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

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to the requirement set forth in Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, (the Exchange Act) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United
States Code (18 U.S.C. §1350), William M. Greenman, the Chief Executive Officer of Cerus Corporation (the Company) and Kevin D. Green, the Chief Accounting Officer of the Company, hereby certify that, to the best of their knowledge:

1. The Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2011, and to which this
Certification is attached as Exhibit 32.1 (the Periodic Report), fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or section 15(d) of the Exchange Act, and

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

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have set their hands hereto as of the 5th day of August,
2011.



/s/ William M. GreenmanWilliam M. GreenmanChief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)/s/ Kevin D. GreenKevin D. GreenVice President, Finance and Chief Accounting Officer (Principal Financial Officer)
### §§2950, 2951. Repealed. Pub. L. 97–35, title VI, §683(a), Aug. 13, 1981, 95 Stat. 519

Section 2950, Pub. L. 88–452, title VI, §609, formerly §610, as added Pub. L. 89–253, §28, Oct. 9, 1965, 79 Stat. 978; amended Pub. L. 89–794, title VI, §601(b), Nov. 8, 1966, 80 Stat. 1468; Pub. L. 90–222, title I, §108(g), Dec. 23, 1967, 81 Stat. 716; renumbered §609 and amended Pub. L. 95–568, §§13(e), 17(a)(29), Nov. 2, 1978, 92 Stat. 2436, 2442, related to programs for the elderly poor.

Section 2951, Pub. L. 88–452, title VI, §610, formerly §610–1, as added Pub. L. 89–794, title VI, §606, Nov. 8, 1966, 80 Stat. 1470; amended Pub. L. 90–222, title I, §108(h), Dec. 23, 1967, 81 Stat. 716; Pub. L. 93–608, §1(23), Jan. 2, 1975, 88 Stat. 1970; Pub. L. 94–341, §2(a)(35), July 6, 1976, 90 Stat. 805; renumbered §610 and amended Pub. L. 95–568, §§13(e), (f), 17(a)(30), Nov. 2, 1978, 92 Stat. 2436, 2442, set forth provisions respecting wage comparability, minimum wages, salary relationship to previous earnings, and adjustments.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Repeal effective Oct. 1, 1981, see section 9912(a) of this title, prior to the general amendment of chapter 106 (§9901 et seq.) of this title by Pub. L. 105–285.
#### Rhonda D. Venson, as Administratrix of the Estate of Sharon Davis, Deceased, Appellant, v Greta Daun et al., Respondents.

[717 NYS2d 6]

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Karla Moskowitz, J.), entered on or about September 30, 1999, which granted the motion of defendants Greta Daun, M.D., and New York Medical College for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as time-barred, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion denied, and the complaint reinstated.

Contrary to the conclusion reached by Supreme Court, the “ ‘continuing trust and confidence’ ” that underlies the continuous treatment doctrine *(Richardson v Orentreich,*64 NY2d 896, 898) did not end on October 12, 1989, when defendant, Dr. Daun, referred decedent to a radiologist for a mammogram (CPLR 214-a; *see, Irizarry v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp.,*268 AD2d 321; *Keith v Schulman,*265 AD2d 380; *Adams v Frankel,*242 AD2d 595). In this regard, it is evident that the radiologist’s report was to be disclosed to defendant Dr. Daun so that she could review it, evaluate the findings, *54and recommend a course of treatment. This she in fact did on January 29, 1990 when she contacted the decedent, discussed the results of the report with her, and advised her to pick up the mammogram films, as well as a referral form, so that she could be seen by a surgeon *(id.; compare, Young v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp.,*91 NY2d 291).

Accordingly, since plaintiff demonstrated that decedent was continuously treated for her breast condition between October 12, 1989 and January 29, 1990, and the complaint was served within 2V2 years of the last date of treatment, summary judgment was improperly granted. In view of this, we find it unnecessary to reach plaintiffs alternate argument that a 60-day extension to serve the complaint was authorized by CPLR 203 (b) (5) (i). Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Tom, Andrias, Buckley and Friedman, JJ.
#### § 1423.8 Amendment of charges.

Prior to the issuance of a complaint, the charging party may amend the charge in accordance with the requirements set forth in § 1423.6.
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Henry B. Rothblatt, on Behalf of David Thomas against Anna M. Kross, as Commissioner of Correction of the City of New York.

Motion to dismiss appeal from order entered January 18, 1960 granted. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Rabin, Valente and McNally, JJ.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 22-0386

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

RYAN MITCHELL TUFF,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, 

and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including January 6, 2023, within which to prepare, file, 

and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

November 28 2022

11/28/2022

Case Number: DA 22-0386
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFRPart 52 [EPA-R06-0AR-2006-0990; FRL - ] 

### Approval and Promulgation ofAir Quality Implementation Plans; New Mexico; Revisions to New Mexico Transportation Conformity Regulations AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 

### ACTION: Proposed rule. 

### SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve revisions to the New Mexico State Implementation Plan (SIP) concerning the state transportation confomiity rules. The planrevisions are intended to ensure consistency with amendments to the federal Transportation Conformity Rule. These plan revisions meet statutory and regulatory requirements, and are consistentwith EPA's guidance. 

### DATES: Written comments should be received on or before 

### [Insert date 30 

### days from date ofpublication in the Federal Register]. ADDRESSES: Please see the related direct final rule, which is located in the "Rules and Regulations" section ofthis 

### Federal Register, for detailed instructions on how to submit comments.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeffrey Riley, Air Planning Section (6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733, telephone 214-665-8542; fax number 214- 665-7263; e-mail address 

### rileyjejfrey@epa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This document proposes to take action on SIP revisions pertaining to the state ofNew Mexico. We have published a direct final rule approving the State's SIP revisions in the "Rules and Regulations" section ofthis Federal Register because we view this as a noncontroversial action and anticipate no adverse comment. We have explained our reasons for this action in the preambleto the direct final rule. Ifwe receive no adverse comment, we will not take further action on this proposedrule. Ifwe receive adverse comment, we will withdraw the direct final rule and it will not take effect. We would address all public comments in any subsequent final rule based upon this proposedrule. 2Lawrence E. 

### Starfield, We do not intend to institute a second commentperiod on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time. For further information, please see the informationprovidedin the ADDRESSES section ofthis document.

Acting Regional**Administrato~** Region 

### 6. 3
Uni

ted 

Stat

es D

istr

ict C

ourt

For t

he N

orth

ern 

Dis

trict

 of C

alifo

rnia

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Uni

ted 

Stat

es D

istr

ict C

ourt

For t

he N

orth

ern 

Dis

trict

 of C

alifo

rnia

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROGELIO MIRANDA,

Petitioner,

v.

DERRAL ADAMS, Warden,

Respondent.                                                          /

No. C 08-2356 MHP (PR)

JUDGMENT 

The petition for writ of habeas corpus is denied on the merits.  Judgment is hereby

entered in favor of Respondent.

IT IS SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED.

DATED:   2/24/2010                                                 MARILYN HALL PATELUnited States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-02356-MHP   Document 10   Filed 02/25/10   Page 1 of 1

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2018-03-09T22:00:29-0500
      - US GPO, Washington, DC 20401
      - Superintendent of Documents
      - GPO attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by GPO
### §280e–1. Planning grants regarding registries

#### (a) In general

#### (1) States

The Secretary, acting through the Director of the Centers for Disease Control, may make grants to States for the purpose of developing plans that meet the assurances required by the Secretary under section 280e(c)(2) of this title.

#### (2) Other entities

For the purpose described in paragraph (1), the Secretary may make grants to public entities other than States and to nonprofit private entities. Such a grant may be made to an entity only if the State in which the purpose is to be carried out has certified that the State approves the entity as qualified to carry out the purpose.

#### (b) Application

The Secretary may make a grant under subsection (a) only if an application for the grant is submitted to the Secretary, the application contains the certification required in subsection (a)(2) (if the application is for a grant under such subsection), and the application is in such form, is made in such manner, and contains such agreements, assurances, and information as the Secretary determines to be necessary to carry out this section.

(July 1, 1944, ch. 373, title III, §399C, formerly §399I, as added Pub. L. 102–515, §3, Oct. 24, 1992, 106 Stat. 3375; renumbered §399C, Pub. L. 106–310, div. A, title V, §502(2)(A), Oct. 17, 2000, 114 Stat. 1115.)

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Change of Name

Centers for Disease Control changed to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention by Pub. L. 102–531, title III, §312, Oct. 27, 1992, 106 Stat. 3504.
#### § 234.6 Transferability of Guarantee; Note Register.

A Noteholder may assign, transfer or pledge an Eligible Note to any Person. Any such assignment, transfer or pledge shall be effective on the date that the name of the new Noteholder is entered on the Note Register. USAID shall be entitled to treat the Persons in whose names the Eligible Notes are registered as the owners thereof for all purposes of this Guarantee and USAID shall not be affected by notice to the contrary.
<PAGE>
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 Texas Petrochemicals LP (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter period ending September 30, 2002, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), the undersigned, in the capacity and on the date indicated below,
hereby certifies 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.


November 14, 2002                         /s/ B.W. Waycaster
                                          -------------------------------------
                                          B. W. Waycaster
                                          President and Chief Executive Officer
#### § 23.604 [Reserved]
ORDER GRANTING MISCELLANEOUS ADMINISTRATIVE 

REQUEST REGARDING PRESENTATION EQUIPMENT FOR 

MARCH 5, 2010 PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION HEARING 

CASE NO. 08-0484 JSW

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

HOWREY LLP 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

Center for Food Safety, et al., 

 Plaintiffs, 

 v. 

Thomas J. Vilsack, et al., 

 Defendants. 

CASE NO. C-08-0484 JSW 

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING 

MISCELLANEOUS ADMINISTRATIVE 

REQUEST REGARDING 

PRESENTATION EQUIPMENT FOR 

MARCH 5, 2010 PRELIMINARY 

INJUNCTION HEARING 

Case3:08-cv-00484-JSW Document294-2 Filed02/26/10 Page1 of 2 Case 3:08-cv-00484-JSW Document 301 Filed 03/01/10 Page 1 of 2
 

1

ORDER GRANTING MISCELLANEOUS ADMINISTRATIVE 

REQUEST REGARDING PRESENTATION EQUIPMENT FOR 

MARCH 5, 2010 PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION HEARING 

CASE NO. 08-0484 JSW 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

HOWREY LLP 

[PROPOSED] ORDER

 PURSUANT TO DEFENDANT-INTERVENORS’ REQUEST, the Court hereby 

authorizes Defendant-Intervenors to procure and use in the courtroom the electronic equipment 

identified in the Miscellaneous Administrative Request Regarding Presentation Equipment, for 

the hearing scheduled to take place on March 5, 2010. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: 

THE HONORABLE JEFFREY S. WHITE 

Case3:08-cv-00484-JSW Document294-2 Filed02/26/10 Page2 of 2

However, this Order is not an authorization 

to present evidence in opposition to the motion for preliminary injunction that has not already been 

submitted. If Defendant-Intervenors seek to submit additional evidence at the hearing, they will 

need to make a showing of good cause. March 1, 2010

Case 3:08-cv-00484-JSW Document 301 Filed 03/01/10 Page 2 of 2
### §300gg–27. Required coverage for reconstructive surgery following mastectomies

The provisions of section 1185b of title 29 shall apply to group health plans, and and 1 health insurance issuers offering group or individual health insurance coverage, as if included in this subpart.

(July 1, 1944, ch. 373, title XXVII, §2727, formerly §2706, as added Pub. L. 105–277, div. A, §101(f) [title IX, §903(a)], Oct. 21, 1998, 112 Stat. 2681–337, 2681–438; renumbered §2727 and amended Pub. L. 111–148, title I, §§1001(2), 1563(c)(5), formerly §1562(c)(5), title X, §10107(b)(1), Mar. 23, 2010, 124 Stat. 130, 266, 911.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was formerly classified to section 300gg–6 of this title prior to renumbering by Pub. L. 111–148.

#### Amendments

2010—Pub. L. 111–148, §1563(c)(5), formerly §1562(c)(5), as renumbered by Pub. L. 111–148, §10107(b)(1), substituted "and health insurance issuers offering group or individual health insurance coverage" for "health insurance issuers providing health insurance coverage in connection with group health plans".

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date

Pub. L. 105–277, div. A, §101(f) [title IX, §903(c)(1)], Oct. 21, 1998, 112 Stat. 2681–337, 2681–438, provided that:

"(A) In general.—The amendment made by subsection (a) [enacting this section] shall apply to group health plans for plan years beginning on or after the date of enactment of this Act [Oct. 21, 1998].

"(B) Special rule for collective bargaining agreements.—In the case of a group health plan maintained pursuant to 1 or more collective bargaining agreements between employee representatives and 1 or more employers, any plan amendment made pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement relating to the plan which amends the plan solely to conform to any requirement added by the amendment made by subsection (a) shall not be treated as a termination of such collective bargaining agreement."

1 So in original.
#### A. J. Brown et al., appellants, v. H. L. Fouts, county treasurer, et al., appellees.

Suit to restrain defendants from collecting or attempting to collect taxes for a community high school and for a finding that said tax is illegal. Decree for defendants. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Pulton county; the Hon. George C. Hillyer, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1922. Cause transferred to Supreme Court.

Opinion filed October 25, 1922.

M. P. Rice and Marvin T. Robison, for appellants. Atherton & Ratcliff, for appellees.

Mr. Justice Heard

delivered the opinion of the court.
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IN RE 

CHARLES SCHWAB CORPORATION 

SECURITIES LITIGATION.

 /

This Document Relates To All Cases.

 /

No. C 08-01510 WHA

ORDER CONFIRMING

FEBRUARY 24 HEARING

Counsel for all parties having confirmed their availability, a hearing shall be held on

Wednesday, February 24, 2010, at 1:30 p.m. to assist the Court in its review of the ten

“privileged” documents.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 23, 2010. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:08-cv-01510-WHA Document 425 Filed 02/23/10 Page 1 of 1
**EXHIBIT 31.1****CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**I, Vincent F. Sollitto Jr., certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Syntax-Brillian Corporation; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations, and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have: a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensurethat material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;  b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness ofthe disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and  c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recentfiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annualreport) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect,the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunction): a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likelyto adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and  b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.Date: November 9, 2006              /s/ Vincent F. Sollitto Jr.   Vincent F. Sollitto Jr.   Chief Executive Officer
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 27 (Tuesday, February 10, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 6322]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-2781]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[OR-090-5882-PH-EE01; HAG 04-0081]


Notice of Meeting

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Meeting notice for the Engene District, Bureau of Land 
Management (BLM) Resources Advisory Committees under Section 205 of the 
Secure Rural Schools and Community Self Determination Act of 2000 (Pub. 
106-393).

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

SUMMARY: This notice is published in accordance with Section 10(a)(2) 
of the Federal Advisory Committee Act. Meeting notice is hereby given 
for the Eugene District BLM Resources Advisory Committee pursuant to 
Section 205 of the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self 
Determination Act of 2000, Public Law 106-393 (the Act). Topics to be 
discussed by the BLM Resource Advisory Committee include selection of a 
chairperson, public forum and proposed projects for funding in ``Round 
4, FY 05'' under Title II of the Act.

DATES: The BLM Resource Advisory Committees will meet on the following 
dates: The Eugene Resource Advisory Committee will meet at the BLM 
Eugene District Office, 2890 Chad Drive, Eugene, Oregon 97440, 9 a.m. 
to 4:30 p.m. on May 20, 2004 and 9 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., on June 10, 2004. 
The public forum will be held from 12:30-1 pm on both days.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to the Act, five Resource Advisory 
Committees have been formed for western Oregon BLM districts that 
contain Oregon & California (U&C) Grant Lands and Coos Bay Wagon Road 
lands. The Act establishes a six year payment schedule to local 
counties in lieu of funds derived from the harvest of timber on Federal 
lands, which have dropped dramatically over the past 10 years.
    The Act creates a new mechanism for local community collaboration 
with Federal land management activities in the selection of projects to 
be conducted on federal lands or that will benefit resources on federal 
lands using funds under Title II of the Act. The BLM Resource Advisory 
Committees consist of 15 local citizens (plus 6 alternates) 
representing a wide array of interests.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Additional information concerning the 
BLM Resource Advisory Committees may be obtained from Wayne Elliott, 
Designated Federal Official, Eugene District Office, P.O. Box 10226, 
Eugene, Oregon 97440, (541) 683-6600, or <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#7e091f07101b211b121217110a0a3e110c501c121350191108"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="bccbddc5d2d9e3d9d0d0d5d3c8c8fcd3ce92ded0d192dbd3ca">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Dated: February 3, 2004.
Julia Dougan,
Eugene District Manager.
[FR Doc. 04-2781 Filed 2-9-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-33-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>