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

                   CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC FINANCIAL REPORT
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the undersigned officers of AMCOL
International Corporation (the "Company") certifies that the quarterly report on
Form 10-Q of the Company for the three months ended September 30, 2006 fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in that Form 10-Q fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company.

Date: November 9, 2006                              /s/ Lawrence E. Washow
                                                    ----------------------------
                                                    Lawrence E. Washow
                                                    Chief Executive Officer



Date:November 9, 2006                               /s/ Gary L. Castagna
                                                    ----------------------------
                                                    Gary L. Castagna
                                                    Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit
32


Certification
of Periodic Financial Report


Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350





Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the undersigned officers of AMCOL
International Corporation (the “Company”) certifies that the quarterly report on
Form 10-Q/A of the Company for the three months ended June 30, 2008 fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in that Form 10-Q fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company.





Date: 
      March 13, 2009
            /s/
      Lawrence E. WashowLawrence
      E. Washow
              Chief
      Executive OfficerDate: 
      March 13, 2009
            /s/
      Donald W. PearsonDonald
      W. Pearson
              Chief
      Financial Officer
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

WILLIAM DOBBS,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 344 EAL 2022

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 22nd day of March, 2023, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
#### Stephen C. FREEMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SIKORSKY AIRCRAFT CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 04-2986-CV.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Nov. 3, 2005.

Stephen C. Freeman, Bridgeport, CT, for Plaintiff-Appellant, pro se.

Edward J. Dempsey, United Technologies Corporation, Hartford, CT, for Defendant>-Appellee.

Present: WINTER, POOLER, and SOTOMAYOR, Circuit Judges.

*92SUMMARY ORDER

ON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of said District Court be and it hereby is AFFIRMED.

Stephen C. Freeman (“Freeman”) appeals a May 6, 2004 motion to dismiss granted by the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut (Goettel, /). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts, procedural history, and specification of issues on appeal.

We hold that the district court correctly dismissed Freeman’s complaint asserting violations of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. §§ 701*et seq.,*and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101*et seq.,*because Freeman was barred by *res judicata*from asserting the same claims of which the district court had already disposed through summary judgment in a prior action.

The affirmative defense of *res judicata*may be raised in a Rule 12(b)(6) motion “when all of the relevant facts are shown by the court’s own records.” *Day v. Moscow,*955 F.2d 807, 811 (2d Cir.1992). Principles of *res judicata*prohibit the litigation of a claim that has already been decided on the merits. *See Federated Dep’t Stores, Inc. v. Moitie,*452 U.S. 394, 398, 101 S.Ct. 2424, 69 L.Ed.2d 103 (1981). Furthermore, the *res judicata*effect of a prior judgment is not undermined by the fact that the decision may have “rested on a legal principle subsequently overruled in another case.” *Id.*

A review of Freeman’s complaint reveals that he is raising the precise issues, arising from the same events, as his first complaint on which the district court granted summary judgment. Accordingly, the district court did not err by dismissing Freeman’s second complaint as barred by *res judicata.*Additionally, the fact that *Desert Palace v. Costa,*539 U.S. 90, 123 S.Ct. 2148, 156 L.Ed.2d 84 (2003), may have altered the employment-discrimination framework is of no moment because this case was decided after Freeman’s first complaint was dismissed. *See Federated Dep’t Stores,*452 U.S. at 398, 101 S.Ct. 2424. Finally, because dismissal in the instant case was proper, Freeman’s argument that the district court erred by failing to transfer the case to a different judge is moot. *See Faulkner v. Nat’l Geographic Enters., Inc.,*409 F.3d 26, 42 n. 10 (2d Cir.2005).

Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, the judgment of the District Court is hereby AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM (A) THE
SEPTEMBER 30, 1996 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH (B) FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                          15,913
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,195
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                18,454
<PP&E>                                           9,388
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,946
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  25,338
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            3,251
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        36,189
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    25,338
<SALES>                                          4,417
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 4,417
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    3,967
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   204
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 147
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    246
<INCOME-TAX>                                         4
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                242
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       242
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .03
        

</TABLE>
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The Honorable Glen H. Davidson, Senior District Judge for the U.S.

District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi, sitting by designation.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MICHAEL PETER HERRERA,

 Petitioner - Appellant,

 v.

KELLY HARRINGTON, Warden,

 Respondent - Appellee.

No. 08-56837

D.C. No. 2:08-cv-2410-JFW-CT

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

John F. Walter, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted October 13, 2011

Pasadena, California

Before: PREGERSON and BYBEE, Circuit Judges, and DAVIDSON**, Senior

District Judge.**

Petitioner Michael Peter Herrera, a California state prisoner, appeals the

district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253. We affirm.

FILED

OCT 31 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2

Herrera argues that the evidence presented at his state trial was insufficient

to permit the jury to find that the Santa Monica gang’s “primary activities”

involved a crime enumerated in California’s gang enhancement statute. See Cal.

Penal Code § 186.22; People v. Sengpadychith, 27 P.3d 739, 744 (Cal. 2001)

(holding that an enumerated crime is a gang’s “primary” activity when it is one of

the gang’s “‘chief’ or ‘principal’ occupations”). 

In Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 309 (1979), the Supreme Court held

that when the claim is made that a person has been convicted in state court upon

insufficient evidence, the inquiry is whether, “viewing the evidence in the light

most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the

essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Jackson, 443 U.S. at

319. Moreover, because Herrera is a state prisoner challenging his conviction in

federal court, he must also show that the California state court was “objectively

unreasonable” in denying his sufficiency of the evidence claim. Juan H. v. Allen,

408 F.3d 1262, 1275 n.12 (9th Cir. 2005). 

Here, the California state court reasonably applied Jackson because a

rational trier of fact could have found that the Santa Monica gang’s “primary

activities” included at least one of those listed in California Penal Code 

§ 186.22(e). 
3

Next, Herrera argues that the state trial court erred by failing to instruct the

jury on the definition of “primary activities” as found in California’s model jury

instructions. The phrase “primary activities” is sufficiently clear such that an

average juror would understand its meaning. See United States v. Tirouda, 394

F.3d 683, 688–89 (9th Cir. 2005) (“No prejudice results from a district court’s

failure to define a concept ‘within the comprehension of the average juror.’”

(quoting United States v. Dixon, 201 F.3d 1223, 1231 (9th Cir. 2000)). The

California Court of Appeal therefore did not unreasonably apply Supreme Court

precedent in denying Herrera’s challenge to the jury instructions.

AFFIRMED.
================================================================================

EXHIBIT 32.2


                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 CirTran  Corporation on Form 10-QSB
for the period  ending  September  30, 2006,  as filed with the  Securities  and
Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  Richard Ferrone,  Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, 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 result of operations of the Company.

May 21, 2007

                                            /s/ Richard Ferrone
                                            -----------------------
                                            Richard Ferrone
                                            Chief Financial Officer















--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-17-00224-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF L.D.R., A CHILD

From the County Court at Law

Bosque County, Texas

Trial Court No. CV16151

ABATEMENT ORDER

The appellant’s brief is overdue in this appeal. 

We abate this appeal to the trial court to conduct any necessary hearings within 7

days of the date of this Order pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.8(b)(2) 

and (3). TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(b)(2), (3).

The supplemental clerk’s and reporter’s records required by Texas Rule of 

Appellate Procedure 38.8(b)(2) and (3), if any, are ordered to be filed within 14 days of 

the date of this Order. See id.

PER CURIAM

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Scoggins

Appeal abated

Order issued and filed December 27, 2017
Docket No: FAA-2015-0077 Dir ID: 2013-NM-254-AD
PGI 219.811-2 Competitive.       Awards made under the PA cited in DFARS 219.800 shall be prepared in accordance with the procedures in PGI                 219.811-1             .    **Parent topic:** PGI 219.811 Preparing the contracts.
OoT-GSTM9S?-';^^S^ 

> i 

^jfryry^r-T^VN ^ CITY OF LARAMIE 

mmiJ' ' TZ \ CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE (307) 721-5226 

P.O. Box C FAX (307) 721-5211 LARAMIE Laramie, Wyomins 82073 TDD (307) 721-5295 

July 21, 2010 

Mr. Dennis J. DeVany 

Essential Air Service Division 

Office of Aviation Analysis 

U. S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

Washington D.C. 20590 

Dear Mr. DeVany: 

Thank you for your letter concerning the anticipated renewal of the essential air service 

contract with Great Lakes Aviation. I have shared your letter with City Council and especially to 

our liaison to the airport board. 

As we have stated before, in our letter dated to you June 23, 2008, the service that Great Lakes 

is providing has continued to be unsatisfactory due to the lack of consistent service and 

dependability. Laramie is home to the University of Wyoming, WyoTech Vocation College, and 

numerous corporations. All these entitles require reliable air service to conduct business. In 

addition, it becomes even more essential to have quality air service when attracting viable new 

businesses to Laramie. 

Air service is crucial to the Laramie Community. The City of Laramie concurs with the Laramie 

Regional Airport to support the Great Lakes Aviation proposal with the anticipation that the 

airport and Great Lakes will foster strong partnerships that will ultimately improve air service to 

the citizens of Laramie. 

Thank you. 

Janine Jordan 

City Manager 

Cc: Mr. Jack Skinner, Laramie Regional Airport 

Ms. Gaye Stockman, Laramie Economic Development Corporation 

0 \ 

"Improving Our Quality of Life " %iw
§ 1271.50 How do I determine whether a donor is eligible? ( a ) *Determination based on screening and testing.* If you are the establishment responsible for making the donor-eligibility determination, you must determine whether a donor is eligible based upon the results of donor screening in accordance with § 1271.75 and donor testing in accordance with §§ 1271.80 and 1271.85. A responsible person, as defined in § 1271.3(t), must determine and document the eligibility of a cell or tissue donor.
( b ) *Eligible donor.* A donor is eligible under these provisions only if: ( 1 ) Donor screening in accordance with § 1271.75 indicates that the donor: ( i ) Is free from risk factors for, and clinical evidence of, infection due to relevant communicable disease agents and diseases; and
( ii ) Is free from communicable disease risks associated with xenotransplantation; and
( 2 ) The results of donor testing for relevant communicable disease agents in accordance with §§ 1271.80 and 1271.85 are negative or nonreactive, except as provided in § 1271.80(d)(1).
§ 160.180 Egg yolks. ( a ) Egg yolks, liquid egg yolks, yolks, liquid yolks are yolks of eggs of the domestic hen so separated from the whites thereof as to contain not less than 43 percent total egg solids, as determined by the method prescribed in “Official Methods of Analysis of the Association of Official Analytical Chemists,” 13th Ed. (1980), sections 17.006 and 17.007 under “Total Solids, Vacuum Method (3)—Official Final Action,” which is incorporated by reference. Copies may be obtained from the AOAC INTERNATIONAL, 481 North Frederick Ave., suite 500, Gaithersburg, MD 20877, or may be examined at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: *http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html .* They may be mixed, or mixed and strained, and they are pasteurized or otherwise treated to destroy all viable *Salmonella* microorganisms. Pasteurization or such other treatment is deemed to permit the adding of safe and suitable substances (other than chemical preservatives) that are essential to the method of pasteurization or other treatment used. For the purposes of this paragraph, safe and suitable substances are those that perform a useful function in the pasteurization or other treatment to render the egg yolks free of viable *Salmonella* microorganisms, and that are not food additives as defined in section 201(s) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act; or, if they are food additives, they are used in conformity with regulations established pursuant to section 409 of the act.
( b ) *Label declaration.* Each of the ingredients used in the food shall be declared on the label as required by the applicable sections of parts 101 and 130 of this chapter.
[42 FR 14462, Mar. 15, 1977, as amended at 47 FR 11832, Mar. 19, 1982; 49 FR 10102, Mar. 19, 1984; 54 FR 24895, June 12, 1989; 58 FR 2883, Jan. 6, 1993; 63 FR 14035, Mar. 24, 1998]
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1072 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on cases for certain children’s 

products. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 18, 2005 

Mrs. FEINSTEIN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on cases for 

certain children’s products. 

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

3 SECTION 1. CASES FOR CERTAIN CHILDREN’S PRODUCTS. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.01.81 of the Har5 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended 

6 by striking ‘‘12/31/2006’’ and inserting ‘‘12/31/2008’’. 

7 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

8 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 
2 

•S 1072 IS

1 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

2 the date of enactment of this Act. 

Æ
PGI 232.7004 Contract clause instructions.       (b)(1) The clause 252.232-7006, Wide Area WorkFlow Payment Instructions, shall be located in the contract administration section of the contract (*e.g.*, Section G).          (2) Complete paragraph (f)(1)(ii)(A) of the clause, if applicable, by inserting one of the following document types appropriate to the work being performed:          (i) Invoice and Receiving Report.          (ii) Navy Shipbuilding Invoice—Fixed Price.          (iii) Reparables Receiving Report (for repair services).          (iv) Energy Invoice and Energy Receiving Report.          (3) Complete paragraph (f)(1)(ii)(B) of the clause, if applicable, by inserting one of the following document types appropriate to the work being performed:          (i) Invoice and Receiving Report.          (ii) Invoice 2-in-1 (Services only).          (iii) Construction and Facilities Management Invoice.          (iv) Navy Construction/Facilities Management Invoice.          (v) Telecom Invoice (Contractual).          (4) Do not use the Combo selection for a receiving report.          (i) Inspection location: (select either “Source,” “Destination,” or “Other”).          (ii) Acceptance location: (select either “Source,” “Destination,” or “Other”).          (5) Complete paragraph (f)(3) of the clause before contract award. Selection of applicable DoDAACs is dependent on the document type and the entitlement system used by the DoD Component.          (i) To determine applicable DoDAACs, use the guidance for WAWF payment instructions at                 https://piee.eb.mil/.          (ii) If a DoDAAC field is not listed in paragraph (f)(3) Routing Data Table, select “Other DoDAAC(s)” and list the DoDAAC field name(s) as they appear in the WAWF system and applicable DoDAAC(s).          (iii) When multiple “Ship to” and inspection/acceptance locations” (*i.e.* DoDAACs) exist, enter “See schedule.” The corresponding schedule in the contract/order must cite all applicable DoDAACs.          (iv) Validate DoDAACs using the following resources:          (A) For inspector, acceptor and local processing office roles, use                 https://piee.eb.mil/              and click on the “Active DoDAACs & Roles link” in the “Help” section on the home page to validate active DoDAACs and user roles in WAWF.          (B) For all other DoDAACs, use https://www.daas.dla.mil/daasinq/.          (6) Complete paragraph (g) by entering the WAWF point of contact information for the contracting activity, if applicable. List parties to be notified of document submission.    **Parent topic:** PGI 232.70 -ELECTRONIC SUBMISSION AND PROCESSING OF PAYMENT REQUESTS AND RECEIVING REPORTS
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

LINDA GUILLERMINA PEDROZA, 

 

 Appellant,

v.

TENET HEALTHCARE CORP.,

 Appellee.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-16-00221-CV

Appeal from the

County Court at Law No. 5

of El Paso County, Texas 

(TC# 2015CCV01210)

O R D E R

Pending before the Court is the Third Joint Motion to Continue Abatement. The motion 

is GRANTED. We therefore extend the abatement until April 18, 2017. The parties shall file 

their motion to dismiss the appeal or their motion for continuation of abatement on or before 

April 18, 2017.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 2

nd day of March, 2017.

PER CURIAM

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez and Palafox, JJ.