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 FIND/SVP, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-K/A for the period ended December 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, David Walke, 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:

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

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

/s/ DAVID WALKE
---------------
David Walke
Chief Executive Officer
August 25, 2003


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.



                            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 FIND/SVP, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-K/A for the period ended December 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Peter Stone, Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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

/s/ PETER M. STONE
------------------
Peter M. Stone
Chief Financial Officer
August 25, 2003


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.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Gilberto Perez PARDON, also known as Gilberto P. Perez, also known as Gilberto Perez, also known as Jose Flores, also known as Gilberto Padrón Perez, also known as Gilberto Perez-Padron, also known as Robert Garza Perez, also known as Guillermo Perez, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-20322

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Dec. 8, 2010.

James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Margaret Christina Ling, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Gilberto Perez Pardon, Jonesville, VA, pro se.

Before KING, BENAVIDES, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Gilberto Perez Pardon has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Perez Pardon has not filed a response. Our independent review of the record and counsel’s brief discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 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 circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 1**  **4 -**  **6046**

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , P laintiff

- Appell ee ,

v. YAHYA WATSON , Defendant

- Appell ant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Ea stern District of Virginia , at Alexandria

. Claude M. Hilton , Senior District Judge. ( 1 :07

- cr - 00 396

- CMH

- 1; 1 :13

- cv - 01162

- CMH )

Submitted : March 2 5 , 2014 Decided: March 28, 2014

Before GREGORY, KEENAN, and WYNN , Circuit Judges

.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

. Yahya Watson , Appellant Pro Se. David Sang Hak Lee , OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria , Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Yahya Watson seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 ( 2012 ) motion as successive and unauthorized . The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (B) (20 12 ). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (20 12 ). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court deni es relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independent ly reviewed the record and conclude that Watson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal3 contentions are adequately prese nted in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Gaiam, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended
September 30, 2010, as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Stephen J. Thomas, Chief Accounting 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 my knowledge:



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



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

Date: November 8, 2010



/s/ Stephen J. ThomasStephen J. ThomasChief Accounting Officer
(principal financial officer)
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 23

                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

     We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Annual Report (Form
10-K) of ADVO, Inc. ("ADVO") of our report dated October 16, 2002 included in
the 2002 Annual Report to Stockholders of ADVO.

     Our audits also included the financial statement schedule of ADVO listed in
Item 15(a). This schedule is the responsibility of the Company's management. Our
responsibility is to express an opinion based on our audits. In our opinion, the
financial statement schedule referred to above, when considered in relation to
the basic financial statements taken as a whole, presents fairly in all material
respects the information set forth therein.

     We also consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements (Form S-8 No, 333-47516) pertaining to the ADVO, Inc. Deferred
Compensation Plan, (Form S-8 No. 333-71679) pertaining to the 1998 Incentive
Compensation Plan, (Form S-8 No. 333-81365) pertaining to the MailCoups, Inc.
401(k) Savings Plan, (Form S-8 No. 333-38237) pertaining to the ADVO, Inc.'s
President's Club Stock Award Plan, (Form S-8 No. 333-11323) pertaining to the
ADVO, Inc. 401(k) Plan and in the related Prospectuses of our report dated
October 16, 2002 with respect to the consolidated financial statements
incorporated herein by reference, and our report included in the preceding
paragraph with respect to the financial statement schedule included in this
Annual Report (Form 10-K) of ADVO.

                                          /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP

Hartford, Connecticut
December 12, 2002
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No
. 21

- 7700

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v.
ARKALGUD LAKSHMINARASIMHA , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Raleigh

. James C. Dever III, District Judge. ( 5:18

- mj

- 01029

- D

- 1 )

Submitted : March 24, 2022 Decided: March 29, 2022

Before MOTZ, WYNN , and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Arkalgud N. Lakshminarasimha , Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Arkalgud N. Lakshminarasimha seeks to appeal the district court’s order d ismissing his civil action for lack of jurisdiction, or, in the alternative, for failure to state a claim

. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely
filed. In civil cases, parties have 30 days after the e ntry of the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). “[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement.” Bowles v. Russell , 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007). The district court entered its order on August 22, 2018. Lakshminarasimha filed the notice of appeal on November 28, 2021. * B ecause Lakshminarasimha failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. We deny Lakshminarasimha’s motions for judicial notice, to consolidate cases, for an emergency show cause hearing, to compel, to stay or vacate prefiling injunction order, for emergency relief, for appropriate relief and remedy, and for emergency review an d to answer. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

* For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date appearing on the notice of appeal is the earliest date Lakshminarasimha could have delivered the notice to prison officials for mailing to the court . Fed. R. App. P. 4(c)(1); Houston v. Lack , 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988).3 adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
**Exhibit 23.1**

Consent of IndependentRegistered Public Accounting Firm

We consent to theincorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-00000)pertaining to the registration of 500,000 shares of the HemaCare Corporation’sCommon Stock pursuant to the 1996 Employee Stock Incentive Plan of HemaCareCorporation of our report dated February 17, 2004, with respect to theconsolidated financial statements of HemaCare Corporation for the period ended December 31,2003 and included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the yearended December 31, 2005.

Los Angeles, CAMarch 16, 2006

----
EXHIBIT 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

I, Richard J. Orlando, state and attest that:

1. I am the President and Chief Executive Officer of Saztec International, Inc.
(the "issuer").

2. Accompanying this certification is the issuer's Annual Report on Form 10-KSB
for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2002, an annual report (the "annual report")
filed by the issuer with the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange
Act"), which contains financial statements.

3. I hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that

            (a) the annual report containing the financial statements fully
      complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange
      Act, and

            (b) the information contained in the annual report fairly presents,
      in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
      operations of the issuer for the periods presented.

Date: October 10, 2002


                                         /s/ Richard J. Orlando
                                         ----------------------
                                         Richard J. Orlando
                                         President and Chief Executive Officer
#### Jack L. MORRIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Joe McGRATH; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 09-17835.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Nov. 16, 2010.*

Filed Nov. 19, 2010.

Jack L. Morris, Crescent City, CA, pro se.

William Chi-Shing Kwong, Dept, of Justice, Office of the Attorney General, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before: TASHIMA, BERZON, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Jack L. Morris appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, alleging deliberate indifference to his medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo summary judgment, *Toguchi v. Chung,*391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir.2004), and for an abuse of discretion the district court’s order denying a motion to compel discovery, *Hallett v. Morgan,*296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir.2002). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment for defendants. *See Toguchi,*391 F.3d at 1060 (“Deliberate indifference is a high legal standard. A showing of medical malpractice or negligence is insufficient to establish a constitutional deprivation under the Eighth Amendment.”); *Estate of Ford v. Ramirez-Palmer,*301 F.3d 1043, 1050 (9th Cir.2002) (“[A] reasonable prison official understanding that he cannot recklessly disregard a substantial risk of serious harm, could know all of the facts yet mistakenly, but reasonably, perceive that the exposure in any given situation was not that high. In these cir*127cumstances, he would be entitled to qualified immunity.”).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Morris’s motions to compel discovery and responses to his subpoenas. *See Hallett,*296 F.3d at 751 (trial court’s broad discretion “will not be disturbed except upon the clearest showing that denial of discovery results in actual and substantial prejudice to the complaining litigant”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by *9th*Cir. R. 36-3.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"Federal Maritime Commission","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov","author_name":"Catie-Megan Moran","author_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/author\/cmoranfmc-gov\/","title":"Revocations – January 26, 2018","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"pwe4AM4ioW\"><a href=\"\/oti\/revocations-january-26-2018\/\">Revocations – January 26, 2018<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"\/oti\/revocations-january-26-2018\/embed\/#?secret=pwe4AM4ioW\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Revocations – January 26, 2018” — Federal Maritime Commission\" data-secret=\"pwe4AM4ioW\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script type=\"text\/javascript\">\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(c,l){\"use strict\";var e=!1,o=!1;if(l.querySelector)if(c.addEventListener)e=!0;if(c.wp=c.wp||{},c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage);else if(c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if(!t);else if(!(t.secret||t.message||t.value));else if(\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret));else{for(var r,s,a,i=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),n=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=0;o<n.length;o++)n[o].style.display=\"none\";for(o=0;o<i.length;o++)if(r=i[o],e.source!==r.contentWindow);else{if(r.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message){if(1e3<(s=parseInt(t.value,10)))s=1e3;else if(~~s<200)s=200;r.height=s}if(\"link\"===t.message)if(s=l.createElement(\"a\"),a=l.createElement(\"a\"),s.href=r.getAttribute(\"src\"),a.href=t.value,a.host===s.host)if(l.activeElement===r)c.top.location.href=t.value}}},e)c.addEventListener(\"message\",c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",t,!1),c.addEventListener(\"load\",t,!1);function t(){if(o);else{o=!0;for(var e,t,r,s=-1!==navigator.appVersion.indexOf(\"MSIE 10\"),a=!!navigator.userAgent.match(\/Trident.*rv:11\\.\/),i=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),n=0;n<i.length;n++){if(!(r=(t=i[n]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\")))r=Math.random().toString(36).substr(2,10),t.src+=\"#?secret=\"+r,t.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",r);if(s||a)(e=t.cloneNode(!0)).removeAttribute(\"security\"),t.parentNode.replaceChild(e,t);t.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:r},\"*\")}}}}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n"}
Exhibit
10.2




AMENDMENT
TO




EMPLOYMENT
AGREEMENT




This
Amendment to Employment Agreement (this “Amendment”), dated November 15, 2009,
is made by and among American Oriental Bioengineering Inc., a Nevada corporation
(the “Company”), and Yanchun Li, residing at Haidian District, Beijing, China
(the “Executive”).  Any capitalized term not defined herein shall have
the meaning for such term specified in the Employment Agreement (as defined
below).




WHEREAS, the Executive and the
Company entered into an Employment Agreement dated April 9, 2008, and effective
as of April 20, 2008 (the “Employment Agreement”);





WHEREAS,  under the
Employment Agreement, the Executive was initially granted an option to
purchase a certain number of shares of common stock (the "Initial Option
Grant"), which number was based upon the Company's internal method for
valuing each share of common stock underlying the stock option at the time
of the grant (the "Per Share Value"), to reach a total annual compensation
value for accounting purposes (the "Total Value") ;





WHEREAS, as the result of an
error in the calculation of the Per Share Value, the number of shares
issuable under the Initial Option Grant was incorrect and should have been lower
although the Total Value remains unchanged and the exercise price remains
unchanged from the date of the Initial Option Grant;





WHEREAS, the Initial
Option Grant should be reduced and the Compensation Committee of the Board of
Directors has ratified, approved and confirmed in all respects, the
reduction in the Initial Option Grant;




NOW THEREFORE,in
consideration of the foregoing and for other consideration, the receipt and
sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto, intending to be
legally bound, hereby agree as follows:




1. Section 7
of the Employment Agreement is hereby amended by deleting “271,543” as the
number of shares of common stock that the Executive can purchase under the stock
options, and replacing it with “98,794.”




2. Except as
specifically amended hereby, the Employment Agreement shall continue in full
force and effect unmodified and the parties hereby reaffirm the
same.




3. This
Amendment shall be construed in accordance with and governed by the laws of the
State of New York, without giving effect to the conflict of laws principles
thereof.




4. This
Amendment may be signed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall be an
original and all of which shall be deemed to be one and the same instrument,
with the same effect as if the signatures thereto and hereto were upon the same
instrument.  A facsimile signature shall be deemed to be an original
signature for purposes of this Amendment.




[Remainder
of page intentionally left blank]










IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the
parties hereto have duly executed this Amendment as of the day and year first
above written.








AMERICAN ORIENTAL
      BIOENGINEERING, INC.By:  /s/ Tony
      LiuName: Tony
      LiuTitle:   Chairman
      and Chief Executive Officer




EXECUTIVE:




/s/ Yanchun
Li


Yanchun
Li
Exhibit 35
                                   ----------


                       COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING LP


                              OFFICERS' CERTIFICATE
                     ANNUAL STATEMENT OF THE MASTER SERVICER


                                   CWMBS, INC.
                     CHL MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH TRUST 2006-10
               MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006-10


      The undersigned  does hereby certify that the undersigned is an officer of
Countrywide  GP, Inc.,  general  partner of Countrywide  Home Loans Servicing LP
(the "Master  Servicer"),  and does hereby further  certify  pursuant to Section
3.16 of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement for the above-captioned  Series (the
"Agreement") that:

(i) A review of the activities of the Master Servicer during the preceding
calendar year and of the performance of the Master Servicer under the Agreement
has been made under my supervision; and

(ii) To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer has
fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects
throughout such calendar year.




/s/ Craig Baingo                              Dated: March 14, 2007
-----------------

Craig Baingo
Executive Vice President, Finance