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

                           INVESTMENT ASSOCIATES, INC.
                              A Nevada Corporation

                             CERTIFICATE PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the Quarterly Report of Investment Associates, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended June 30, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), we, Steve Khan, President,
Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, and Robert Hemmerling,
Chief Financial Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.ss. 1350, as adopted
pursuant to ss.ss. 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.




Dated August 13, 2004                 /s/ Steve Khan
                                      -------------------------------------
                                      Steve Khan,
                                      President and Chief Executive Officer

                                      /s/ Robert Hemmerling
                                      -------------------------------------
                                      Robert Hemmerling,
                                      Chief Financial Officer
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 200 (Wednesday, October 18, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 48529]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-22690]


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

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[USITC SE-17-049]


Government in the Sunshine Act Meeting Notice

Agency Holding the Meeting:  United States International Trade 
Commission.

Time and Date:  October 31, 2017 at 11:00 a.m.

Place:  Room 101, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, Telephone: 
(202) 205-2000.

Status:  Open to the public.

Matters to be Considered: 
1. Agendas for future meetings: None.
2. Minutes.
3. Ratification List.
4. Vote in Inv. No. TA-201-75 (Remedy) (Crystalline Silicon 
Photovoltaic Cells (Whether or Not Partially or Fully Assembled into 
Other Products)).
5. Outstanding action jackets: None.

    In accordance with Commission policy, subject matter listed above, 
not disposed of at the scheduled meeting, may be carried over to the 
agenda of the following meeting.

    By order of the Commission.

     Issued: October 16, 2017.
William R. Bishop,
Supervisory Hearings and Information Officer.
[FR Doc. 2017-22690 Filed 10-16-17; 4:15 pm]
 BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
EXHIBIT 32.1



Certification of Chief Executive Officer

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Mad Catz Interactive, Inc.
(the Company) hereby certifies, to such officers knowledge, that:



(i) the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended September 30, 2005 (the
Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and



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



|                       |  |                                                         
|---------------------- |  | --------------------------------------------------------
|Date: November 9, 2005 |  | /s/ DARREN RICHARDSON                                   
|                       |  | Darren Richardson, President and Chief Executive Officer



The foregoing certifications are being
furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, and are not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and are not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the
Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.
10.19 Contact between the Company and Zachariah 4


    February
      9, 2007

    


    TOTALMED

    Attn:
      Jim
      Sterling and Brian Knight

    


    RE:
      Contract

    


    Dear
      Jim
      and Brian,

    


    Due
      to
      conditions beyond our control Sonya and I will be unable to meet the
      requirements specified in the Letter of Intent. As a result we cannot accomplish
      the following items listed in the letter of intent

    


    	1.  	
            Accomplish
              the required EMR and PM software review.

          


    	2.  	
            Serve
              as a member of the Advisory Board.

          


    	3.  	
            Cooperate
              with TMS in further development of TMS products and
              services.

          


    	4.  	
            Pay
              our own’ expenses incident to the performance of this
              contract.

          


    	5.  	
            Perform
              the required functions necessary to the
              distributorship.

          


    


    Rather
      than threw out the agreement and reverse the transactions that have occurred
      to
      date I ask that you accept the following as an alternative.

    


    Currently
      Zachariah 4, LLC has received $60,000 toward thepurchase of a software license
      of the EMR software. We propose the further payment of $15,000 for a total
      of
      $75,000, as payment in full, for the ownership of the EMR software. This may
      be
      paid in one lump sum or installments.

    


    As
      mentioned we will be unable to meet any of the above obligations for the
      foreseeable future, therefore no support of any kind in implied. However, I
      would be willing to supply help on an on-binding basis.

    


    Other
      than the exceptions mentioned above the rest of the letter of intent will serve
      as the conditions of this contract.

    


    TotalMed
      Systems, Inc.

    


    /s/
      James A. Sterling       2/14/2007

    James
      A.
      Sterling

    


    Zachariah
      Four, LLC

    


    /s/
      Mark Jennings    2/9/2007

    Mark
      Jennings

    


    /s/
      Sonya Jennings   
2/9/2007

    Sonya
      Jennings
Exhibit 32.1

Certification Pursuant To 18 U.S.C. Section 1350

In connection with the Annual Report of Polymer Group, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the fiscal year
ended January 3, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Veronica M. Hagen, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 .S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:



Date: March 18, 2009

/s/ VERONICA M. HAGEN Veronica M. Hagen Chief Executive Officer


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.

---



QuickLinks
#### Hector Vargas CORONA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 08-71659.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 8, 2011.*

Filed March 23, 2011.

Bernadette Willeke Connolly, Law Offices of Bernadette W. Connolly, San Jose, CA, for Petitioner.

OIL, Daniel Eric Goldman, Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, Anthony Paul Nicastro, Esquire, Trial, Yanal H. Yousef, Trial, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, *731Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

Before: FARRIS, LEAVY, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Hector Vargas-Corona, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, for substantial evidence findings of fact regarding counsel’s performance, and for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. *Lin v. Ashcroft,*377 F.3d 1014, 1023-24 (9th Cir. 2004). We deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Vargas Corona’s motion on the ground that Vargas Corona did not establish ineffective assistance by his former attorneys where the record does not compel the conclusion that Vargas Corona’s former attorneys were aware his mother would pass away during the course of his removal proceedings. *See Lin,*377 F.3d at 1023 (petitioner must establish that counsel’s performance prevented him from reasonably presenting his case).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
* 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 August 21, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk 

### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-51691 c/w No. 07-50060 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee

v. JOSE ARMANDO LUCERO-RAMIREZ Defendant-Appellant

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 1:06-CR-199-ALL USDC No. 1:06-CR-219-ALL
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * JoseArmando Lucero-Ramirez (Lucero) appeals hisguilty-plea conviction of, and sentenc

e for, violating 8 U.S.C. § 1326 by being found in the United States without permission after deportation. He argues, in light ofApprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), that the 57-month term of imprisonment imposed i n his case exceeds the statutory maximum sentence allowed for theNo. 06-51691 c/w No. 07-50060

2 § 1326(a) offense charged in his indictment. He challenges the constitutionality of § 1326(b)’s treatment of prior felony and aggravated felony convictions as sentencing factors rather than elements of the offense that must be found by a jury. Lucero’s constitutional challenge is foreclosed by A lmendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998). Although he contends that Almendarez-Torres was incorrectly decided and that a majority of the Supreme Court would overrule Almendarez-T orres in light of Apprendi , we have repeatedly rejected such arguments on the basis that Almendarez-Torres remains binding. See United States v. Garza-Lopez, 410 F.3d 268, 276 (5th Cir. 2005); Rangel-Reyes v. United States, 126 S. Ct. 2873 (2006); United States v. Pineda-Arrellano, 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 16925 (5th Cir. July 17, 2007). Lucero properly concedes that his argument is foreclosed in light ofAlmendarez-Torres and circuit precedent, but he raises it here to preserve it for further review. Lucero’s appeal of his revocation of supervised release was consolidated with the instant appeal. He has not, however, raised any argument with respect to these proceedings. Any such claim is thus deemed abandoned. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993). The judgments of the district court are AFFIRMED. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED. The Government’s motion for an extension of time to file a brief is DENIED.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 21.0

                       List of Subsidiaries of the Company

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
Subsidiaries                                           Shareholders                                  Ownership %
------------                                           ------------                                  ------------
<S>                                                     <C>                                          <C>
Business Objects Australia Pty Ltd..................    Business Objects S.A.                              100%
Business Objects Asia Pacific Ptd Ltd...............    Business Objects S.A.                              100%
Business Objects Holding B.V........................    Business Objects S.A.                              100%
Business Objects Nihon B.V.k........................    Business Objects Holding B.V                       100%
Business Objects Nederland B.V......................    Business Objects Holding B.V                       100%
Business Objects Japan KK...........................    Business Objects S.A.                              100%
Business Objects BeLux S.A./N.V.....................    Business Objects S.A.                            99.96%
Business Objects Deutschland GmbH....................   Business Objects S.A.                              100%
Business Objects Espana S.L.........................    Business Objects S.A.                            99.98%
Business Objects Italia S.p.A........................   Business Objects S.A.                              100%
Business Objects Nordic A.B..........................   Business Objects S.A.                              100%
Business Objects Suisse S.A..........................   Business Objects S.A.                              100%
Business Objects (U.K.) Ltd..........................   Business Objects S.A.                              100%
Business Objects Americas, Inc.......................   Business Objects S.A.                              100%
Business Objects Canada, Inc.........................   Business Objects S.A.                              100%
Ithena, Inc..........................................   Business Objects Americas, Inc                     100%
Ithena U.K. Ltd......................................   Ithena, Inc                                        100%
Set Analyzer Ltd.....................................   Business Objects Americas, Inc                     100%
Business Objects Holding, Inc........................   Business Objects Americas, Inc                     100%
Business Objects Canada Co...........................   Business Objects Holding, Inc                      100%
e-reportfolio.com S.A./N.V...........................   Business Objects Holding B.V.                       51%
</TABLE>
Opinion issued April 18, 2019

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-18-00498-CR

———————————

LOSTON MOORE, JR., Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 208th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Case No. 1572146

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant Loston Moore, Jr. filed a motion to dismiss the appeal in 

compliance with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.2(a). See TEX. R. APP. P.

42.2(a). The State has not opposed this motion. We have not issued a decision in the 

appeal.
2

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(f). We dismiss 

any pending motions as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Lloyd, Kelly, and Hightower.

Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3296 

To suspend temporarily the duty on cellulose nitrate. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 22, 2009 

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

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on cellulose nitrate. 

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

3 SECTION 1. TEMPORARY SUSPENSION OF DUTY ON CEL4 LULOSE NITRATE. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

6 6 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States 

7 is amended by inserting in numerical sequence the fol8 lowing new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.l.l Nitrocellulose (CAS No. 

9004–70–0) (provided for in 

subheading 3912.20.00) ........ Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2012 ’’. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3296 IH

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

3 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

4 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
[No. 66029-2-I.

Division One.

October 29, 2012.]

#### *In the Matter of the Relationship of*Linda Rinaldi, *Respondent,*and Tamar Bailey, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Kang County, No. 08-2-29794-2, Mary Yu, J., entered August 23, 2010. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per

Schindler, J.,

concurred in by Leach, C.J., and Lau, J.
Exhibit 32.2

SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION

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

In connection with the amended quarterly report of Emergency Filtration
Products, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ending September
30, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the "Report"), I, Steve M. Hanni, Principal 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, to the best of my
knowledge and belief:

 (1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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


/s/ Steve M. Hanni
Steve M. Hanni, Principal Financial Officer

Date: November 14, 2003


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature
that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written
statement 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.
#### Bates *vs.*Bates.

Summonses of garnishment were sued out and served, under an order for temporary alimony granted to a wife against her husband, pending an action for divorce. He claimed that the amounts due him from the garnishees were exempt, because they were due him for his daily, weekly and monthly wages as a school*106teacher; that he was employed at nine cents per day for first-class pupils, fifteen cents per day for second-class pupils, and eighteen cents per day for third-class pupils. It did not appear when or at what time the indebtedness of the garnishee was to be paid, whether daily, weekly or monthly:

*Held,*that there was no error in holding that the amounts due were subject to garnishment The fact that defendant was a schoolteacher, and that these sums were due him as such, does not exempt these debts from garnishment.

(a.) A decree for alimony stands upon a different basis from an ordinary debt.

September 9, 1884.

Garnishment. Wages. Alimony. Husband and Wife. Before Judge Este Gwinnett- Superior Court. December Adjourned Term, 1883.

Reported in the decision.

Wm. E. Simmons, for plaintiff in error.

C. H. Brand ; F. F. Juhan, for defendant.

Blandeord, Justice.

Emma Bates filed her libel for divorce against her husband, N. B. Bates, and pending said libel, temporary alimony was allowed her, which has. never been paid by plaintiff in error. A total divorce was granted the wife, and the children of the marriage awarded to her. She sued out summonses of garnishment, which were served upon divers persons. N. B. Bates appeared and claimed that the several amounts clue him froimthe garnishees were exempt from the operation of the garnishment laws, because they were due him for his daily, weekly and monthly wages as a school-teacher; that he was employed at nine cents per day for first-class pupils, fifteen cents for second-class pupils, and eighteen cents Der day for third-class pupils.

The-court held that the amounts due were subject to garnishment, and overruled the claim of plaintiff in érror.

*107It- nowhere appears from the record, when or at what time, whether daily, monthly or weekly, the indebtedness of the garnishees was to be paid to the plaintiff in error. The fact that he is a school-teacher, and that these sums are due him as such teacher, does not exempt these debts from process of garnishment. So we think the court decided right under these facts. But even if the court was wrong, yet the defendant in error had obtained a decree for alimony against plaintiff in error, upon which the summonses of garnishment issued in this case, which decree might have been enforced by the imprisonment-of plaintiff in error, when he would have been totally deprived of all means of supporting himself, when the whole object of the exemption of debts from garnishment would have ceased. It appears that this claim of defendant in error occupies a different position from an ordinary debt, and we think that the debts due by the garnishees to plaintiff in error would be liable to process of garnishment founded on such a claim as that of defendant in error.

Let the judgment of the court below be affirmed.
# United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted November 8, 20 13 ∗ Decided November 14, 2013



### Before

W ILLIAM J. B AUER , Circuit Judge

F RANK H. E ASTERBROOK , Circuit Judge

D ANIEL A. M ANION , Circuit Judge

No. 13

- 2753

U NITED S TATES OF A MERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

,

v

.
A HMAD B ISHAWI , Defendant

- Appellant

. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois

.
No. 97

- CR

- 40044

- MJR

- 01
Michael J. Reagan

, Judge

.

Order

Ahmad Bishawi is serving a sentence of 20 years’ imprisonment for crack

- cocaine offenses. After the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 took effect, and the Sentencing Commission reduced the Guideline ranges with retroactive effect, Bishawi asked the district cour t fo r a reduction under 18 U.S.C. §3582(c)(2). The district court denied this

∗ This successive appeal has been submitted to the original panel under Operating Procedure 6(b). After examining the briefs and the record, we have concluded that oral argument is unnecessary. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); Cir. R. 34(f). 1

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 2N o. 13

- 2753 Page 2

motion because Bishawi’s sentence already is at the statutory minimum, so he cannot receive any benefit from the lower Guidelines.

Bishawi’s brief on appeal appears to reflect a belief that all defendants sentenced before the 2010 Act took effect can be resentenced afterward

— because only a new sentence under the Act’s revised terms would reduce the statutory minimum sentence. But the Supreme Court held in Dorsey v. Unite d States , 132 S. Ct. 2321 (2012), that the 2010 Act applies only to persons sentenced on or after August 3, 2010. Bishawi was sentenced in 1999. A motion under §3582(c)(2) differs from resentencing. See Dillon v. United States , 560 U.S. 917 (2010). Nor doe s it entitle a defendant to reopen issues, such as the quantity of drugs involved, resolved at the original sentencing. See, e.g., United States v. Poole , 550 F.3d 676 (7th Cir. 2008). We have therefore held that persons who received a statutory

- minimum se ntence before August 3, 2010, cannot receive any benefit from the 2010 Act. United States v. Foster , 706 F.3d 887 (7th Cir. 2013).

Foster and Poole control this appeal. The judgment of the district court is affirmed.