alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>

                                                                    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 accompanying Quarterly Report of Onyx Software
Corporation on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Brent R. Frei, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board 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; and

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

November 14, 2003             /s/ Brent R. Frei
-----------------             --------------------------------------------------
Date                          Brent R. Frei
                              Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board

                                       51
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

      In connection with the Quarterly Report of Schick Technologies, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2003, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Jeffrey
T. Slovin, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss. 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 results of operations of the
      Company.


                                        /S/ Jeffrey T. Slovin
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Jeffrey T. Slovin
                                        Chief Executive Officer
                                        (Principal Executive Officer)
                                        Schick Technologies, Inc.
                                        August 13, 2004

      A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
      been provided to Schick Technologies, Inc. and will be retained by Schick
      Technologies, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
      or its staff upon request.


                                       17
Unassociated Document


Exhibit 10.7


 


Form Customer Agreement







                                                                                                                                              Agreement No.__


Agreement Dated:__







          Party A:


          Party B: Simply Good Limited







WITNESSETH







          WHEREAS, the parties hereto desire to enter into this Agreement to define and set forth the terms and conditions of the sales and purchase between Party A and Party B;








	
1.  

	
Item:








	
2.  

	
Class:








	
3.  

	
Glue:













	
Specification

	
Number of Packages

	
Number of Units

	
Quantity(M3)

	
Price per Unit

	
Total Price

	
Note


	
Thickness

	
Length

	
Width

	  	  	  	  	  	  
	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  
	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  
	
Total

	  	  	  	  	  	  











	
4.  

	
Quality Requirements








	
(1)  

	
Thickness Error Allowance:








	
(2)  

	
Water Content:








	
(3)  

	
No mould.








	
5.  

	
Packaging:








	
6.  

	
Time of Delivery:








	
7.  

	
Place of Delivery:








	
8.  

	
Payment Method: The payment shall be made to the independent third party Optimost Investment Limited within 90 days.








	
9.  

	
Neither Party shall modify or terminate this Agreement without mutual agreement by both Parties, otherwise it shall be deemed to constitute a breach of contract and the non-breaching party shall be entitled to the remedy of expectation damages.








	
10.  

	
Arbitration: Any disputes of this Agreement shall be submitted for arbitration.








	
11.  

	
This Agreement is executed in two (2) copies with each party holding one copy.







 



           IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed and become effective as of the date first above written upon the signature and seals by both parties.




 


           Party A:


 


           Party B: Simply Good Limited







Date:__






  





1
##### 



Exhibit 10.3 EIGHTH AMENDMENT TO THE
STERLING CHEMICALS, INC.
AMENDED AND RESTATED
HOURLY PAID EMPLOYEES PENSION PLAN WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, Sterling Chemicals, Inc. (the Employer) presently maintains the
Sterling Chemicals, Inc. Amended and Restated Hourly Paid Employees Pension
Plan, effective as of May 1, 1996 (the Plan); and WHEREAS, the Employer, pursuant to Section 15.1 of the Plan, has the right
to amend the Plan from time to time subject to certain limitations. NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended in the following manner: 1. Effective as of the date of the execution hereof, Section 2.1 of the
Plan is hereby amended to add the following paragraph to read as follows: Notwithstanding anything in the Plan to the contrary, no
employees hired by an Employer on or after June 1, 2004 shall
participate in the Plan. Additionally, notwithstanding anything
in the Plan to the contrary, other than to the extent that it
would violate the break-in-service rules under Section 410(a)(5)
of the Code or Section 202(b) of ERISA, no employees rehired by an
Employer on or after June 1, 2004 shall participate or accrue a
benefit in the Plan with respect to service performed on or after
June 1, 2004. 2. Effective as of the date of adoption of this amendment, Section 4.4 is
hereby amended by adding the following paragraph to read as follows: Notwithstanding anything is this Section 4.4 to the contrary,
for purposes of determining whether to apply the reduction to a
participants Monthly Retirement Income as provided for in the
previous paragraph, the reduction shall not apply if the following
are satisfied: (i) the employee terminated employment with an
Employer as a result of a Layoff of a group of participants
between June 1, 2004 and May 1, 2005; (ii) the employee had
attained age 54 but had not attained age 55 on or before May 1,
2004; and (iii) the sum of the employees age and Years of Vesting
Service would equal or exceed 80 as of May 1, 2005 if such
employee had not terminated employment with an Employer as a
result of a Layoff of a group of participants.




---



##### 



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Employer has executed this Eighth Amendment to the
Sterling Chemicals, Inc. Amended and Restated Hourly Paid Employees Pension
Plan on the    day of    , 2004. STERLING CHEMICALS, INC.By:Name:Title:
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13

- 40670 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
GUILLERMO ARENAS

- CASANOVA , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 1:10

- CR

- 1307

- 1

Before PRADO, ELROD, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Guillermo Arenas

Casanova has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance
with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Arenas

- Casanova h a s not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no

* 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. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED April 16, 2014 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 13-40670 Document: 00512598527 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/16/2014No. 13

- 40670

nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion fo r leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2.

2 Case: 13-40670 Document: 00512598527 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/16/2014
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

                    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Center for Scientific                           ( print page 43772)                        Review Special Emphasis Panel, September 12, 2017, 12:00 p.m. to September 12, 2017, 4:00 p.m., National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD, 20892 which was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on August 15, 2017, 82 FR 38697.                

The meeting will be held on October 24, 2017, 11:00 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. The meeting location remains the same. The meeting is closed to the public.

Dated: September 13, 2017.

David Clary, 

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2017-19854 Filed 9-18-17; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
IIB 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2415 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

NOVEMBER 17, 2011 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 11 Dock Street in Pittston, Pennsylvania, 

as the ‘‘Trooper Joshua D. Miller Post Office Building’’. 

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


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 2415 RFS

1 SECTION 1. TROOPER JOSHUA D. MILLER POST OFFICE 

2 BUILDING. 

3 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

4 Postal Service located at 11 Dock Street in Pittston, 

5 Pennsylvania, shall be known and designated as the 

6 ‘‘Trooper Joshua D. Miller Post Office Building’’. 

7 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg8 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

9 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

10 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Trooper Joshua D. 

11 Miller Post Office Building’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives November 16, 

2011. 

Attest: KAREN L. HAAS, 

Clerk. 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. No. 99-4554 DAVID WAYNE HARRIS, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca B. Smith, District Judge. (CR-94-26) Submitted: January 18, 2000 Decided: February 11, 2000 Before MURNAGHAN, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________ Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________ COUNSEL William A. Lascara, PENDER & COWARD, P.C., Virginia Beach,Virginia, for Appellant. Helen F. Fahey, United States Attorney, Robert J. Seidel, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________ Unpublished opinions are not binding pr ecedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).OPINION PER CURIAM:David Wayne Harris appeals from the district court's order revoking his supervised release and sentencing him to thirty-six months of incarceration. Finding no reversible error, we affirm. Harris claims on appeal that the district court abused its discretion because it did not consider the advisory sentencing range suggested in Chapter 7 of the Sentencing Guidelines. The record reflects that both parties briefed the court on the recommended guideline range and that the court made explicit reference to the fact that the guideline range was advisory and non-binding. Thus, we find that the court didnot abuse its discretion in sentencing Harris to the maximum allowable sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) (1994). See United States v. Davis , 53 F.3d 638, 642 (4th Cir. 1995). We also conclude that we need not evaluate whether the district court erred by determining thatHarris embezzled from one of his employers. In light of Harris' complete failure to conform his actions to the terms and conditions of his supervised release, the litany of Harris' violations, and the court's explicit statement that its revocation and sentencing decisions were not based upon its finding that Harris committed a felony, any error that the court may have made in determining that Harris embezzled from his employer was harmless and would not merit reversal of the revocation of his supervised release or his sentence. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(a).We affirm the revocation of Harris' supervised release and his sentence. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
2
In The 

Court of Appeals 

Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo 

 

No. 07-22-00199-CV 

 

IN THE MATTER OF THE MARRIAGE OF HENRY T. ALVARADO 

AND ELIZABETH ANN NAVA ALVARADO 

 

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 3 

 Williamson County, Texas 

Trial Court No. 18-3459-FC3, Honorable Doug Arnold, Presiding 

October 19, 2022 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before QUINN, C.J., and PARKER and YARBROUGH, JJ. 

Appellant, Henry T. Alvarado, appeals from the trial court’s Final Decree of 

Divorce.

1 Appellant’s brief was due September 19, 2022, but was not filed. By letter of 

September 28, 2022, we notified Appellant that the appeal was subject to dismissal for 

want of prosecution, without further notice, if a brief was not received by October 10. To 

date, Appellant has neither filed a brief nor had any further communication with this Court.

1 Originally appealed to the Third Court of Appeals, this appeal was transferred to this Court by the 

Texas Supreme Court pursuant to its docket equalizations efforts. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 73.001. 
2

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See TEX. R. APP. P. 

38.8(a)(1), 42.3(b).

Per Curiam
#### Alex Kojo BLANKSON, Petitioner-Appellant v. Michael B. MUKASEY, U.S. Attorney General; John Sourkaris, Director Post Order Detention Unit, U.S. (ICE); Nuria Prendes, Director of Detention and Field Operations Dallas, Texas (ICE); Jill Watson, Warden of RPRDC, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 07-10219

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Jan. 14, 2008.

Alex Kojo Blankson, Haskell, TX, pro se.

Edwin Scott Frost, U.S. Attorney’s Office Northern District of Texas, Lubbock, TX, James Patrick Laurence, U.S. Attorney’s Office Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, Respondents-Appellees.

Before WIENER, GARZA, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Alex Kojo Blankson appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241*759petition on the grounds that his detention by the Department of Homeland Security/Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (DHS) is unconstitutional in light of *Zadvydas v. Davis,*533 U.S. 678, 121 S.Ct. 2491, 150 L.Ed.2d 653 (2001).

The district court noted that 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(1)(C) provides that the removal period shall be extended if the alien fails or refuses to make a good faith effort to obtain a travel document or acts to prevent his removal and concluded that Blankson’s own actions and conflicting claims of citizenship hampered the DHS’s ability to effectuate his removal. The district court also found that Blankson failed to show that there is no significant likelihood of removal in the foreseeable future.

The district court did not err in denying the petition. Blankson’s frequently changing claims of citizenship hampered the DHS’s ability to effectuate removal and, under § 1231(a)(1)(C), has served to extend the removal period of § 1231(a)(1)(A). *See Balogun v. INS,*9 F.3d 347, 350-51 (5th Cir.1993). Blankson has failed to show that under the circumstances his continued detention violates his constitutional rights and that “there is no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future.” *Zadvydas,*533 U.S. at 701, 121 S.Ct. 2491.

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED; Blankson’s motion to enter exhibit lists is DENIED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be *759published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 1**  **1 -**  **6220**

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. CARL KOTAY GRAHAM , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Di strict of North Carolina , at Greensboro
. James A. Beaty, Jr. , Chief District Judge. ( 1:06

- cr - 00267

- JAB

- 1 )

Submitted : May 19, 2011 Decided: May 24, 2011
Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and AGEE and KEENAN, Circuit Judges
.
Affirmed by un published pe r curiam opinion
.
Carl Kotay Graham, Appellant Pro Se
. Lisa Blue Boggs , Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Carl Kotay Graham appeal s the district court ’ s order denying his motion for reduction of sentence under 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c) (2006) . We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. G raham , No. 1:06

- cr 00267

- JAB

- 1 (M.D.N.C. Jan. 31, 2011)
. We deny Graham’s motion to hold his appeal in abeyance and to appoint counsel. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials befor e the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Postal Service

# AGENCY:

                        Postal ServiceTM.                    

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

# DATES:

*Date of notice required under 39 U.S.C. 3642(d)(1):*                         September 12, 2017.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Elizabeth A. Reed, 202-268-3179.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on September 6, 2017, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *Request of the United States Postal Service to Add Priority Mail Contract 353 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2017-189, CP2017-290.                

Elizabeth A. Reed,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2017-19274 Filed 9-11-17; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-7895
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus GRACIE GARNER JENKINS, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Elizabeth City. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (CR-94-20, CA-95-20-1-2-BO) Submitted: April 15, 1996 Decided: April 29, 1996 Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gracie Garner Jenkins, Appellant Pro Se. Jane H. Jolly, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying hermotions to receive credit for time served on bond and to recalculate her sentence. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Jenkins , Nos. CR-94-20; CA-95-20-1-2-BO (E.D.N.C. Oct. 18, 1995).We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Exhibit 32.1

                    CERTIFICATION PURUSANT TO 18 U.S.C. 1350
      AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


     In connection with the Quarterly Report of Profile Technologies, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending September 30, 2009, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2009 (the "Report"), I,
Henry E. Gemino, Chief Executive Officer and 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:

(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:  November 5, 2009                            /s/ Henry E. Gemino
                                                   -----------------------------
                                                   Henry E. Gemino
                                                   Chief Executive Officer and
                                                   Chief Financial Officer