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




CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002






In
connection with the Annual Report of So Act
Network, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the “Report”), I, Greg
Halpern, 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; and2.
            The information
      contained in the Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and result of operations of So
      Act Network,
Inc.




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.






SO
ACT NETWORK, INC.


By:
                /s/ Greg
      HalpernGreg
      HalpernChief
      Executive Officer,
                  Chief
      Financial Officer,




Date:
March 29, 2010
[LETTERHEAD
      OF STAF*TEK]

    


    


    PROMISSORY
      NOTE

    TO

    MRS.
      PHYLLIS L. BELL

    


     

    
      	
              $35,000.00

            	
              April
                1,
                2005

            


    

     

    For
      value
      received, STAF*TEK SERVICES, INC., of Tulsa, Oklahoma, (herein referred to
      as
‘maker’) promises to pay to the order of PHYLLIS L. BELL, (herein referred to as
‘payee’) on or before April 8, 2005 the principal sum of Thirty Five Thousand
      and No/100 Dollars ($35,000.00) plus $125.00.

    


    Payment
      of this note shall be as follows: One lump sum payment of $35,000.00 plus
      $125.00 interest.

    


    Maker
      may
      prepay this note in whole or in part without penalty or surcharge at any time
      prior to the maturity date.

    


    The
      maker
      hereby severally waives presentment for payment, notice of nonpayment, protest
      and notice to protest, and aggress that extensions of the time for payment
      may
      be granted without notice. In case of legal proceedings to collect this note,
      maker agrees to pay all court costs including reasonable attorneys’ fees to
      payee as prevailing parties in the suit.

    


    IN
      WITNESS WHEREOF, this agreement is signed the 1st
      day of
      April, 2005.

    


     

    
      	 /s/
              Shelia Hobens	 	/s/
              John H. Simmons
	 Shelia Hobens	 	John H. Simmons, President,
              C.E.O.
	 	 	Staf*Tek Services, Inc.
	 	 	4870 S. Lewis St., Ste. 250
	 	 	
              Tulsa,
                Oklahoma 74105
#### Thomas S. SAMPLE, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, Respondent.

No. 2007-3332.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

April 21, 2008.

ON MOTION

*ORDER*

Thomas S. Sample moves to voluntarily dismiss his petition for review.

Upon consideration thereof,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) The motion is granted.

(2) Each side shall bear its own costs.
EXHIBIT
23.1
 
 CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
 
 We hereby
consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form
S-8 (File No. 333-146789)
pertaining to the Accelerize New Media Stock Option Plan of our report dated
March 25, 2008 with respect to the consolidated financial statements of
Accelerize New Media, Inc. included in its Annual Report on Form 10-K for the
year ended December 31, 2007, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission.
 
 New
      York, NY
                March
      31, 2008
              /s/
      Sherb & Co.
                Sherb
      & Co.
                Certified
      Public Accountants
#### Susan Lax et al., Respondents-Appellants, v Design Quest NY, Ltd., et al., Appellants-Respondents.

[987 NYS2d 134]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Manuel J. Mendez, J-), entered August 19, 2013, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied defendants’ motion to renew their prior motion to dismiss the breach of contract claim, to dismiss the fraud and unjust enrichment claims, and to amend the caption, and denied plaintiffs’ motion for sanctions, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The “new facts” defendants presented on their motion to renew were their own invoices, which obviously were in their possession at the time of the prior motion (see CPLR 2221 [e]). What is new on this motion is an argument based on those invoices. Given that the argument as to an oral contract was advanced by plaintiffs in opposition to the prior motion, and plaintiffs attached one of the invoices to their papers, there can be no “reasonable justification” for defendants’ failure to pre*491sent and make their argument as to the invoices on the prior motion (CPLR 2221 [e] [3]; *see e.g. Telep v Republic El. Corp.,*267 AD2d 57 [1st Dept 1999]).

Defendants’ argument that the fraudulent billing claim was not pleaded with the requisite particularity is barred by this Court’s order in the prior appeal, holding that, although plaintiffs failed to allege which invoices were inflated, the claim was “otherwise meritorious” (101 AD3d 431, 431 [1st Dept 2012]). Since the amended complaint includes precisely the information required by this Court, the motion court correctly declined to dismiss the claim.

Contrary to defendants’ contention, this Court did not dismiss the complaint as against the individual defendants. Those defendants are named on the causes of action for breach of contract and fraudulent billing, which we sustained *(see id.).*

The unjust enrichment claim was correctly sustained because the parties dispute the existence of the various alleged express contracts *(see Henry Loheac, P.C. v Children’s Corner Learning Ctr.,*51 AD3d 476 [1st Dept 2008]; *Joseph Sternberg, Inc. v Walber 36th St. Assoc.,*187 AD2d 225 [1st Dept 1993]).

We agree with the motion court that sanctions were not warranted *(see*22 NYCRR 130-1.1).

Concur — Tom, J.E, Friedman, Renwick, Gische and Clark, JJ.
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 208 (Monday, October 30, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 50128]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-23501]


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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding 
Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for 
approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 
1841 et seq.) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR part 225), and all other 
applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company 
and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the 
power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the 
banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, 
including the companies listed below.
    The applications listed below, as well as other related filings 
required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the 
Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications will also be available 
for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested 
persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated 
in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the 
acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether 
the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards 
in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, 
nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.
    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these 
applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the 
offices of the Board of Governors not later than November 22, 2017.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis (Brendan S. Murrin, 
Assistant Vice President) 90 Hennepin Avenue, Minneapolis, Minnesota 
55480-0291:
    1. NATCOM Bancshares, Inc., Superior, Wisconsin; to acquire 49 
percent of the voting shares of Republic Bancshares, Inc., Duluth, 
Minnesota, and thereby indirectly acquire shares of Republic Bank, 
Inc., Duluth, Minnesota.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, October 24, 
2017.
Ann E. Misback,
Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 2017-23501 Filed 10-27-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
Exhibit 99.1


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


     In connection with the Quarterly Report of Asyst Corporation (the
"Registrant") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending April 30, 2003, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Quarterly
Report"), we, Bob Hall, President and director and Michael Vardakis,
Secretary, Treasurer and director of the Registrant, 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 Quarterly 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 Quarterly Report fairly presents,
in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of
the Registrant.

Date: 6/16/03                               /s/Bob Hall
                                            -----------
                                            Bob Hall
                                            President and director

Date: 6/16/03                               /s/Michael Vardakis
                                            -------------------
                                            Michael Vardakis
                                            Secretary/Treasurer and Director
II 

Calendar No. 579 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 3553 

[Report No. 111–299] 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 22, 2010 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs 

SEPTEMBER 22, 2010 

Reported by Mr. DORGAN, without amendment 

AN ACT 

To exclude from consideration as income under the Native 

American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination 

Act of 1996 amounts received by a family from the 

Department of Veterans Affairs for service-related disabilities of a member of the family. 

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 ‘‘Indian Veterans Hous5 ing Opportunity Act of 2010’’. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3553 RS

1 SEC. 2. EXCLUSION FROM INCOME. 

2 Paragraph (9) of section 4 of the Native American 

3 Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996 

4 (25 U.S.C. 4103(9)) is amended by adding at the end the 

5 following new subparagraph: 

6 ‘‘(C) Any amounts received by any member 

7 of the family as disability compensation under 

8 chapter 11 of title 38, United States Code, or 

9 dependency and indemnity compensation under 

10 chapter 13 of such title.’’. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS

srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
Calendar No. 579 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 3553 

[Report No. 111–299] 

AN ACT 

To exclude from consideration as income under the 

of the family. fairs for service-related disabilities of a member a family from the Department of Veterans AfDetermination Act of 1996 amounts received by Native American Housing Assistance and SelfSEPTEMBER 22, 2010 

Reported without amendment 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
#### EARL G. *v.*COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION

(AC 31980)

Beach, Espinosa and Peters, Js.

Argued October 26

officially released November 15, 2011

Per Curiam.

The appeal is dismissed.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent v John A. Hitt, Appellant.

[666 NYS2d 862]

—Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Delaware County (Estes, J.), rendered September 9, 1996, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crimes of arson in the third degree and arson in the fourth degree.

Defendant pleaded guilty to the crimes of arson in the third degree and arson in the fourth degree in full satisfaction of two outstanding indictments and received concurrent prison sentences of 5 to 10 years and IV3 to 4 years, respectively. Initially, we find that the minimum term of imprisonment imposed on the conviction of arson in the third degree is unauthorized. The minimum term of imprisonment for that crime, which is a class C felony *(see,*Penal Law § 150.10), should have been one third of the 10-year maximum (i.e., SVs years), and not one half *(see,*
      *906Penal Law § 70.00 [3] [b]). Accordingly, we modify the sentence by reducing the term of imprisonment to 3Vs to 10 years *(see generally, People v Centeno,*168 AD2d 301, 302, *lv denied*77 NY2d 904). With respect to the sentence as modified, we find that it is neither harsh nor excessive in view of the seriousness of the crimes to which defendant pleaded guilty and the fact that defendant was sentenced in accordance with the plea agreement. Accordingly, defendant’s arguments in this regard are unavailing.

Mikoll, J. P., Crew III, White, Yesawich Jr. and Spain, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is modified, on the law, by reducing the sentence imposed upon defendant’s conviction of arson in the third degree to a prison term of 3 Vs to 10 years, and, as so modified, affirmed.
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF **TEXAS** AUSTIN

Honorable Joseph A. Beyer County Attorney crane County Crane, Texas

msr slrr

ty pur~sss. passed an act allowa in advance and Crane resolutions and orpayers to take advantage

coqtrsllar, a warrant ay the taxes assessed ageinst the exas; but DzDmmD fron the amount the roll two (25) per cent of the full amount of the taxes; This warrant will not be payable for so&e nine (9) or ten (10)months. RNo~ the question on which I would like your opinion la: y!ouldthe Gniverslty of Texas be en-Honorable Joseph A Beyer, Page 2

titled to this discount in as'much as the money will not be available to the County for use for a period of nine or tenmonths unless they should discount the Sam, which would probable amount to another two or three per0ent.n Article 715Oc,Revised Civil Statutes of Texas, asmended 1931, prOYid8S for the pzlynz8nt of'county ad Yaloram taxes upon lands of theUniversity of Texas. Section 6 0r said article de&ares that *It shall be the duty of the Comptroller

## 0r Public Accounts to

## fissuewarrant8 upon the Generalmud to pay taxes due eaoh county . . . .8

House Bill Ro. 225 of the 4Cth Legislature (at page4210 ot th8 House Journal) appropriates $j34,000.00 

### ror the paynent of suchtaxes for each of th8 fiscal years endingAugust 31, 1940 and August 51, 1941.

The Coslptroller*sDepartment advises us that the $34,000.00appropriationwas inadequate by a small alcount topap in full the total amount of the county ad valorem taxesaSS8sS8d against all the University lands for the currentyear. yorthls reason the

## aisO0m privileges for theprompt paymnt of taxes provided by Article 70576,Vernon'sAMOtat8d Civil Statut8S, a6 amended, w8re invoked as amethod oi prorating the available $34,000.00 song the several counties towhoa taxeswere due. The State has no zeans of paying county taxes in 8xcess of the sum appropriatedtheretor. 'Z'e b8li8Y8 therefore, that in the absence oi' a supplercental

appropriation, the question of whether the Stat8 is entitled to discount taxes underArticle 70576 neat be 5xnmaterial. The claim of your county ror an 

## aaaitional 2% or the 1939 taxes on University lands may be apPrORriatelypl'8S8ht8d to the next session of the Legislature.



### Yoursverytruly ATTORNXYGEmFiALOFTEXAS
### C OURT OF 

### A PPEALS FOR THE



### F IRST 

### D ISTRICT OF 

### T EXAS AT 

### H OUSTON



### O RDER ON 

### M OTION

Cause Number: 01

- 18

- 01128

- CR

Trial Court Cause

Number: 17

- CR

- 0916

Style: Lonnie Gene Kinnett

v. The State of Texas

Date motion filed * : March 6, 2021

Type of motion: Motion for Extension of Time

Party filing motion: Appellant

Document to be filed: Motion for Rehearing and/or Motion for En Banc Reconsideration

Is appeal accelerated? Yes No

If motion to extend time:

Original due date: February 25, 2021

Number of previous extensions granted: 2

Date Requested: 21 days

Ordered that motion is:

Granted

If document is to be filed, document due: March 18, 2021

Absent extraordinary circumstances, the Court will not grant additional motions to extend time

The Court will not grant add itional motions to extend time.

Denied

Dismissed ( e.g. , want of jurisdiction, moot)

Other: _____________________________________

Judge's signature: /s/ April Farris

Acting individually Acting for the Court

Date: March 11, 2021
Exhibit 13.2

Section 906 Certificate

Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350,
Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)

Pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), each
of the undersigned officers of GW Pharmaceuticals plc, a public limited company incorporated under English law (the "company"), does hereby certify, to such officer's knowledge, that:

The
Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended September 30, 2013 (the "Form 20-F") of the company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the Form 20-F fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
company.

Date:
November 25, 2013

/s/ ADAM GEORGE Adam George Chief Financial Officer


---



QuickLinks
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Lyle Williams, Appellant.

[987 NYS2d 230]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Jeong, J.), rendered October 17, 2012, convicting him of attempted criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. Assigned counsel has submitted a brief in accordance with *Anders v California*(386 US 738 [1967]), in which she moves for leave to withdraw as counsel for the appellant.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We are satisfied with the sufficiency of the brief filed by the defendant’s assigned counsel pursuant to *Anders v California*(386 US 738 [1967]), and, upon an independent review of the record, we conclude that there are no nonfrivolous issues which could be raised on the appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is, therefore, granted *(see Anders v California,*386 US 738 [1967]; *Matter of Giovanni S. [Jasmin A.],*89 AD3d 252 [2011]; *People v Paige,*54 AD2d 631 [1976]; *cf. People v Gonzalez,*47 NY2d 606 [1979]; *cf. People v Sedita,*113 AD3d 638 [2014]).

Balkin, J.E, Roman, Sgroi and Miller, JJ., concur.
#### Robert S. ABERNATHY et ux., et al., Plaintiffs, v. J. B. TILLER et al., Defendants.

Civ. A. No. 1882.

United States District Court E. D. Tennessee, Northeastern Division.

May 16, 1965.

Jackson C. Raulston, Kingsport, Tenn., for plaintiffs.

Dodson & Dodson, Kingsport, Tenn., Carr & Edwards, Blountville, Tenn., Hunter, Smith, Davis, Norris & Waddey, Kingsport, Tenn., for defendants.

NEESE, District Judge.

The defendants Tiller removed this action for injunctive relief and damages from a state court. It appears affirmatively from the record that all the plaintiffs were, at the time this action was commenced and at the time of its removal to this court, Tennessee citizens; that, at the time the action was instituted one of the defendants, Mrs. Margaret Hicks Brown, was a resident of Tennessee, and that at the time of the removal herein, the said Mrs. Brown was a citizen of Tennessee. The removing defendants contend that this lack of diversity of citizenship as between the plaintiffs and the defendant Mrs. Brown “ * * * does not *571destroy the diversity of citizenship of the real parties in interest * * * ”, because Mrs. Brown is not a necessary party to this action.

The Court cannot agree with that construction of the statute on which the jurisdiction of this Court depends herein. 28 U.S.C. § 1441. There must have been diversity of citizenship between all the respective parties plaintiff and defendant at the time of the filing of the complaint in the state court and at the time of the removal of this action, and the requisite jurisdictional amount in controversy must have been present before the jurisdiction of the state court is ever divested, 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b), unless the plaintiffs by some affirmative act have abandoned or discontinued the action against the said defendant Mrs. Brown. Stamm v. American Telephone & Telegraph Company, D.C.Mo. (1958), 129 F.Supp. 719, 721 [3, 4]. So long as Mrs. Brown remains a party defendant, the removal of this action, at least, is premature.

Further, it does not appear that the amount in controversy between each of the 80 parties plaintiff and the defendants is more than $10,000.00, as the diversity statute requires. There can be no aggregation of the claims of the co-plaintiffs for the purpose of establishing the existence of the requisite jurisdictional amount even if all 80 of the parties plaintiff have a community of interest. Thomson v. Gaskill (1942), 315 U.S. 442, 62 S.Ct. 673, 86 L.Ed. 951.

The removal of this action having been improvident and in the absence of this Court’s jurisdiction, and the removing defendants being denied all relief in this court, the clerk will forthwith prepare, sign and enter an order remanding this action to the state court whence it came, taxing the defendants Tiller with all the costs of said removal, and transmit certified copies of the said order and of this memorandum to the clerk and master of the Chancery Court of Sullivan County, Part I, Kingsport, Tennessee.
Exhibit 32.2



TELETOUCH COMMUNICATIONS, INC.



OFFICERS CERTIFICATION

PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. 1350)



In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of TELETOUCH COMMUNICATIONS, INC. (the Company) for the fiscal year ended May 31, 2005
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, J. Kernan Crotty, President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
that, to the best of his knowledge:



1. The Report is in full
compliances 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 operation of the Company.



|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|/s/ J. Kernan Crotty                 
|J. Kernan Crotty                     
|President and Chief Financial Officer
|November 8, 2005