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



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 Response Genetics, Inc., (the “Company”), does hereby certify, to the best of such officer’s knowledge,
that:



The Annual Report on Form 10-K for the
year ended December 31, 2011 (the “Form 10-K”) as amended by Amendment No. 1 thereto on Form 10-K/A of
the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) and 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
and the information contained in the Form 10-K as amended by Amendment No. 1 thereto on Form 10-K/A fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                     |                                                                                                                                      
|-------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: April 27, 2012 | /s/ Thomas A. Bologna                                                                                                                
|                     | Thomas A. Bologna
        Chief Executive Officer
        (Principal Executive Officer)                                              
|                     |                                                                                                                                      
|Date: April 27, 2012 | /s/ David O’Toole                                                                                                                    
|                     | David O’Toole
        Vice President and Chief Financial
        Officer
        (Principal Financial and Accounting
        Officer)



A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to
the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) or its staff upon request. This certification
“accompanies” the Form 10-K as amended by Amendment No. 1 thereto on Form 10-K/A to which it relates, is not
deemed filed with the SEC and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the Securities Act
of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date of the Form
10-K), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-1132

In re: PHILIP JAY FETNER,

Appellant.

PJF LIMITED (FAMILY) PARTNERSHIP, d/b/a Coachman Farms, d/b/a Golden 

Zebra,

Debtor,

v.

WILMINGTON SAVINGS FUND SOCIETY, FSB, NOT IN ITS INDIVIDUAL 

CAPACITY BUT SOLELY AS TRUSTEE FOR BCAT 2017-19-TT,

Creditor,

THOMAS P. GORMAN,

Trustee - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Alexandria. Anthony John Trenga, Senior District Judge. (1:21-cv-00937-AJT-IDD)

Submitted: November 30, 2023 Decided: March 1, 2024

Before GREGORY, HARRIS, and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1132 Doc: 14 Filed: 03/01/2024 Pg: 1 of 3
2

Philip Jay Fetner, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1132 Doc: 14 Filed: 03/01/2024 Pg: 2 of 3
3

PER CURIAM:

Philip Jay Fetner seeks to appeal the district court’s order referring him to the United 

States Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia for a possible criminal contempt 

prosecution. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291, 

and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292; Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); 

Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). Because the district 

court has not found Fetner to be in contempt, nor has it imposed any other sanction, we 

lack jurisdiction to review the district court’s order. See Adkins v. Christie, 227 F. App’x 

804, 806 (11th Cir. 2007); Teaford v. Ford Motor Co., 338 F.3d 1179, 1181-82 

(10th Cir. 2003); United States v. McCorkle, 321 F.3d 1292, 1298-99 (11th Cir. 2003). 

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts 

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1132 Doc: 14 Filed: 03/01/2024 Pg: 3 of 3
IN THE MISSOURI COURT OF APPEALS

HANDDOWN LIST OF JULY 21 , 2015

WESTERN DISTRICT

THE FOLLOWING CASES WERE AFFIRMED PURSUANT TO RULE 84.16(b)

AND ISSUED PER CURIAM



### ------------------------------------------------------------------

WD77532 Orlando Omar Cruz vs. State of Missouri

WD77849 Joshua M. Edmond vs. State of Missouri

WD77878 Ronald E. Brown vs. State of Missouri

THE FOLLOWING CASES WERE AFFIRMED PURSUANT T O RULE 30.25(b)

AND ISSUED PER CURIAM



### ---------------------------------------------------------------- --

WD77338 State of Missouri vs. Jeffery Clinton Ford
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and 

STATE OF FLORIDA

 ex rel. ROBERT V. SMITH,

 Qui Tam Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 3:20-cv-3678-MCR-ZCB

JAY A. ODOM; OKALOOSA 

COUNTY, BOARD OF COUNTY 

COMMISSIONERS,

 Defendants.

REFERRAL AND ORDER

Referred to Judge M. Casey Rodgers on September 13, 2022

Motion/Pleadings: MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE RESPONSE 

TO AMENDED COMPLAINT

Filed by Defendant, Okaloosa County on September 12, 2022 Doc. # 53

 Stipulated Joint Pleading

 Unopposed X Consented

JESSICA J. LYUBLANOVITS

CLERK OF COURT

/s/ Patricia G. Romero

Deputy Clerk: Patricia G. Romero

On consideration, the motion is GRANTED. The Defendants’ deadline to 

respond to the Amended Complaint is extended to September 28, 2022.

DONE and ORDERED this 14th day of September 2022.

M. Casey Rodgers

M. CASEY RODGERS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:20-cv-03678-MCR-ZCB Document 54 Filed 09/14/22 Page 1 of 1
**EXHIBIT 31.1** **Certification    Pursuant to    Rule 13a-14(a)    of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934**     I, Mark R. Holden, certify that:     1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on    Form 10-Q    of American Commercial Lines Inc.;     2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any    untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material    fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the    circumstances under which such statements were made, not    misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and    other financial information included in this quarterly report,    fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,    results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of,    and for, the periods presented in this report;     4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are    responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls    and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act    Rules 13a-15(e)    and    15d-15(e))    for the registrant and have:     (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or    caused such disclosures controls and procedures to be designed    under our supervision, to ensure that material information    relating to the registrant, including its consolidated    subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those    entities, particularly during the period in which this report is    being prepared;     (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s    disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report    our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure    controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by    this report based on such evaluation; and     (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the    registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that    occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter    (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an    annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably    likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal    control over the financial reporting; and     5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I    have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal    control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s    auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board    of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):     (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in    the design or operation of internal control over financial    reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the    registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and    report financial information; and     (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves    management or other employees who have a significant role in the    registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. /s/  Mark    R. Holden    Mark R. Holden    President and Chief Executive Officer     Date: November 8, 2006
###### Editorial Note on Part 2

#### Editorial Notes:

1. Nomenclature changes to part 2 appear at 83 FR 22178, May 14, 2018.

2. Nomenclature changes to part 2 appear at 83 FR 61310, Nov. 29, 2018

3. Nomenclature changes to part 2 appear at 85 FR 65504, Oct. 15, 2020.

4. Nomenclature changes to part 2 appear at 87 FR 44266, July 26, 2022.

#### § 2.51 Deputy Under Secretary for Food Safety.

Pursuant to § 2.18, and subject to policy guidance and direction by the Under Secretary, the following delegation of authority is made by the Under Secretary for Food Safety to the Deputy Under Secretary for Food Safety, to be exercised only during the absence or unavailability of the Under Secretary: Perform all the duties and exercise all the powers which are now or which may hereafter be delegated to the Under Secretary for Food Safety: Provided, that this authority shall be exercised first by a career Deputy Under Secretary in the order in which he or she has taken office as Deputy Under Secretary, and second by a non-career Deputy Under Secretary in the order in which he or she has taken office as Deputy Under Secretary.

[80 FR 58338, Sept. 29, 2015]
In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 12-827V

Filed: November 14, 2014

Not for Publication

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

DANIEL BOYLE, *

*

Petitioner, * 

 * Damages decision based on stipulation;

v. * influenza (flu) vaccine; brachial plexus

* neuritis

SECRETARY OF HEALTH *

AND HUMAN SERVICES, *

 *

 Respondent. *

*

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

Edward M. Kraus, Chicago, IL, for petitioner.

Heather L. Pearlman, Washington, DC, for respondent.

MILLMAN, Special Master

DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1

On November 14, 2014, the parties filed the attached stipulation in which they agreed to 

settle this case and described the settlement terms. Petitioner alleges that he suffered from 

brachial plexus neuritis that was caused by his receipt of seasonal influenza (“flu”) vaccine on 

December 8, 2009. He further alleges that he experienced the residual effects of this injury for 

more than six months. Respondent denies that the flu vaccine caused petitioner to suffer brachial 

plexus neuritis or any other injury. Nonetheless, the parties agreed to resolve this matter 

informally.

 

1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the special master’s action in this 

case, the special master intends to post this unpublished decision on the United States Court of Federal 

Claims’ website, in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-347, 116 Stat. 2899, 

2913 (Dec. 17, 2002). Vaccine Rule 18(b) states that all decisions of the special masters will be made 

available to the public unless they contain trade secrets or commercial or financial information that is 

privileged and confidential, or medical or similar information whose disclosure would constitute a clearly 

unwarranted invasion of privacy. When such a decision is filed, petitioner has 14 days to identify and 

move to delete such information prior to the document’s disclosure. If the special master, upon review, 

agrees that the identified material fits within the banned categories listed above, the special master shall 

delete such material from public access.
2

The undersigned finds the terms of the stipulation to be reasonable. The court hereby 

adopts the parties’ said stipulation, attached hereto, and awards compensation in the amount and 

on the terms set forth therein. Pursuant to the stipulation, the court awards a lump sum of

$150,000.00, representing compensation for all damages that would be available under 42 U.S.C.

§ 300aa-15(a) (2006). The award shall be in the form of a check for $150,000.00 made payable to

petitioner.

In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, the clerk of the 

court is directed to enter judgment herewith.2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 14, 2014 s/ Laura D. Millman

 Laura D. Millman

 Special Master

 

2

Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment can be expedited by each party, either separately or 

jointly, filing a notice renouncing the right to seek review.
#### SCHMIDT, Appellant, v. JEWETT et al., Respondents.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

June 15, 1906.)

Action by Melinda P. Schmidt, as executrix of Bache McEvers Schmidt, deceased, against Elise M. Jewett and others.

No opinion. Judgment reversed on the ground that the trial court had no right on the pleadings to give final judgment on overruling the demurrer to the defenses, and an interlocutory judgment overruling the demurrer is directed, with costs to the appellant; the same to be settled before Mr. Justice GAYNOB.
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2069 

To amend the Tribally Controlled Colleges and Universities Assistance Act 

of 1978 to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to waive certain 

eligibility requirements. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 21, 2013 

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

Committee on Education and the Workforce 

A BILL 

To amend the Tribally Controlled Colleges and Universities 

Assistance Act of 1978 to authorize the Secretary of 

the Interior to waive certain eligibility requirements. 

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

3 SECTION 1. AMENDMENT TO THE TRIBALLY CONTROLLED 

4 COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES ASSISTANCE 

5 ACT OF 1978. 

6 Section 103 of the Tribally Controlled Colleges and 

7 Universities Assistance Act of 1978 (25 U.S.C. 1804) is 

8 amended— 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2069 IH

1 (1) by striking ‘‘To be eligible’’ and inserting 

2 ‘‘(a) To be eligible’’; and 

3 (2) by adding at the end the following new sub4 sections: 

5 ‘‘(b) The Secretary may waive the eligibility require6 ments set forth in subsection (a) for a period of not more 

7 than 7 years upon request by a tribally controlled college 

8 or university— 

9 ‘‘(1) that has received assistance under this 

10 title for 10 consecutive years; 

11 ‘‘(2) that is located on Indian lands; 

12 ‘‘(3) that is located in a county that has an In13 dian population that did not decrease by more than 

14 one percent during the interval between the two 

15 most recent decennial censuses of population under 

16 section 141 of the title 13, United States Code; and 

17 ‘‘(4) for which the Secretary has determined 

18 that such a waiver will support higher education op19 portunities appropriate to the needs of Indians. 

20 ‘‘(c) The Secretary shall approve or deny an applica21 tion for a waiver under subsection (b) within 30 days of 

22 receipt of such an application or such application shall be 

23 deemed to be approved.’’. 

Æ 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 204 

To authorize the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to 

waive any emission standard or other requirement under section 112 

of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7412) applicable to the control of 

asbestos emissions in the demolition or renovation of a condemned building for which there is a reasonable expectation of structural failure. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 4, 2013 

Mr. OWENS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To authorize the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to waive any emission standard or other 

requirement under section 112 of the Clean Air Act 

(42 U.S.C. 7412) applicable to the control of asbestos 

emissions in the demolition or renovation of a condemned 

building for which there is a reasonable expectation of 

structural failure. 

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 ‘‘Common Sense Waiver 

5 Act of 2013’’. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with 
2 

•HR 204 IH

1 SEC. 2. WAIVER FROM ASBESTOS NESHAP REQUIREMENTS 

2 FOR DEMOLITION OR RENOVATION OF CON3 DEMNED BUILDINGS. 

4 (a) WAIVER.—At the request of a State or local gov5 ernment, the Administrator of the Environmental Protec6 tion Agency (in this section referred to as the ‘‘Adminis7 trator’’) may waive any emission standard or other re8 quirement under section 112 of the Clean Air Act (42 

9 U.S.C. 7412) applicable to the control of asbestos emis10 sions in the demolition or renovation of a building. 

11 (b) STANDARD FOR APPROVAL.—The Administrator 

12 may approve a request for a waiver under subsection (a) 

13 only if the request demonstrates that— 

14 (1) the building has been condemned; and 

15 (2) there is a reasonable expectation of the 

16 building’s structural failure. 

17 (c) TIME PERIOD FOR APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL

18 OF REQUEST FOR WAIVER.—The Administrator shall ap19 prove or disapprove a request for a waiver under sub20 section (a) within 90 days after the date on which the re21 quest is received by the Administrator. If the Adminis22 trator fails to approve or disapprove such a request by 

23 the end of such 90-day period, the request is deemed to 

24 be approved. 

Æ 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 09**  **- 8081** 

ARGENTINE R. HAIRSTON , Petitioner

- Appellant ,
v. RC MATHENE , Respondent

- Appellee
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia , at Roanoke
. Jackson L. Kiser , Senior District Judge. ( 7:09

- cv - 00152

- jlk

- mfu )

Submitted : June 3, 2010 Decided: June 1 8 , 2010

Before MOTZ and KING , Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by un published per cur iam opinion
. Argentine R. Hairston, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Drummond Bagwell, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Argentine R. Hairston seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1) (2006) . 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) (2006)
. 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 denies relief on procedural grounds , the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and co nclude that Hairston 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 presented in the materials befor e the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2086 

To direct the Secretary to make interim payments of disability compensation 

benefits for certain claims for such compensation prior to the adjudication of such claims, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 22, 2013 

Ms. TITUS (for herself, Mr. MCINTYRE, Mr. O’ROURKE, Mr. BARBER, Mr. 

BISHOP of New York, Ms. KUSTER, Mr. LOEBSACK, Ms. BROWNLEY of 

California, Mrs. MCCARTHY of New York, Ms. FRANKEL of Florida, Ms. 

LEE of California, Mr. SEAN PATRICK MALONEY of New York, Mr. 

CICILLINE, Mr. RAHALL, Mr. SWALWELL of California, Mr. MICHAUD, 

Ms. BROWN of Florida, Mr. BEN RAY LUJA ́N of New Mexico, Mr. KILMER, Mr. DELANEY, Mr. WAXMAN, Mr. COSTA, and Ms. SHEA-PORTER) 

introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 

Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To direct the Secretary to make interim payments of disability compensation benefits for certain claims for such 

compensation prior to the adjudication of such claims, 

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 ‘‘Pay As You Rate Act’’. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2086 IH

1 SEC. 2. INTERIM PAYMENTS OF COMPENSATION BENEFITS 

2 UNDER LAWS ADMINISTERED BY THE SEC3 RETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter III of chapter 51 of 

5 title 38, United States Code, is amended by adding at the 

6 end the following new section: 

7 ‘‘§ 5127. Interim payments of compensation benefits 

8 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—In the case of a claim described 

9 in subsection (b), prior to adjudicating the claim, the Sec10 retary shall make interim payments of monetary benefits 

11 to the claimant based on any disability for which the Sec12 retary has made a decision. Upon the adjudication of the 

13 claim, the Secretary shall pay to the claimant any mone14 tary benefits awarded to the claimant for the period of 

15 payment under section 5111 of this title less the amount 

16 of such benefits paid to the claimant under this section. 

17 ‘‘(b) CLAIM DESCRIBED.—A claim described in this 

18 subsection is a claim for disability compensation under 

19 chapter 11 of this title— 

20 ‘‘(1) the adjudication of which requires the Sec21 retary to make decisions with respect to two or more 

22 disabilities; and 

23 ‘‘(2) for which, before completing the adjudica24 tion of the claim, the Secretary makes a decision 

25 with respect to a disability that would result in the 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 2086 IH

1 payment of monetary benefits to the claimant upon 

2 the adjudication of the claim,’’. 

3 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections 

4 at the beginning of such chapter is amended by adding 

5 at the end of the items relating to such subchapter the 

6 following new item: 

‘‘5127. Interim payments of compensation benefits.’’. 

Æ 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with BILLS