alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32

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

Pursuant to Section  906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.  Section
1350, as adopted),  Michael P. May, the Chief  Executive  Officer of iSECUREtrac
Corp. (the "Company"),  and James E. Stark,  the Chief Financial  Officer of the
Company, each hereby certifies that:

      1.    The Company's  Quarterly  Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ended
            June 30, 2003, to which this Certification is attached as Exhibit 32
            (the "Periodic  Report"),  fully complies with the  requirements  of
            Section  13(a) or Section  15(d) of the  Securities  Exchange Act of
            1934, as amended; and

      2.    The information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in
            all material respects, the financial condition of the Company at the
            end of the period  covered  by the  Periodic  Report and  results of
            operations  of the  Company for the period  covered by the  Periodic
            Report.

Dated:  June 13, 2003

/s/   Michael P. May                               /s/   James E. Stark
      ------------------                                 ------------------
Michael P. May                                     James E. Stark
Chief Executive Officer                            Chief Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2001
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                          27,295
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           1,184
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                27,642
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    143,928
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                        693,053
<ALLOWANCE>                                     10,610
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 931,271
<DEPOSITS>                                     765,164
<SHORT-TERM>                                    23,545
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             11,559
<LONG-TERM>                                     77,540
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      1,700
<COMMON>                                            79
<OTHER-SE>                                      48,738
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 931,271
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 16,110
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                2,568
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   205
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                18,883
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               8,507
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              10,282
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            8,601
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      512
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                  13
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  6,113
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,983
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       2,807
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,686
<EPS-BASIC>                                      33.49
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    33.49
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                     4.2
<LOANS-NON>                                      2,766
<LOANS-PAST>                                     1,978
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                 6,856
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 8,197
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      320
<RECOVERIES>                                        68
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                               10,610
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                            10,610
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0


</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 198 (Monday, October 16, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 48081]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-22487]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL RETIREMENT THRIFT INVESTMENT BOARD


Sunshine Act; Notice of Board Member Meeting: Federal Retirement 
Thrift Investment Board

Agenda

    Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board Members' Meeting, 
October 23, 2017, 8:30 a.m. (In-Person).

Open Session

1. Approval of the Minutes of the September 18, 2017 Board Members' 
Meeting
2. Investment Manager Annual Service Review
3. Monthly Reports
    (a) Participant Activity Report
    (b) Legislative Report
4. Quarterly Reports
    (c) Investment Policy
    (d) Budget Review
    (e) Audit Status
5. Mid-Year Financial Audit
6. ORM Annual Report
7. OEP Annual Report/Survey
8. Blended Retirement Update
9. IT Update

Closed Session

    Information covered under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(9)(B).

Adjourn

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Kimberly Weaver, Director, Office 
of External Affairs, (202) 942-1640.


    Dated: October 12, 2017.
Megan Grumbine,
General Counsel, Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board.
[FR Doc. 2017-22487 Filed 10-12-17; 4:15 pm]
 BILLING CODE 6760-01-P
Exhibit 32.1

Certification of Chief Executive Officer  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 Mattson Technology, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), David Dutton, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



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

|Date: March 22, 2005 |  | /s/DAVID DUTTONDavid Dutton Chief Executive Officer
|-------------------- |  | ---------------------------------------------------

---



QuickLinks
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3285 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3285

To amend that portion of title 28, United States Code, commonly called 
 the Tort Claims Act, in order to assure that individuals accompanying 
  Federal employees who are engaged in missions for the United States 
    Government in foreign countries have legal recourse against the 
      Government for certain tort claims, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 21, 2009

  Mr. Snyder introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend that portion of title 28, United States Code, commonly called 
 the Tort Claims Act, in order to assure that individuals accompanying 
  Federal employees who are engaged in missions for the United States 
    Government in foreign countries have legal recourse against the 
      Government for certain tort claims, and for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, That section 2680(k) of 
title 28, United States Code, is amended by striking the period at the 
end and inserting ``, except a claim made by an individual who is in 
that foreign country to accompany, with the knowledge and consent of 
the Government, an employee of the Government who is in that foreign 
country on behalf of the United States. For the purpose of the 
exception in the preceding sentence, the law of the place where the act 
or omission occurred shall be deemed to be the law of the current or 
last United States domicile of the claimant.''
                                 <all>
```
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

STATE OF WASHINGTON, )

No. 77060-8-I

Respondent,

DIVISION ONE

v. )

)

EARL IRA BOWMAN, ) UNPUBLISHED OPINION

)

Appellant. ) FILED: April 15, 2019

PER CURIAM. Earl Ira Bowman appeals the trial court’s order denying

his “request to recall NCO” entered as part of the judgment and sentence

imposed upon his conviction of assault in the third degree. His court-appointed

attorney has filed a motion to withdraw on the ground that there is no basis for a

good faith argument on review. Pursuant to State v. Theobald, 78 Wn.2d 184,

470 P.2d 188 (1970), and Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87S. Ct. 1396, 18

L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967), the motion to withdraw must:

(1) be accompanied by a brief referring to anything in the record

that might arguably support the appeal. (2) A copy of counsel’s

brief should be furnished the indigent and (3) time allowed him to

raise any points that he chooses; (4) the court—not counsel—then

proceeds, after a full examination of all the proceedings, to decide

whether the case is wholly frivolous.

Theobald, 78 Wn.2d at 185 (quoting Anders, 386 U.S. at 744).

This procedure has been followed. Bowman’s counsel on appeal filed a

brief with the motion to withdraw. Bowman was served with a copy of the brief
No. 77060-8-1/2

and informed of his right to file a statement of additional grounds for review.

Bowman has not filed a statement of additional grounds.

The material facts are accurately set forth in counsel’s brief in support of

the motion to withdraw. The court has reviewed the briefs filed in this court and

has independently reviewed the entire record. The court specifically considered

the following potential issues raised by counsel:

1. Did the trial court err in refusing to modify the judgment and sentence by

striking the no-contact order?

2. Was Bowman denied due process and equal protection as a result of the

court’s ruling?

The potential issues are wholly frivolous. Counsel’s motion to withdraw is

granted and the appeal is dismissed.

FOR THE COURT:

A1~
Exhibit 10.8

 

AMENDMENT #1 TO THE

SSE HOLDINGS, LLC

UNIT APPRECIATION RIGHTS PLAN

 

In order to amend the SSE Holdings, LLC Unit Appreciation Rights Plan, as amended (the “Plan”), this Amendment #1 to the SSE Holdings, LLC Unit Appreciation Rights Plan was adopted by the Board of Directors of SSE Holdings, LLC by unanimous written consent on August 15, 2012, effective as of August 15, 2012.

 

1.                                      Section 4.03 of the Plan is hereby amended and restated in its entirety to read as follows:

 

“Section 409A. It is intended that Unit Appreciation Rights be exempt from, or compliant with, section 409A of the Code, and the Plan and any Award Agreement shall be interpreted as such. Notwithstanding anything contained herein or in an Award Agreement to the contrary, no condition of continued employment or service relating to the payment in respect of a Unit Appreciation Right may be waived if such waiver would result in a violation of section 409A of the Code (and any such waiver shall be deemed null and void).”

 

2.                                      Section 6.02 of the Plan is hereby amended and restated in its entirety to read as follows:

 

“Base Amount. The Base Amount of a Unit Appreciation Right shall be determined by the Committee in its sole discretion (and may be based on the Fair Market Value of a Unit as determined pursuant to the Company’s most recent valuation).”
#### In the Matter of Patrick H. Commissioner of Social Services, Respondent; Suzanne J., Appellant.

[666 NYS2d 492]

—In a proceeding pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b to terminate the mother’s parental rights, the mother appeals from an order of the Family Court, Queens County (Friedman, J.), dated July 31, 1995, which, after a fact-finding hearing, found her unable to care for her child by reason of mental illness, granted the petition to terminate her parental rights, and committed the care and custody of the child to the Commissioner of Social Services.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

There was clear and convincing evidence that the mother has suffered from mental illness for many years and that she was currently and for the foreseeable future unable, by virtue of her illness, to care for the child who is the subject of this proceeding and who had been removed from her care and *511custody shortly after birth *(see,*Social Services Law § 384-b). The court-appointed psychiatrist testified at length regarding her examination of the mother, her review of the mother’s medical and other records, and the basis for her conclusion that the mother suffered from “schizophrenia, undifferentiated type, chronic.” Given this uncontested evidence, the Family Court properly granted the petition to terminate her parental rights *(see, e.g., Matter of Christine Marie R.,*236 AD2d 308; *Matter of Michelle H.,*228 AD2d 440). Ritter, J. P., Sullivan, Goldstein and Lerner, JJ., concur.
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2962 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to exclude certain advanced 

diagnostic imaging services from the in-office ancillary services exception 

to the prohibition on physician self-referral. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 19, 2009 

Ms. SPEIER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Ways 

and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, 

in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to exclude 

certain advanced diagnostic imaging services from the 

in-office ancillary services exception to the prohibition 

on physician self-referral. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Integrity in Medicare 

5 Advanced Diagnostic Imaging Act of 2009’’. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
2 

•HR 2962 IH

1 SEC. 2. EXCLUDING CERTAIN ADVANCED DIAGNOSTIC IM2 AGING SERVICES FROM THE IN-OFFICE AN3 CILLARY SERVICES EXCEPTION TO THE PRO4 HIBITION ON PHYSICIAN SELF-REFERRAL. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1877(b)(2) of the Social 

6 Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395nn(b)(2)) is amended— 

7 (1) in the matter before subparagraph (A), by 

8 striking ‘‘and supplies’’ and inserting ‘‘, supplies, 

9 and certain advanced diagnostic imaging services’’; 

10 and 

11 (2) by adding at the end the following: ‘‘For 

12 purposes of subparagraph (A), the term ‘certain ad13 vanced diagnostic imaging services’ means diagnostic 

14 magnetic resonance imaging, computed tomography, 

15 and positron emission tomography, and such other 

16 diagnostic imaging services, including services de17 scribed in section 1848(b)(4)(B) (but excluding X18 ray, ultrasound, and fluoroscopy), as specified by the 

19 Secretary in consultation with physician specialty or20 ganizations and other stakeholders, but does not in21 clude imaging services performed for purposes of ra22 diation therapy treatment planning or in conjunction 

23 with an interventional radiological procedure or nu24 clear medicine other than positron emission tomog25 raphy.’’. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
3 

•HR 2962 IH

1 SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATES. 

2 The amendments made by sections 2 and 3 of this 

3 Act shall apply to services furnished on or after the date 

4 of the enactment of this Act, regardless of when the refer5 ral for such services is or was made. 

Æ 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
Pursuant to5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinionshould not * be publishe d an d is not precedent except under the limited circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 10879 C onfer enc e Cal endar UN I TE D S TA TE S OF AM ERI CA P l ai n t i f f
- A pp el l ee v. JOSE VA LLA D AR EZ- G O N ZAL EZ D e fe nda nt - Appe l l ant

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f or t h e N ort h ern D i st ri ctof T exas U SD C N o. 4: 08- C R
- 43- 1 B ef ore SM ITH , B E N AV ID E S , an d H AY N E S , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R I A M: * T h e F ederalP u bl i c D efen der ap p oi n t ed to represent Jose V al l ad arezG on zal ez ha s m oved f or l eave to w i t h draw an d h as filed a bri ef i n accor da n ce w i t h A n d er s v . Ca lif o rn ia , 386 U . S . 738 ( 196 7) . V al l ad arez- G on zal ez ha s been de po r t e d f

r o m t he U ni t e d St at e s a nd h as no tf i l e d a r e s po ns e . O uri nde pe nde nt r e v ie w o f th e rec or da n dco u n s e l’ s b r ie f d is c lo s e s n o n o n fr iv o lo u s is s u e fo ra p p e a l. A c c o r d in g ly , co u n s e l’ s m o tio n fo rle a v e to w ith d r a w is G R A N T E D , c o u n s e l is e x c u s e df

r o m f u r t h e r r e s p o n s ib i l i t i e s h e r e i n , a n dt h e AP PE AL I S DI S M I S S ED United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D June 16, 2 009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 10879

2 i n part as f

rivol ou s, se e5 T H C IR . R. 4 2 .2 , a n din p a r t a s m o o t. S ee Un i t ed S t ate s v . R o se n b a u m -A la n is , 4 8 3 F .3d 3 8 1 , 3 8 2 -8 3 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 7 ).
**Exhibit 23**

 

**CONSENT OF STEGMAN & CO.**

 

The Board of Directors 

KH Funding Company 

Silver Spring, Maryland 

 

We hereby consent to the inclusion of our report dated April 11, 2005 relating to the balance sheets of KH Funding Company (the “Company”) as ofDecember 31, 2004 and 2003 and the related statements of operations, changes in stockholders’ equity and cash flows for the years then ended in the Company’s Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2004 to be filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission. 

 

/s/ Stegman &Company 

 

Baltimore, Maryland 

April 14, 2005
#### Thomas C. RIDLEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SEARS HOME IMPROVEMENT PRODUCTS, INC., d.b.a. Sears, Roebuck and Co., Defendant-Appellee.

No. 10-10187.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

April 20, 2011.

Jaiseery Arjoonsingh, Jr., Arjoonsingh Law Firm, Winter Park, FL, William Strawcutter, Lake Mary, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Thomas C. Ridley, Altamonte Springs, FL, pro se.

Joanne Braddock Lambert, Alicia M. Chiu, Jackson Lewis, LLP, Orlando, FL, for Defendant-Appellee.

Before TJOFLAT, WILSON and SEYMOUR,* Circuit Judges.

*

 Honorable Stephanie K. Seymour, United States Circuit Judge for the Tenth Circuit, sitting by designation.

*960PER CURIAM:

Thomas C. Ridley appeals the district court’s entry of partial summary judgment in favor of Sears on his sexual harassment, race discrimination, and constructive discharge claims, as well as a jury verdict for Sears on his retaliation claim, all brought pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e *et seq.*Ridley, an African American male, claimed he was sexually harassed by his male supervisor, who displayed pictures and videos of himself engaging in sex acts with Ridley’s female co-workers. Ridley also claimed the same supervisor assigned sales leads in a racially discriminatory manner, giving Ridley fewer “prime” leads than his non-African-American co-workers.

After receiving evidence from both parties, the district court entered summary judgment for Sears on all grounds, except Ridley’s retaliation claim. At trial, the parties stipulated that Ridley engaged in protected activity; thus, he would not introduce evidence of his underlying claims. The jury ultimately found Sears did not retaliate against Ridley.

Ridley raises four issues on appeal. First, he argues the district court applied an inappropriate legal standard in determining that he was not sexually harassed. Second, he contends the district court erroneously concluded that he was not subjected to racial discrimination, despite direct and circumstantial evidence to the contrary. Third, he argues his work environment was so intolerable that he was forced to abandon his job, and the district court erred in concluding otherwise. And finally, he contends that the district court unfairly excluded evidence of his underlying sexual harassment and racial discrimination claims from trial, depriving him of the ability to present the “full weight of evidence” supporting his retaliation claim.1

After careful consideration of the parties’ briefs and the record in this case, and having the benefit of oral argument, we find no merit to the issues Ridley raises on appeal. Accordingly, we affirm.

AFFIRMED.

1

. Ridley does not allege in his initial brief that the evidence introduced at trial was insufficient to support a verdict in favor of Sears on his retaliation claim. Accordingly, he has abandoned this argument, and we decline to address it. *See Davis v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co. Consol.,*516 F.3d 955, 972 (11th Cir. 2008).
*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 circumstancesset forth in 5TH CIR.R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-11515

(Summary Calendar)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

RAMON YANEZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

(USDC No. 3:92-CR-006-1-D)

June 30, 1997

Before DAVIS, EMILIO M. GARZA, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Ramon Yanez pled guilty to four counts of distribution of controlled substances and was

sentenced to 151 months’ imprisonment, three years’supervised release, and charged a $200 special

assessment. In this appeal, Yanez challenges only the length of incarceration. In particular, Yanez

arguesthat the district court erred in (1) calculating the amount of drugsinvolved, and (2) concluding
2

that Yanez was not entitled to a reduction in his offense level under the safety-valve provision of §

2D1.1(b)(4) and § 5C1.2.

We have reviewed the record and find no error. The district court did not clearly err in

calculating the amount of drugs involved in the transaction. See United States v. Mergerson, 4 F.3d

337, 345 (5th Cir. 1993); U.S.S.G. § 2D.1 cmt. n.12. And the district court did not clearly err in

determining that Yanez did not meet the safety-valve provisions of § 2D1.1(b)(4) because he failed

to timely and truthfully provide information to the Government concerning the offense (as required

by U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2(5)). See United States v. Rodriguez, 60 F.3d 193, 195 n.1 (5th Cir.), cert.

denied, 116 S. Ct. 542 (1995).

AFFIRMED.