f6f5edfce4ddfbf8effeb3faf2eb">[email protected]</span></a>; (916) 294-0233 or Maury Kruth at 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#d6bbb7a3a4aff8bda4a3a2be96b0b3a4b5f8b1b9a0"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="3c515d494e4512574e4948547c5a594e5f125b534a">[email protected]</span></a>, (916) 294-0275.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-1760 Filed 1-27-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


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



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 Quarterly Report of Simula, Inc. (the Company) on Form
10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, John S. Hodgson,
Chief Financial 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:

|    |  |                                                                                                                                                    
|--- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|(3) |  | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and                              
|   
|   
|   
|   
|(4) |  | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and result of
operations of the Company.

| |                                                                                      | 
| | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | 
| | /s/ John S. Hodgson
        
John S. Hodgson
Chief Financial Officer
August 19, 2002 |