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

Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350 as Adopted

Pursuant to § 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, in
connection with the filing of the Form 10-Q/A of STERIS Corporation (the Company) for the quarter ended December 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of the
undersigned officers of the Company certifies, that, to such officers knowledge:



| | (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 as of the dates and for the
periods expressed in the Report.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/    WALTER M ROSEBROUGH,
JR.Name:

Walter M Rosebrough, Jr.Title:

President and Chief Executive Officer/s/    MICHAEL J. TOKICHName:

Michael J. TokichTitle:

Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer


Dated: April 30, 2009
613 P.2d 1288

#### The STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. William GELDEN, Appellant.

No. 2 CA-CR 1942.

Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division 2.

May 15, 1980.

Rehearing Denied June 18, 1980.

Review Denied July 1, 1980.

Robert K. Corbin, Atty. Gen., by Bruce M. Ferg, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tucson, for ap-pellee.

Cary Sandman, Tucson, for appellant.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Appellant pled guilty to burglary of an automobile and assault on a police officer. In exchange for the plea, two other charges were dismissed. He was sentenced to the custody of the Department of Corrections for two years on the burglary conviction and for one-half years on the assault conviction, the sentences to run concurrently. Counsel has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), but has raised no arguable issues. Appellant has not filed a brief in his own behalf.

The record demonstrates compliance with 17 A.R.S., Rules of Criminal Procedure, rule 17. The transcript of the change of plea hearing shows appellant was informed as to the consequences of his plea and a factual basis for it was established.

As the state in its answering brief points out, the sentencing presents the one debatable issue on appeal. The transcript of the sentencing hearing is silent as to any fine or “assessment” levied against appellant while the sentencing minute entry shows that appellant was also sentenced to “pay the sum of $542.20 to the state as reimbursement for the costs of extradition.” Previously, in a similar situation, we gave the greater weight to the minute entry than to a conflicting, silent transcript. See, *State v. Rockerfeller,*9 Ariz.App. 265, 451 P.2d 623 (1969), cert. den. 396 U.S. 920, 90 S.Ct. 247, 24 L.Ed.2d 199. Here, however, the minute entry has no effect since the court was without jurisdiction to order the recovery of the cost of extraditing appellant. Under A.R.S. Sec. 13-801, the court may levy fines as part of a criminal sentence. However, under A.R.S. Sec. 13-3864, the cost of extradition is to be borne by the county in which the offense was committed. We cannot read the sentencing as imposition of a fine. That portion of the sentencing minute entry is therefore vacated. In addition, the sentences are modified to show that appellant was ordered imprisoned, rather than ordered to the custody of the Department of Corrections.

We have reviewed the entire record for fundamental error and have found none. The judgments of conviction are affirmed and the sentences are vacated in part and modified in part.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 _________________________________________

 Clerk

September 24, 2012

s0917

Order 

September 24, 2012

145382

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 145382

COA: 308322

Kent CC: 10-007347-FC;

ISAAC DEMARCO WINSTON, 10-007348-FC

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 29, 2012 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded 

that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
§ 1.1312-2 Double allowance of a deduction or credit. ( a ) Paragraph (2) of section 1312 applies if the determination allows the taxpayer a deduction or credit which was erroneously allowed the same taxpayer for another taxable year or a related taxpayer for the same or another taxable year.
( b ) The application of paragraph (a) of this section may be illustrated by the following examples:
Example 1. A taxpayer in his return for 1950 claimed and was allowed a deduction for destruction of timber by a forest fire. Subsequently, it was discovered that the forest fire occurred in 1951 rather than 1950. After the expiration of the period of limitations for the assessment of a deficiency for 1950, the taxpayer filed a claim for refund for 1951 based upon a deduction for the fire loss in that year. The Commissioner in 1955 allows the claim for refund. An adjustment is authorized with respect to the year 1950.
Example 2. The beneficiary of a testamentary trust in his return for 1949 claimed, and was allowed, a deduction for depreciation of the trust property. The Commissioner asserted a deficiency against the beneficiary for 1949 with respect to a different item and a final decision of the Tax Court of the United States was rendered in 1951, so that the Commissioner was thereafter barred by section 272(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939 from asserting a further deficiency against the beneficiary for 1949. The trustee thereafter filed a timely refund claim contending that, under the terms of the will, the trust, and not the beneficiary, was entitled to the allowance for depreciation. The court in 1955 sustains the refund claim. An adjustment is authorized with respect to the beneficiary's tax for 1949.
[T.D. 6500, 25 FR 12033, Nov. 26, 1960]
#### Samuel T. FREEMAN *v.*Ralph ROBERTS

5495

453 S. W. 2d 21

Opinion delivered April 27, 1970

*L. W. Rosteck,*for appellant.

*Joe Purcell,*Attorney General for appellee.

Conley Byrd, Justice.

Appellant Samuel T. Freeman’s life conviction of the murder of one Dorothy Lee Owens was affirmed by this court *(Freeman*v. *State,*240 Ark. 915, 403 S. W. 2d 61) in 1966.

For reversal of the trial court’s denial of post conviction relief appellant urges that his constitutional rights under the 14th amendment were violated (1) “in that the purported confession was illegally obtained due to his physical and mental state,” and (2) the alleged confession was neither free nor voluntary, and defendant was not advised of his constitutional rights before making or signing same.

Review of the record convinces us that there is no merit in appellant’s contentions. Testimony at the hearing includes a lengthy examination of appellant, *632the three Little Rock police officers to whom the confession was made and the two attorneys who represented appellant at the murder trial.

Briefly, the chronology of December 3, 1964, the date of his arrest is as follows: about 1:00 P.M., appellant delivered himself into the hands of the White County sheriff at Searcy, who telephoned the Little Rock police to come get appellant. Two Little Rock officers went for him about 5:00, and interrogation at Little Rock started somewhere between 7:00 P.M. and 8:00 P.M. and ended before 1:00 A.M. During that tíme a four-page handwritten statement was taken by the officers as appellant talked, (written in part by one officer who got writer’s cramp, and completed by a second officer) and a visit was made by appellant and the officers to the murder scene where appellant reenacted the murder. Appellant does not deny signing the statement, nor signing a comprehensive waiver, also handwritten, on the back page of his statement.

Appellant’s principal complaint is that he was denied food and water. The officers all testified that he didn’t ask for food, and that water and other liquids were available. The gist of appellant’s and the officers’ testimony is that appellant, wanted to get his story told, and, as one officer stated, *“1*never met a more cooperative prisoner under the conditions that he was under than Sam Freeman was.”

We find nothing in the record to indicate that appellant’s confession was anything other than freely and voluntarily given or that he was not fully advised of his constitutional rights, even though this occurred prior to *Miranda*v. *Arizona,*384 U. S. 436, 16 L. ed. 2d 694, 86 S. Ct. 1602, 10 ALR 3rd 974 (1966).

Affirmed.
### U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9



## Public Hearing Information

McElmo Creek Un it Oil Production Facility

Proposed PSD Permit Amendment No. NU 05-01

November 20, 2014

Purpose:

Today, we are holding a public hearing to receive your comments on EPA’s proposed Clean Air Act

Prevention of Significant Deterioration permit amendment for the McElmo Creek Unit Main Flare.

 EPA Region 9 is amending the permit to add pollution limits and other terms and conditions as

required by a federal Consent Decree (United States v. Mobil Exploration and Producing U.S.

Inc.) for the existing Main Flare at the site.

 This action will include Best Available Control Technology limitations and conditions to

minimize flaring.

 Other than the replacement of a fixed speed fan with a variable speed fan to provide better

pollution control at the Main Flare, this permit action does not authorize any new construction

or modification of existing equipment at the site.

Comments:

Today, we are seeking your comments on the proposed permit amendment, including the following:

1. The Best Available Control Technology determination for the Main Flare;

2. The effects, if any, on Class I areas;

3. The effect of the proposed permit amendment, if any, on ambient air quality; and

4. The attainment and maintenance of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards.

Information on Other Actions Related to the McElmo Creek Unit site:

Although not the topic of today’s hearing, below is information to learn more about other actions

related to the McElmo Creek Unit site:

 Title V Operating Permit

Contact: Tennille Begay, Navajo Nation EPA

Phone: 928

‐ 729

‐ 4248

Email: tbbegay@navajo

‐ nsn.gov

 Underground Injection Control Permit and Groundwater Questions

Contact: William E. Freeman, Navajo Nation EPA

Phone: 505

‐ 368

‐ 1041

Email: nnepauic@frontiernet.net
In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 19-1617V

UNPUBLISHED

CHRISTA CARDENAS,

 Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES,

 Respondent.

Chief Special Master Corcoran 

Filed: April 27, 2021

Special Processing Unit (SPU);

Ruling on Entitlement; Concession;

Table Injury; Influenza (Flu) Vaccine;

Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine 

Administration (SIRVA)

Maximillian J. Muller, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for petitioner.

Lara Ann Englund, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1

On October 16, 2019, Christa Cardenas filed a petition for compensation under the 

National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.

2

(the 

“Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleges that she suffered shoulder injuries as a result of an 

influenza vaccine administered on October 31, 2018. Petition at 1. The case was 

assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.

On April 27, 2021, Respondent filed his Rule 4(c) report in which he concedes that 

Petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case. Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report at 1. 

Specifically, Respondent concludes that Petitioner “meets the criteria for a presumed 

[Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine Administration], as defined by the Vaccine Injury 

1 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am required 

to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website in accordance with the E-Government Act 

of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic Government 

Services). This means the ruling will be available to anyone with access to the internet. In accordance 

with Vaccine Rule 18(b), Petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to redact medical or other information, 

the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, I agree that 

the identified material fits within this definition, I will redact such material from public access. 

2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for ease 

of citation, all “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa 

(2012).
2

Table.” Id. at 3. Respondent further agrees that the statutory six-month sequela 

requirement has been satisfied. Id. at 4.

In view of Respondent’s position and the evidence of record, I find that 

Petitioner is entitled to compensation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Brian H. Corcoran

Brian H. Corcoran

Chief Special Master
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0000854858
<NAME>                        Ajay Sports, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1000
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. Dollars
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                     1
<CASH>                                             20
<SECURITIES>                                      500
<RECEIVABLES>                                   2,823
<ALLOWANCES>                                        0
<INVENTORY>                                     5,332
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                9,584
<PP&E>                                          2,879
<DEPRECIATION>                                  1,242
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 13,796
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           2,030
<BONDS>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           2,962
<PREFERRED>                                     1,250
<COMMON>                                           39
<OTHER-SE>                                      3,763
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   13,796
<SALES>                                         4,214
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                6,854
<CGS>                                           3,619
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     857
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                263
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (625)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (625)
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (625)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.18)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.18)
        


</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 43 (Friday, March 5, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 10318]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-4577]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-70,849]


Venta-Airwasher, LLC, Including On-Site Leased Workers From Metro 
Staffing, Snelling and Office Team Itasca, IL; Amended Certification 
Regarding Eligibility To Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance

    In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended 
(``Act''), 19 U.S.C. 2273, the Department of Labor issued a 
Certification of Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance 
on October 22, 2009, applicable to workers of Venta-Airwasher, LLC, 
Itasca, Illinois. The notice was published in the Federal Register on 
December 11, 2009 (74 FR 65795).
    At the request of the State Agency, the Department reviewed the 
certification for workers of the subject firm. The workers provided 
sales and distribution services for humidifiers and dehumidifiers 
produced by the subject firm.
    The company reports that on-site leased workers from Metro 
Staffing, Snelling and Office Team were employed on-site at the Itasca, 
Illinois location of Venta-Airwasher, LLC. The Department has 
determined that these workers were sufficiently under the control of 
the subject firm to be considered leased workers.
    Based on these findings, the Department is amending this 
certification to include workers leased from Metro Staffing, Snelling 
and Office Team working on-site at the Itasca, Illinois location of 
Venta-Airwasher, LLC.
    The amended notice applicable to TA-W-70,849 is hereby issued as 
follows:

``All workers of Venta-Airwasher, LLC, including on-site leased 
workers from Metro Staffing, Snelling and Office Team, Itasca, 
Illinois, who became totally or partially separated from employment 
on or after May 28, 2008, through October 22, 2011, and all workers 
in the group threatened with total or partial separation from 
employment on the date of certification through two years from the 
date of certification, are eligible to apply for adjustment 
assistance under Chapter 2 of Title II of the Trade Act of 1974, as 
amended.''

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 19th day of February 2010.
Michael W. Jaffe,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2010-4577 Filed 3-4-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
|  | · | The Company’s management is responsible for assessing the Company’s compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria. |
|--|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|  | · | The Company’s management has assessed compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria.  In making this assessment, management used the criteria set forth by the Securities and Exchange Commission in paragraph (d) of Item 1122 of Regulation AB. |
|--|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|  | · | Based on such assessment, the Company has complied, in all material respects with the Applicable Servicing Criteria. |
|--|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

----

|   | DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY |
|--------|--------------------------------------|
|   |                                 |   |
|   | By:                                  | /s/ David Co                                                 |
|   |                                 | Name:  David Co |
|   |                                 | Its:  Director |
|   |                                 |   |
|   | By:                                  | /s/ Matt Bowen                                              |
|   |                                 | Name:  Matt Bowen |
|   |                                 | Its:  Managing Director |
|   |                                 |   |
|   | By:                                  | /s/ Kevin Fischer                                           |
|   |                                 | Name:  Kevin Fischer |
|   |                                 | Its:  Director |
|   | DEUTSCHE BANK TRUST COMPANY AMERICAS |
|--------|--------------------------------------|
|   |                                 |   |
|   | By:                                  | /s/ David Co                                                 |
|   |                                 | Name:  David Co |
|   |                                 | Its:  Director |
|   |                                 |   |
|   | By:                                  | /s/ Jenna Kaufman                                       |
|   |                                 | Name:  Jenna Kaufman |
|   |                                 | Its:  Director |
High Production Volume Information System (HPVIS) | High Production Volume (HPV) Challenge | OPPT | US EPA

http://iaspub.epa.gov/hpvis/ServSubmissionPrint[6/15/2011 10:56:37 AM]

You are here: EPA Home Prevention, Pesticides & Toxic Substances Pollution Prevention & Toxics High

Production Volume (HPV) Challenge High Production Volume Information System (HPVIS) Submission Report

High Production Volume Information

System (HPVIS)

Contact Us Search: All EPA This Area

Submission Report

Submission Information

Submission ID :

25419495

Submission Name : 68131135 - Naphthenic acids, reaction products with

diethylenetriamine

AR Number : 

Chemical Information

CAS Number : 68131-

13-5

Ninth Collective Index Name : Naphthenic acids, reaction products with

diethylenetriamine

Submitter Information

Submitter's Name : Orphan

Address : 

City : 

State : VA

ZIP/Postal Code: 

Country: 

Type of Submitter : Company

Technical Point of Contact Information

Technical Point of Contact : 

Title : 

Phone Number : 

Fax Number : 

E-Mail Address : 

Additional Technical Point of Contact Information

Technical Point of Contact : 

Title : 

Phone Number : 

Fax Number : 

E-Mail Address : 

Sponsor Information

Sponsor's Name : Orphan Chemical

Address : 

City : 

State : VA

ZIP/Postal Code : 

Country : US

Phone Number : 

Share
High Production Volume Information System (HPVIS) | High Production Volume (HPV) Challenge | OPPT | US EPA

http://iaspub.epa.gov/hpvis/ServSubmissionPrint[6/15/2011 10:56:37 AM]

EPA Home Privacy and Security Notice Contact Us

http://iaspub.epa.gov/hpvis/ServSubmissionPrint

Print As-Is

Last updated on Wednesday, June 15, 2011

Fax Number : 

E-Mail Address : 

Type of Sponsor : Company

Technical Point of Contact Information

Technical Point of Contact : 

Title : 

Phone Number : 

Fax Number : 

E-Mail Address :
1

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________

NO. 09-20-00183-CV

__________________

IN THE INTEREST OF J.E.S.

__________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 418th District Court

Montgomery County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 16-05-05567-CV

__________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, N.P.S., moved to dismiss her appeal of an order the trial court 

signed in the suit she filed seeking to modify the provision in a decree of divorce 

governing her parent-child relationship with J.E.S. She filed her motion voluntarily 

before the Court decided the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(1). 

We grant the motion and dismiss the appeal.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

PER CURIAM

Submitted on October 21, 2020

Opinion Delivered October 22, 2020

Before McKeithen, C.J., Horton and Johnson, JJ.