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


                           SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION


     I, Julie Smolyansky, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the
Quarterly Report of Lifeway Foods, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the
three months ended June 30, 2004:

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

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

     This written statement is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission as an exhibit to such Form 10-QSB. 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.


                                      /s/ Julie Smolyansky
Date:   August 16, 2004               ------------------------------------------
                                      Julie Smolyansky, Chief Executive Officer,
                                      Chief Financial and Accounting Officer,
                                      President, Treasurer and Director
#### Willie Lee RICHMOND, Petitioner-Appellant, v. James R. RICKETTS, Director Arizona Department of Corrections; and Donald Wawrzaszek, Superintendent of the Arizona State Prison, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 84-1552.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted April 9, 1984.

Decided April 12, 1984.

Lawrence H. Fleischman, Tucson, Ariz., Timothy K. Ford, Seattle, Wash., for petitioner-appellant.

Jack Roberts, Asst. Atty. Gen., Phoenix, Ariz., for respondents-appellees.

Before ALARCON, POOLE and BOOCHEVER, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

Pursuant to *Rose v. Lundy,*455 U.S. 509, 102 S.Ct. 1198, 71 L.Ed.2d 379 (1982), we affirm the district court’s order dismissing Richmond’s petition for habeas corpus because it contained unexhausted constitutional claims which had not been presented to the Arizona courts. We vacate the district court’s ruling which purported to decide the merits of the petition. *Szeto v. Rushen,*709 F.2d 1340 (9th Cir.1983).

We remand to the district court with instructions to fix a reasonable time within which petitioner may, if so advised, submit an amended petition containing only claims which have been exhausted, or claims as to which petitioner may, upon hearing, show that exhaustion has been satisfied within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b). The district court shall thereupon hear and determine the petition according to law.

*1319Since the date of execution fixed by the State of Arizona has now expired, we terminate the order of this court staying execution heretofore entered January 16, 1984.

AFFIRMED in part, VACATED in part, and cause REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this order.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-10298

OSTAP KAPELIOUJNYI

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

WARDEN K. DIXON, Dalby Correctional Facility; WARDEN L. BOND,

Programs Warden at Dalby; H. Bryan, Security Warden at Dalby; CAPTAIN

E. MATHIS, at Dalby; F. POSTEL, Programs Manager at Dalby; M. CRUISE,

Librarian at Dalby; JOHN AND JANE DOE, known and unknown, As

Employees and in their individual capacities; MANAGEMENT AND

TRAINING CORPORATION, Manages Dalby Correctional Facility and

employs all Defendants named above,

Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC. No. 5:09-CV-100

Before JONES, Chief Judge, BENAVIDES and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

*

Appellant Ostap Kapelioujnyi is a federal prisoner who at one time was

housed at the Giles W. Dalby Correctional Facility (the Dalby Facility) in Post,

Texas. Appellant brought a suit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming his

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

March 15, 2011

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 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.

Case: 10-10298 Document: 00511411101 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/15/2011
No. 10-10298

constitutional rights had been violated at the Dalby Facility. The court below

characterized his claim as a Bivens claim and dismissed his constitutional

1

claims and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law

claims complained of by Appellant.

On appeal, Appellant contends that the district court erred in

characterizing his claim as a Bivens claim, asserting that he has properly stated

a claim under § 1983; or in the alternative, he has made a proper complaint

under Bivens. Whether or not Appellant’s claim is properly viewed as a Bivens

claim or a § 1983 claim, we find no error in the decision of the district court to

dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which Appellant can recover.

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 1

(1971).

2

Case: 10-10298 Document: 00511411101 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/15/2011
Devany, Dennis (OSU 

From: Wom14@aol.com 

Sent: Saturday, February 13. 2010 9:54 AM i'o-t~' ! "Devany, Dennis (OST) 

Subject: (no subject) 

Attachments: _ legislature e-mail.dog_ 

-~ ~::. "': ':~f -"':~:~_~'j , 

Further to the attached, I urge you to support Colgan's EAS bid ... it just makes sense. 

William Morgan 

Morrisonville, NY 

1
Editorial Note on Part 872
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 872 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 872.6510 Oral irrigation unit. ( a ) *Identification.* An oral irrigation unit is an AC-powered device intended to provide a pressurized stream of water to remove food particles from between the teeth and promote good periodontal (gum) condition.
( b ) *Classification.* Class I (general controls). The device is exempt from the premarket notification procedures in subpart E of part 807 of this chapter subject to the limitations in § 872.9.
[55 FR 48439, Nov. 20, 1990, as amended at 59 FR 63009, Dec. 7, 1994; 66 FR 38800, July 25, 2001]
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 23.1

            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-8 (File Nos. 333-53374 and 333-105963) and Form S-3 (File
Nos. 333-106126, 333-117264 and 333-119864) of Evergreen Solar, Inc. of our
report dated March 10, 2005 relating to the financial statements, management's
assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting and
the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, which appears in
this Form 10-K.

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Boston, Massachusetts
March 10, 2005
Editorial Note on Part 872
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 872 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 872.5570 Intraoral devices for snoring and intraoral devices for snoring and obstructive sleep apnea. ( a ) *Identification.* Intraoral devices for snoring and intraoral devices for snoring and obstructive sleep apnea are devices that are worn during sleep to reduce the incidence of snoring and to treat obstructive sleep apnea. The devices are designed to increase the patency of the airway and to decrease air turbulence and airway obstruction. The classification includes palatal lifting devices, tongue retaining devices, and mandibular repositioning devices.
( b ) *Classification.* Class II (special controls). The special control for these devices is the FDA guidance document entitled “Class II Special Controls Guidance Document: Intraoral Devices for Snoring and/or Obstructive Sleep Apnea; Guidance for Industry and FDA.”
[67 FR 68512, Nov. 12, 2002]
- USGS Home
- Contact						   USGS
- Search 
USGS

- mobile menu barsUSGS Publications Warehouse
    Contact
    Explore recent publications 
    by USGS							   Authors
    Browse all of Pubs Warehouse 
    by							   Publication type and year
    FAQS
    Web 
    Service Documentation
    Other 
    Resources
    Descriptions of US 
    Geological Survey Report							   Series
- USGS Publications Warehouse
- Contact
- Explore recent publications 
    by USGS							   Authors
- Browse all of Pubs Warehouse 
    by							   Publication type and year
- FAQS
- Web 
    Service Documentation
- Other 
    Resources
- Descriptions of US 
    Geological Survey Report							   Series

- USGS Publications 
  Warehouse
- Explore					    
  Explore recent publications 
    by USGS							   Authors
    Browse all of Pubs Warehouse 
    by							   Publication type and year
- Explore recent publications 
    by USGS							   Authors
- Browse all of Pubs Warehouse 
    by							   Publication type and year
- Documentation					    
  FAQS
    Web 
    Service Documentation
    Other 
    Resources
    Descriptions of US 
    Geological Survey Report							   Series
- FAQS
- Web 
    Service Documentation
- Other 
    Resources
- Descriptions of US 
    Geological Survey Report							   Series
- Contact

### Areal geology of Alaska

#### Professional Paper 192

Tweet


#### Links

- More information: **National Geologic Map Database Index Page**     
                             (html)
- Document: **Document**                                 
  (25165 pdf)
- Plates:
- **Plate 1**                                 
    (8454 pdf)
- **Plate 2**                                 
    (3096 pdf)
- **Plate 3**                                 
    (3096 pdf)
- **Plate 12**                                 
    (2896 pdf)
- **Plate 14**                                 
    (2952 pdf)
- **Plate Chart**                                 
    (4531 pdf)
- Download citation as:  RIS

#### Abstract

#### Additional publication details

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable 
Document Format (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it 
is recommended that you download the documents to your computer and open them 
with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your browser may not display or 
print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe 
Reader, free of charge. More information about viewing, downloading, and 
printing report files can be found here.

Accessibility
				    FOIA				    Privacy				    Policies and					   
Notices

U.S. Department of the					   Interior |				    
U.S. Geological 
Survey				   URL: http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/pp192 
                    				   Page Contact Information: Pubs 
Warehouse Contact				   Page				   Page Last Modified: February 02, 2012 
00:10:36
Editorial Note on Part 868
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 868 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 868.5270 Breathing system heater. ( a ) *Identification.* A breathing system heater is a device that is intended to warm breathing gases before they enter a patient's airway. The device may include a temperature controller.
( b ) *Classification.* Class II (performance standards).
Editorial Note on Part 870
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 870 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 870.1290 Steerable catheter control system. ( a ) *Identification.* A steerable catheter control system is a device that is connected to the proximal end of a steerable guide wire that controls the motion of the steerable catheter.
( b ) *Classification.* Class II (performance standards).
# C_2014380EN.01002401.xml

| 27.10.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 380/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.10.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 380/24

---

Action brought on 15 September 2014 — Belgium v Commission

(Case T-664/14)

2014/C 380/31

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: C. Pochet and J.-C. Halleux, acting as Agents, and by J. Meyers, avocat)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | annul Article 2(4) of European Commission Decision C(2014) 1021 of 3 July 2014 concerning the guarantee scheme protecting the shares of individual members of financial cooperatives in Case SA.33927; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Article 2(4) of European Commission Decision C(2014) 1021 of 3 July 2014 concerning the guarantee scheme protecting the shares of individual members of financial cooperatives in Case SA.33927;

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant puts forward a single plea in law, alleging an infringement by the Commission of Articles 107 and 108 TFEU and of the principle of proportionality, in that the contested decision would impose on Belgium, in addition to the obligation to recover the aid from the recipient cooperative undertakings, a prohibition on making any payment to natural persons protected by the guarantee.

---
<PAGE>   1
                                1ST AMENDMENT TO
                         EXECUTIVE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

        THIS AGREEMENT is made as of the 18th day of August, 1998, between STEVE
RUSSELL, a Washington resident ("Executive"), and MOSAIX, INC., a Washington
corporation ("Company").
        The parties agree as follows:

1.      AMENDMENT OF PRIOR AGREEMENT.

        This Agreement amends that certain "Executive Employment Agreement"
dated as of October 14, 1996 between Executive and the Company. Except as
expressly provided herein, the terms and conditions of that agreement remain in
effect between the parties, and defined terms therein shall have the same
meaning when used in this Agreement.

2.      SEVERANCE PAYMENTS.

        Section 7 of the Executive Employment Agreement is hereby amended so
that, in the event Executive terminates his employment for Good Reason, or if
the Company terminates employment without cause following a Corporate
Transaction, the Company shall be obligated to pay to Executive his then regular
base salary for a period of eighteen months after the effective date of
termination of employment (as opposed to 6 months, as originally provided). This
amendment will not apply in the event of any termination unrelated to a
Corporate Transaction.

        IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed and entered into this
Agreement as of the date above first written.

        EXECUTIVE:                          COMPANY:

                                            MOSAIX, INC.,
                                            a Washington Corporation


/s/ Steve Russell                           By:  /s/ Wm. Bradford Weller
----------------------------------               -------------------------------
STEVE RUSSELL                                    Wm. Bradford Weller
                                            Its: General Counsel & Assistant
                                                 Secretary
<TABLE> <S> <C>

        <S> <C>
<ARTICLE> 5
<S>                          <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                9-MOS      
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                        DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                             SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                       653,672
<SECURITIES>                                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                              1,161,336
<ALLOWANCES>                                  24,000
<INVENTORY>                                1,755,050
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           3,778,528
<PP&E>                                     6,703,397
<DEPRECIATION>                             3,455,004
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             8,052,625
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      3,015,516
<BONDS>                                      397,443
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              0
<PREFERRED>                                2,334,000
<COMMON>                                         254
<OTHER-SE>                                 2,305,412
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               8,052,625
<SALES>                                    2,650,426
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           2,748,870
<CGS>                                      2,691,328
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              2,691,328
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                           5,161,735
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           180,453
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (5,104,193)
<INCOME-TAX>                              (5,104,193)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (5,104,193)
<DISCONTINUED>                                     0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    0
<CHANGES>                                          0
<NET-INCOME>                              (5,104,193)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (0.23)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.23)
        

</TABLE>
Sanitized Process Maintenance Procedure
#### DUNN MOTORS INCORPORATED *v.*GENERAL MOTORS ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION.

No. 8675.

April 16, 1932.

*745
      *Paul T.*Chance, for plaintiff.

*Clarence L. Powell*and *Harry 8. McCowen,*for defendant.

Hill, J.

(After stating the facts.) The Supreme Court is without jurisdiction to try this ease. The amendment to the constitution of this State provides that “The Supreme Court shall have no original jurisdiction, but shall be a court for the trial and correction of errors of law from the superior courts and the city courts of . .pin all cases that involve the construction of the constitution of the State of Georgia or of the United States, or of treaties between the United States and foreign, governments; in all eases in which the constitutionality of any law of the State of Georgia or of the United States is drawn in question,” etc. Ga. L. 1916, p. 19. The assignments of error in this case are that the court erred in passing the order sustaining the defendant’s demurrers to the petition; and that the court erred in disallowing the amendment last quoted in the statement of facts. This amendment and the demurrer thereto do not involve a construction of the constitution of the State of Georgia, or that of the United States, within the meaning of those instruments. In *American Service Co.*v. Cohen, 172 *Ga.*744 (158 S. E. 599), it was held: “A motion to arrest a judgment against the defendant company in a suit for damages by collision of motor-trucks, on the grounds that the movant was not served with the suit, that no process was issued against it, that it never appeared or waived process or service, and that the judgment was illegal and contrary to thq due-process clauses of the State and Federal constitutions, did not involve a construction of the constitution of the State or that of the United States; nor did it draw in question the constitutionality of any law of the State or of the United States. Jurisdiction of a writ of error on overruling of the motion in arrest is in-the Court of Appeals.” And see, to the same effect, *Norman*v. State, 171 *Ga.*527 *746(156 S. E. 203). The Supreme Court being without jurisdiction of this case, the same is

*Transferred to the Court of Appeals.*

*All the Justices concur.*
Editorial Note on Part 874
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 874 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 874.3950 Transcutaneous air conduction hearing aid system. ( a ) *Identification.* A transcutaneous air conduction hearing aid system is a wearable sound-amplifying device intended to compensate for impaired hearing without occluding the ear canal. The device consists of an air conduction hearing aid attached to a surgically fitted tube system, which is placed through soft tissue between the post auricular region and the outer ear canal. A transcutaneous air conduction hearing aid system is subject to the requirements in § 801.422 of this chapter.
( b ) *Classification.* Class II (special controls). The special control for this device is FDA's guidance document entitled “Class II Special Controls Guidance Document: Transcutaneous Air Conduction Hearing Aid System (TACHAS); Guidance for Industry and FDA.” See § 874.1 for the availability of this guidance document.
[67 FR 67790, Nov. 7, 2002, as amended at 87 FR 50762, Aug. 17, 2022]
EXHIBIT 32.1
                                                                    ------------

                           SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION

            I, Julie Smolyansky, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the
Quarterly Report of Lifeway Foods, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the
three months ended September 30, 2004:

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

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

            This written statement is being furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission as an exhibit to such Form 10-QSB. 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.

Date: November 15, 2004                 LIFEWAY FOODS, INC.


                                        By: /s/ Julie Smolyansky
                                            -----------------------------------
                                            Julie Smolyansky
                                            Chief Executive Officer, Chief
                                            Financial and Accounting Officer,
                                            President, Treasurer and Director
EXHIBIT 11 - CALCULATION OF NET INCOME (LOSS) PER COMMON SHARE


                                 MICROAGE, INC.
                 NET INCOME (LOSS) PER COMMON SHARE CALCULATION
                                 (in thousands)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                      Quarter Ended            39 weeks ended
                                                  ----------------------   ----------------------
                                                   August 1,   August 2,   August 1,    August 2,
                                                    1999         1998        1999         1998
                                                  ---------    ---------   ---------    ---------
<S>                                               <C>          <C>         <C>          <C>
BASIC
  Weighted average common shares                     20,600       19,859      20,475       19,633
                                                  ---------    ---------   ---------    ---------
DILUTED
  Weighted average shares from basic
    calculation                                      20,600       19,859      20,475       19,633

  Dilutive effect of stock options and warrants          --          446          --           --

                                                  ---------    ---------   ---------    ---------
    Weighted average common and common
      equivalent shares outstanding - diluted        20,600       20,305      20,475       19,633
                                                  ---------    ---------   ---------    ---------

NET INCOME  (LOSS)                                $  (3,170)   $      26   $(148,445)   $ (12,047)

Net income (loss) per common and
  common equivalent share:
    Basic                                         $   (0.15)   $    0.00   $   (7.25)   $   (0.61)
                                                  =========    =========   =========    =========
    Diluted                                       $   (0.15)   $    0.00   $   (7.25)   $   (0.61)
                                                  =========    =========   =========    =========
</TABLE>