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

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 quarterly report of Emergency Filtration Products, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ending June 30, 2005, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Douglas K. Beplate, Principal Executive 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/ Douglas K. Beplate
Douglas K. Beplate, Principal Executive Officer

Date: August 12, 2005


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.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS AND BALANCE SHEETS FOUND ON PAGES 21 AND 22 OF
THE COMPANY'S FORM 10-K FOR THE YEAR, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-26-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-28-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               FEB-26-2000
<CASH>                                             214
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,050
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     65,475
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                70,789
<PP&E>                                          57,736
<DEPRECIATION>                                  35,370
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 101,783
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           23,786
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                      29,631
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   101,783
<SALES>                                        223,965
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               223,965
<CGS>                                          159,108
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  159,108
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                61,601
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 (633)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,451
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    438
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (865)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,303
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,303
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.18
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.18


</TABLE>
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED JULY 9, 2019

NO. 03-19-00109-CV

Rosa E. Santis and Rosa Santis, Appellants

v.

Travis Central Appraisal District, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 250TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES GOODWIN, BAKER, AND KELLY

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION -- OPINION BY JUSTICE GOODWIN

This is an appeal from the judgment signed by the trial court on November 13, 2018. Having 

reviewed the record, it appears that the Court lacks jurisdiction over the appeal. Therefore, the 

Court dismisses the appeal for want of jurisdiction. Appellants shall pay all costs relating to this 

appeal, both in this Court and in the court below.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3353 Engrossed in House (EH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3353

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
  To provide for American Samoa and the Commonwealth of the Northern 
Marianas to be treated as States for certain criminal justice programs.

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

SECTION 1. TREATMENT AS A STATE FOR AMERICAN SAMOA AND CNMI.

    Section 901(a)(2) of Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 
1968 (42 U.S.C. 3791(a)(2)) is amended by striking ``Islands:'' and all 
that follows through the period and inserting ``Islands;''.

            Passed the House of Representatives December 8, 2010.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
111th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 3353

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

  To provide for American Samoa and the Commonwealth of the Northern 
Marianas to be treated as States for certain criminal justice programs.
```
**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 Aduddell Industries, Inc.’s (the “Company”) Report on Amended Form 10-K/A for the period ended December 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Timothy Aduddell, President and Chief Executive 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:

| 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. |
|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

|                     |                                                                                               |
|--------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Date:  November 17, 2008 | By:  /s/ Timothy Aduddell

Timothy AduddellPresident and    Chief Executive Officer |
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1
                                                                    ------------


                             ACCOUNTANTS' CONSENT



The Board of Directors
Ortel Corporation:


We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements (No. 33-
91182 and 33-87540) on Form S-8 of Ortel Corporation of our report dated May 26,
1999, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of Ortel Corporation and
subsidiaries as of April 30, 1999 and 1998, and the related consolidated
statements of operations, stockholders' equity and cash flows for each of the
years in the three-year period ended April 30, 1998, and the related schedule,
which report appears in the April 30, 1999, Annual Report on Form 10-K of Ortel
Corporation.



/s/  KPMG LLP

Los Angeles, California
July 28, 1999

                                      80
EXHIBIT 24.1

                               POWER OF ATTORNEY


      KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that each person whose signature appears
below hereby severally constitutes and appoints Wayne N. Snyder and Doug Brown,
and each of them, his true and lawful attorneys-in-fact and agents, with full
power of substitution and resubstitution, for him and in his name, place and
stead, in any and all capacities, to sign the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of
Alliance Farms Cooperative Association for the fiscal year ended August 31,
1997, together with any and all amendments thereto and all documents relating
therewith, and to file the same, with all exhibits thereto, and other documents
in connection therewith, with the Securities and Exchange Commission, granting
unto said attorneys-in-fact and agents, full power and authority to do and
perform each and every act and thing necessary or advisable to be done in and
about the premises, as fully to all intents and purposes as he might or could do
in person, hereby ratifying and confirming all that said attorneys-in-fact and
agents, or his substitute or substitutes, may lawfully do or cause to be done by
virtue hereof.


/s/ Wayne N. Snyder                             November 4, 1997
Wayne N. Snyder
Chairman of the Board, President
and Director


/s/ Doug Brown                                  November 4, 1997
Doug Brown
Treasurer, Secretary and Director

/s/ Merl Daniel                                 November 4, 1997
Merl Daniel
Director


/s/ Gerald D. Johnson                           November 4, 1997
Gerald D. Johnson
Director


/s/ Loren Keppy                                 November 4, 1997
Loren Keppy
Director
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3020 

To amend the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 to provide 

for the treatment of dividends paid on shares of preferred stock, held 

by the Secretary of the Treasury, that were issued by financial institutions which received financial assistance under such Act, and for other 

purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 24, 2009 

Mr. KISSELL (for himself, Mr. BRIGHT, Mr. GRIFFITH, Mrs. KIRKPATRICK of 

Arizona, Ms. FOXX, Mr. COBLE, Mrs. MYRICK, and Mrs. LUMMIS) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Financial Services 

A BILL 

To amend the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 

2008 to provide for the treatment of dividends paid 

on shares of preferred stock, held by the Secretary of 

the Treasury, that were issued by financial institutions 

which received financial assistance under such Act, and 

for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Repaying the American 

5 Taxpayer Act of 2009’’. 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
2 

•HR 3020 IH

1 SEC. 2. TREATMENT OF DIVIDENDS ON CERTAIN STOCK 

2 HELD BY THE SECRETARY OF THE TREAS3 URY. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 106(d) of the Emergency 

5 Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (12 U.S.C. 5216) is 

6 amended— 

7 (1) by striking ‘‘or from the sale, exercise’’ and 

8 inserting ‘‘from the sale, exercise’’; 

9 (2) by inserting ‘‘, or from the payment of any 

10 dividend on any share of preferred stock in a finan11 cial institution obtained and held by the Secretary in 

12 conjunction with financial assistance provided under 

13 this title to such institution’’; and 

14 (3) by adding at the end the following new sen15 tence: ‘‘After the date of the enactment of the Re16 paying the American Taxpayer Act of 2009, section 

17 3101(b) of title 31, United States Code, shall be ap18 plied by reducing the amount contained in such sec19 tion by the aggregate amount paid into the general 

20 fund of the Treasury under the preceding sen21 tence.’’. 

22 (b) INCLUSION IN SIGTARP REPORTS.—Section 

23 121(f)(1) of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 

24 2008 is amended by inserting ‘‘and the disposition under 

25 section 106(d) of the payment of any dividend on any 

26 share of preferred stock in a financial institution obtained 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
3 

•HR 3020 IH

1 and held by the Secretary in conjunction with financial 

2 assistance provided under this title to such institution’’ be3 fore the period at the end. 

Æ 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
#### Carlos Humberto LOZA-GONZALEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 09-73869.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 8, 2011.*

Filed March 14, 2011.

Helen B. Zebel, Esquire, Law Office of Helen B. Zebel, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.

Susan Houser, OIL U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

Before: FARRIS, O’SCANNLAIN, 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 **

Carlos Humberto Loza-Gonzalez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, *Cerezo v. Mukasey,*512 F.3d 1163, 1166 (9th Cir.2008), except to the extent that deference is owed to the BIA’s determination of the governing statutes and regulations, *Simeonov v. Ashcroft,*371 F.3d 532, 535 (9th Cir.2004). We review for substantial evidence factual findings. *Zehatye v. Gonzales,*453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir.2006). We deny the petition for review.

Loza-Gonzalez contends he suffered past persecution and that he has a well-founded fear of future persecution by gangs in El Salvador. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Loza-Gonzalez failed to show past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of a protected ground. *See INS v. Elias-Zacarias,*502 U.S. 478, 481 & n. 1, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992); *Parussimova v. Mukasey,*555 F.3d 734, 740-41 (9th Cir. 2009) (“[t]he Real ID Act requires that a protected ground represent ‘one central reason’ for an asylum applicant’s persecution”). Accordingly, Loza-Gonzalez’s asylum claim fails.

Because Loza-Gonzalez failed to meet the lower burden of proof for asylum, his claim for withholding of removal necessarily fails. *See Zehatye,*453 F.3d at 1190.

Finally, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Loza-Gonzalez is not entitled to CAT relief because he failed to demonstrate it is more likely than not that he will be tortured by or with the acquiescence of the El Salvadorean government if he returns to El Salvador. *See*
      *566
      *Silaya v. Mukasey,*524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir.2008).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
I OFFICE OF THE AmORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS &:v-‘~ 

AUSTIN 

h 
Tour Uttar Ooes not ti.sclose whsthar the 

Job of superlntwdlne tha proposed laterul road OOSI6Wotioa in your 00Ullt~ lnvolr*a the P~i>liOatiOll Oi 

crn&w3rine prlnaiplw &ad illtSlTj.Wt~tiOA Of wl&sering d&a, but if At &@I, xe think that Artlote S27la 

wxA,d re;ire a llaansbd protensional engineer to 

o+etintend your road oonatruation. ii0 SUg&p3St tlrat 

you oootiidor the Catire thnt will be ret,uired oi y&P 

road superl.ntondsnC then mad tha quoted port1011 of 

.Scotlon 2, Arti 327la. md ii the Gtitiss repuired 

of the mperintendent are ocjvsred by any oi the phaaon 

OS this aootion, you must have a lloenssd profession- 

(11 e&near. 

U ycu are unable to snwer your queetim 

froi- the rxwlnatlon of the etittutes <ux:. n:l.l ~$VS UQ 

iLore taots, inforla.ln?; us of the euties of the mall to 

be hired, SIB will endeavor to u:@y t;lo law to the 

SitWtiOIl &Id AAS*Or YOUI '?;Lc?St,tiCZl. 

. 

‘ic;u trill notice from ti OOIrsldaratloA Of .wtic1e 327& tAl!iL iirQA 'IfiLlye llcmrmid professional enginoerr and yet may not be fpaduats civil ongtioera. 

218 h~ortant reqdrenent is thc&tiy be liaonsed by 

0-a 9.at.e imrZ of Heglatratlon ror pr0mlimal en&- 

IIC?BTIJ If they aro to ysriorm any of the phaoe8 of 

eA;lneerL~ oat out in s8ut1Gn 2 or .;rtiole 327lJ3. 

;ie trust that tfiB Will an~blo YOU to (u1SWW 

your qucotion, lf not plsrrea sublsit co t&o requested 

mlGitior?zl faoto and we wl ll endeavor to MSW~P four 

iLIt’*Y. 

Y~u.7~ very truly
In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 13-179V

(Not to be published)

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

*

WILLIAM T. SMITH, JR., as Fiduciary of the *

Estate of MICHAEL E. SMITH, *

* Filed: May 30, 2014

Petitioner, * 

* Decision by Stipulation; Attorney’s 

v. * Fees & Costs

*

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND *

HUMAN SERVICES *

*

Respondent. *

*

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Diana Stadelnikas Sedar, Sarasota, FL, for Petitioner

Darryl R. Wishard, Washington, DC, for Respondent

ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS DECISION1

On March 8, 2013, Petitioner filed a petition seeking compensation under the National 

Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. On April 15, 2014, Petitioner filed a motion to dismiss. 

On April 21, 2014, a decision dismissing the claim was filed, and judgment for dismissal 

pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a) was entered on May 22, 2014. 

On May 30, 2014, counsel for both parties filed a joint stipulation in regards to attorneys’

fees and costs. The parties have stipulated that Petitioner’s counsel should receive a lump sum 

1

 Because this decision contains a reasoned explanation for my action in this case, it will be 

posted on the United States Court of Federal Claims’ website, in accordance with the EGovernment Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-347, § 205, 116 Stat. 2899, 2913 (codified as 

amended at 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2006)). As provided by Vaccine Rule 18(b), moreover, each 

party has 14 days within which to request redaction “of any information furnished by that party: 

(1) that is a trade secret or commercial or financial in substance and is privileged or confidential; 

or (2) that includes medical files or similar files, the disclosure of which would constitute a 

clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy.” Vaccine Rule 18(b). Otherwise, the decision will be 

available to the public. Id.

 
of $6,300.00, in the form of a check payable to Petitioner and Petitioner’s counsel. This amount 

represents a sum to which respondent does not object.

I approve the requested amount for attorneys’ fees and costs as reasonable. Accordingly, 

an award should be made in the form of a check payable jointly to Petitioner and Petitioner’s 

counsel, Diana Stadelnikas Sedar, Esq. In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to 

RCFC Appendix B, the clerk of the court SHALL ENTER JUDGMENT in accordance with 

the terms of the parties’ stipulation.2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 /s/ Brian H. Corcoran

Brian H. Corcoran

Special Master

2 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), the parties may expedite entry of judgment by filing a joint

notice renouncing their right to seek review.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                    3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                   JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                     MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                             0
<SECURITIES>                                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      0
<ALLOWANCES>                                       0
<INVENTORY>                                        0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   0
<PP&E>                                             0
<DEPRECIATION>                                     0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            158
<BONDS>                                            0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              0
<PREFERRED>                                        0
<COMMON>                                          50
<OTHER-SE>                                      (208)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       0
<SALES>                                            0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   0
<CGS>                                              0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  2,266
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (2,266)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                0
<DISCONTINUED>                                     0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    0
<CHANGES>                                          0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (2,266)
<EPS-BASIC>                                   (0.01)<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 (0.01)
<FN>
<F1>*Less than .01 per share
</FN>



</TABLE>
1 The Honorable Gregory W. Carman, Chief Judge of the United States Court of

International Trade, sitting by designation.

2 The Honorable Harry F. Barnes, United States District Court Western District of Arkansas. -1-



### United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

_____________ No. 99-4068

_____________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the v. * Western District of Arkansas * Lucio Sanchez Estrada, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellant. *

______________ Submitted: April 11, 2000 Filed: April 26, 2000

______________ Before BOWMAN and HANSEN, Circuit Judges, CARMAN, Judge 1
.

______________ PER CURIAM. Lucio S. Estrada (Estrada) appeals from the District Court’s 2 denial of-2-

Estrada’s motion to suppress evidence allegedly seized from his vehicle in violation of the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Having reserved his right to appeal by accepting a conditional guilty plea for possession with intent to distribute heroin under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (1994), Estrada argues on appeal that the stop of his vehicle and his subsequent detention by law enforcement officials constitute illegal seizures as such action was taken without reasonable suspicion or probable cause. After hearing testimony from a law enforcement official regarding Estrada’s stop and detention, the District Court found sufficient facts existed to support the conclusion that law enforcement had reasonable suspicion to stop and detain Estrada. Accordingly, the District Court denied Estrada’s motion to suppress evidence. Having considered the record and the parties’ submissions and finding no error in the findings of fact or conclusions of law of the District Court, we conclude the District Court correctly denied Estrada’s motion to suppress. Because an extended opinion by this Court would add nothing of substance to the jurisprudence of this Circuit, we affirm the District Court without further opinion. AFFIRMED. See 8 thCir. R. 47B.-3-

A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.