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

CHIRON CORPORATIONSECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION

In
connection with the periodic report ofCHIRON CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation(the "Company"), on Form 10-K for the period
ended December 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I,HOWARD H. PIEN, Chief Executive Officerof the
Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, that to the best of my knowledge:



This
Certification has not been, and shall not be deemed, "filed" with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

|Date: March 3, 2004 |  | By: | /s/ HOWARD H. PIENHOWARD H. PIEN
President and Chief Executive Officer
|------------------- |  | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------

---

QuickLinks
#### Olga Schwartz, Respondent, *v.*Simon Schendel, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term,

October, 1898.)

Municipal Court of Hew York city — A judgment by default is appeal-able to the Appellate Term.

An appeal lies to the Appellate Term from a judgment of the Municipal Court of the city of New York, which has been entered by default.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Municipal Court of the city of Hew York/ borough of Manhattan, second district, rendered by the court in favor of the plaintiff, by default.

Action to recover damages claimed to have been caused by an overflow of water from the premises of the defendant.

The material facts are stated in the opinion.

Benno Loewy, for appellant.

Abraham B. Schleimer, for respondent.

Giegerich, J.

It is maintained that no appeal lies to this Appellate Term from a judgment of the Municipal Court of the city of Hew York, entered by default; but in Hurry v. Coffin, 11 Daly, 180; and again in Spiero v. Metropolitan Street Railway Co., 14 Misc. Rep. 21, it was expressly held by the General Term of the Court of Common Pleas, that an appeal may be taken.

The justice fixed the value of the goods claimed to have been injured by the overflow at $200. The return, however, fails to disclose any competent evidence on which to rest such determination.

The only testimony touching the nature and extent of the damage, claimed to have been sustained by the defendant’s negligence, was given by the husband of the plaintiff, who testified: “ Q. Did the water coming from the defendant’s premises do any damage to any of the goods belonging to the plaintiff in this action? A. Yes, sir; quite considerable. Q. What was the value of the goods damaged? A. I have given the value of the goods at a rough estimate, $200, but they were worth, that is the market price of the goods was more than that and it costs us more *734than that. Q. Was that the price it would cost to replace the goods on the day in question? A. Yes, sir.”

As to the nature and quantity of the goods; the extent of the injury thereto, if any; and the kind of business the plaintiff was engaged in, and her husband’s connection therewith, if any, were not shown, the former was entitled, at most, to nominal damages only for the alleged overflow. Connoss v. Meir, 2 E. D. Smith, 314; Whitmark v. Lorton, 15 Daly, 548.

There were other grounds urged for a reversal of the judgment, but, in view of the conclusion above reached, it will not be necessary to consider them. The judgment should, therefore, be reversed and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event.

Beekman, P. J., and Gildersleeve, J., concur.

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide event.
§ 403.746 Condition of participation: Utilization review. The RNHCI must have in effect a written utilization review plan to assess the necessity of services furnished. The plan must provide that records be maintained of all meetings, decisions, and actions by the utilization review committee. ( a ) *Standard: Utilization review plan.* The utilization review plan must contain written procedures for evaluating the following: ( 1 ) Admissions.
( 2 ) Duration of care.
( 3 ) Continuing care of an extended duration.
( 4 ) Items and services furnished.
( b ) *Standard: Utilization review committee.* The committee is responsible for evaluating each admission and ensuring that the admission is necessary and appropriate. The utilization review plan must be carried out by the utilization review committee, consisting of the governing body, administrator or other individual responsible for the overall administration of the RNHCI, the supervisor of nursing staff, and other staff as appropriate.
( c ) *Standard: Utilization review committee role in RNHCI home services.* In addition to the requirements in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, the utilization review committee is responsible for: ( 1 ) The admission, and at least every 30 days, the continued care review of each patient in the RHNCI home services program.
( 2 ) Oversight and monitoring of the home services program, including the purchase and utilization of designated durable medical equipment items for beneficiaries in the program.
[64 FR 67047, Nov. 30, 1999, as amended at 69 FR 66419, Nov. 15, 2004]
#### SOUTH AMERICAN TRADING CORPORATION, a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. Nasib RASSI, Appellee.

Nos. 74-334, 74-425.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

July 2, 1974.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
# C_2006040EN.01001001.xml

| 17.2.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 40/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.2.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 40/10

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.3865 — Trinecke/VVT)

(2006/C 40/07)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 21 September 2005, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition website (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition website (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32005M3865. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex) |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32005M3865. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex)

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF SOMANETICS CORPORATION AS OF, AND FOR THE FISCAL
YEAR ENDED, NOVEMBER 30, 1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND ACCOMPANYING NOTES TO FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          NOV-30-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-30-1996
<CASH>                                       3,291,911
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  237,436
<ALLOWANCES>                                    46,000
<INVENTORY>                                    931,135
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             4,479,917
<PP&E>                                         839,870
<DEPRECIATION>                                 743,775
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,671,741
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          618,142
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       228,537
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,825,062
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,671,741
<SALES>                                        778,200
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               778,200
<CGS>                                          385,136
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  385,136
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             3,785,293
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 449
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (3,303,703)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (3,303,703)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (3,303,703)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.18)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.18)
        

</TABLE>
Zimbra Page 1 of2 

Zimbra rmaguire@norwoodma.gov 

Fwd: Norwood Airport, Request for Release of Surplus Property for NonAeronautical Use 

From :Russ Maguire <rmaguire@norwoodma.gov> 

Subject: Fwd: Norwood Airport, Request for Release of 

Surplus Property for Non-Aeronautical Use 

To :mary walsh <mary.walsh@faa.gov> 

Bee :Thomas Joseph Wynne 

<tomwynnere@norwoodlight.com>, Mark Ryan 

< mryan@norwoodma.gov> 

Good morning Mary, 

Fri, Jun 14, 2013 09:58AM 

Since I plan to meet with you at 11 a . m. this morning on an 

unrelated matter (Brox paving) , I also wanted to forward to your 

attention an e - mail message sent one month ago to Barry Hammer . 

My understanding is that Barry no longer works in compliance , 

though I had hoped to hear back from him--as noted in the 

forwarded message , below--before his move . To date , I ' ve not 

received anything from FAA on this surplus property release 

request , other than Barry ' s assurances by phone that the town of 

Norwood did not need a release . 

When we meet today , I ' ll bring my copy of the request for 

release of surplus property packet that had originally been sent 

to Barry back in March 2012 . As noted in the e - mail below , my 

hope is that FAA will provide us with a written record of 

decision on this matter as soon as possible . Thanks very much . 

See you soon . 

Russ 

----- Forwarded Message --- --

From : "Russ Maguire " <rmaguire@norwoodma . gov> 

To : "barry hammer " <barry . hammer@faa.gov> 

Sent : Wednesday , May 15 , 2013 2 : 30 : 22 PM 

Subject : Norwood Airport , Request for Release of Surplus 

Property for Non - Aeronautical Use 

Good afternoon Barry , 

In March 2012 , on behalf of the Norwood Airport Commission , I 

had submitted a formal request for release of surplus airport 

property for non - aeronautical land use . This was relative to a 

small tract of land separated from the airport proper by 

wetlands, fencing and private interests. Since then, we ' ve had 

https://ncs.norwoodma.gov /h/printmessage?id=24040&tz= America!N ew _York 4/26/2015 
Zimbra Page 2 of2 

several phone conversations regarding this request , the most 

recent being a few weeks ago . Apparently , FAA considered this 

request last year but deemed that it did not require a release . 

In our most recent conversation , you indicated that FAA 

documentation to this effect had already been sent to the Town 

of Norwood , perhaps to the wrong department in the Town, and 

that you ' d try to track down this paperwork and re - send a copy 

to my attention . Since we have yet to receive this 

documentation , I wanted to perhaps check back on its statu s , and 

confirm our mailing address as : 

125 Access Road 

Attn : Airport Manager ' s Office 

Norwood , MA 02062 

Thanks Barry . 

Russ 

Russ Maguire , Manager 

Norwood Memorial Airport 

Russ Maguire , Manager 

Norwood Memorial Airport 

https://ncs.norwoodma.gov/h/printmessage?id=24040&tz=America/New _York 4/26/2015
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3094 Introduced in House (IH)]

  2d Session
                                H. R. 3094

    To amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to provide for an 
  exemption from the overtime compensation provisions of such Act for 
professional employees of contractors and subcontractors of the Federal 
                              Government.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 14, 1996

  Mr. Graham introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
          Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to provide for an 
  exemption from the overtime compensation provisions of such Act for 
professional employees of contractors and subcontractors of the Federal 
                              Government.

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

SECTION 1. OVERTIME EXEMPTION FOR FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CONTRACTOR AND 
              SUBCONTRACTOR EMPLOYEES.

    Section 13(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 
213(b)) is amended by striking the period at the end of paragraph (30) 
and inserting ``; or'' and by adding after paragraph (30) the 
following:
            ``(31) any employee of a contractor or subcontractor of a 
        department, agency, instrumentality, or establishment of the 
        Federal Government while the employee is employed on a contract 
        with the Federal Government and is employed in a professional 
        capacity under regulations of the Secretary.''.

SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE.

    The amendments made by section 1 shall take effect on the date of 
the enactment of this Act and shall apply to any cause of action 
relating to overtime compensation for the employees referred to in 
section 13(b)(31) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 which arose 
before, on, or after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
#### Robin Curtis McGAHEE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. V-138.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. First District.

April 18, 1974.

Stallings & Marr, Jacksonville, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Donald K. Rudser, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appel-lee.

*99MOTION TO DISMISS

PER CURIAM:

This is a motion by appellee to dismiss the interlocutory appeal taken from an order denying a motion to dismiss the information and an order denying a motion to suppress evidence. The motions were predicated upon the State’s failure to.comply with discovery under Rule 3.220, Rules of Criminal Procedure, 33 F.S.A. While we deplore the State’s apparent disregard of the discovery rule, an interlocutory appeal by the defendant is not countenanced by the Appellate Rules. State v. Pierce, Fla. 269 So.2d 664. Appellant’s argument in favor of our taking jurisdiction under common law certiorari is persuasive, but we are not constrained to do so in this instance. The question raised may, of course, be reviewed on appeal from judgment should there be a conviction.

Appeal dismissed.

BOYER, Acting C. J., and McCORD and JOHNSON, JJ„ concur.
#### § 1002.212 State agency notifications.

When the State agency initiates an exclusion under § 1002.210, it must provide to the individual or entity subject to the exclusion notification consistent with that required in subpart E of part 1001 of this chapter, and must notify other State agencies, the State medical licensing board (where applicable), the public, beneficiaries, and others as provided in §§ 1001.2005 and 1001.2006 of this chapter.
#### In re ESTATE of Diana Lynn SHINE, Deceased.

No. 79-1859.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Oct. 8, 1980.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 2, 1980.

J. B. Patterson of Patterson, Maloney, Blyler & Feige, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant Bobbye C. Shine.

Montgomery, Lytal, Reiter, Denney & Se-arcy, P. A., and Edna L. Caruso, West Palm Beach, for appellee John Gray.

ANSTEAD, Judge.

At issue is whether the trial court erred in determining that Frank and Diana Shine died simultaneously for purposes of probate of their respective estates. Under Section 732.601(1), Florida Statutes (1979), when the devise of property depends on the priority of death of two persons and there is *insufficient*evidence that the persons have died otherwise than simultaneously, the property of each shall pass as if that person had survived. In this case there was evidence presented by the appellant which indicated that Diana died before Frank. However, there was also expert medical testimony presented which indicated that such evidence was inconclusive as to the issue of whether Diana died before Frank or whether they died simultaneously. Under such circumstances and considering that Section 732.601(1) expressly requires the trial court to determine not whether there is any evidence, but rather whether such evidence is sufficient to conclude that there were not simultaneous deaths, we do not believe the trial court erred.

Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

DOWNEY and BERANEK, JJ., concur.
N O . 08-0150



### I N RE 

### P HYLLIS 

### T OMASINO 

### L ITIGATION

O N R EVIEW B Y T HE M ULTIDISTRICT L ITIGATION P ANEL

P ER C URIAM
Defendants in four lawsuits arising out of an employment termination have filed a motion to transfer the cases to a single pretrial judge. Plaintiff Phyllis Tomasino has filed four lawsuits in four different counties, all arising from her termination as an employee of First Baptist Academy in November 2005. She first sued the academy and its Head of School in Harris County, alleging breach of contract, defamation, and other causes of action. The trial court granted summary judgment on several theories of recovery, sustained special exceptions to others, and dismissed Tomasino’s case. That order of dismissal is now on appeal. In three other cases Tomasino has sued different members of the academy’s board of trustees in Fort Bend, Montgomery, and Travis Counties. The factual allegations and causes of action pleaded in all the cases are virtually identical. Tomasino has not filed a response to the motions to transfer the three pending cases to a pretrial judge. These circumstances clearly justify appointment of a pretrial judge. The cases are related, and the appointment of one judge to handle the pretrial phase of them will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the efficient and just conduct of the litigation. See T EX

. R. J UD

. A DMIN

. 13.2(f), 13.3(a), 13.3( l ). The motion to transfer the cases to a single pretrial judge is therefore granted. By separate order the four cases, and any tag-a-long cases, have been transferred to the 152 nd District Court of Harris County, the Honorable Ken Wise presiding.

P RESIDING J UDGE P EEPLES and J USTICES L ANG , H ANKS , S TONE , and M C C LURE join.

OPINION DELIVERED: March 26, 2008
```

[114th Congress Public Law 170]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

[[Page 130 STAT. 424]]

Public Law 114-170
114th Congress

                                 An Act

 
To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 
  201 B Street in Perryville, Arkansas, as the ``Harold George Bennett 
         Post Office''. <<NOTE: June 13, 2016 -  [H.R. 2928]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. HAROLD GEORGE BENNETT POST OFFICE.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 201 B Street in Perryville, Arkansas, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Harold George Bennett Post Office''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Harold 
George Bennett Post Office''.

    Approved June 13, 2016.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 2928:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 162 (2016):
            Apr. 18, considered and passed House.
            May 26, considered and passed Senate.

                                  <all>
```
# C_2005193EN.01002701.xml

| 6.8.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 193/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.8.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 193/27

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 31 May 2005

in Case T-373/03 Solo Italia Srl v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Word mark PARMITALIA - Time-limit for bringing an appeal against the decision of the Opposition Division - Article 59 of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Rule 48 of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 - Inadmissibility of the appeal)

(2005/C 193/44)

Language of the case: French

In Case T-373/03: Solo Italia Srl, established in Ossona (Italy), represented by A. Bensoussan, M.-E. Haas and L. Tellier-Loniewski, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: I. de Medrano Caballero and A. Folliard-Monguiral), the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM and intervener before the Court of First Instance being Nuova Sala Srl, established in Brescia (Italy), represented by E. Gavuzzi, S. Hassan and C. Pastore, lawyers — application brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 10 September 2003 (Case R 208/2003-2), confirming the refusal to register the word mark PARMITALIA — the Court of First Instance (First Chamber), composed of J.D. Cooke, President, I. Labucka and V. Trstenjak, Judges; J. Palacio González, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 31 May 2005, in which it:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the applicant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the applicant to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 21 of 24.1.2004.

1

---