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







CERTIFICATION


PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C. 1350


(AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF
2002)






In
connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of  Mediware
Information Systems, Inc. (the “Company”)  for the period ended
December 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the “Report”), and  Mediware pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, T. Kelly Mann, as Chief Executive Officer of Mediware, and Mark B.
Williams, as Chief Financial Officer of Mediware, hereby certify
that:




1.
            The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;
  and




2.
            The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
      Mediware.






Dated:  February
      3, 2009
                                
                                /s/
                                T.
      Kelly MannT.
      Kelly Mann
                                  Chief
      Executive OfficerDated:  February
      3, 2009
                                
                                /s/
                                Mark
      B. WilliamsMark
      B. Williams
                                  Chief
      Financial
Officer
No. 61041.

protests 286538-K and 311605-K (New York).

#### Isaac B. Cohen & Sons Corp. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of hunting knives, specially designed for other than household, kitchen, or butchers’ use, with handles of steel other than austenitic, and under 4 inches in length, exclusive of handles, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
From: chip6562000@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:43:13 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

William Newkirk

Wilmer, AL 36587
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

 Walter G. Palmer Inc. P.S.

1111 Third Avenue, #2220

 Seattle, WA 98101-3207

 (206) 442-9232

 Fax: (206) 682-3746

PROPOSED ORDER CONTINUING

PRE TRIAL MOTIONS DUE DATE & TRIAL DATE

THE HONORABLE RONALD B. LEIGHTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

)

Plaintiff, ) NO. CR05-5657 RBL

)

v. ) ORDER CONTINUING

) PRETRIAL MOTIONS DUE DATE

KENNETH JAMES CRITTENDON, JR., ) AND TRIAL DATE

a/k/a “KC”, )

)

Defendant. )

 ) 

The Court having reviewed the records and files herein and having considered defendant

Crittendon’s motion to continue pretrial motions due date and trial date makes the following findings and

enters the following order:

1. Additional time is necessary for the parties to prepare for trial. 

2. The ends of justice outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. 

The failure to grant a continuance based upon the parties need to prepare the matter for trial would result

in a miscarriage of justice.

3. The defendant will sign and file a written waiver of speedy trial through February 28, 2006.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that 

1. The pretrial motions due date is continued from October 18, 2005, until December 6, 2005. 

2. Responses to pretrial motions shall be due on December 20, 2005.

Case 3:05-cr-05657-RBL Document 21 Filed 10/19/05 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

 Walter G. Palmer Inc. P.S.

1111 Third Avenue, #2220

 Seattle, WA 98101-3207

 (206) 442-9232

 Fax: (206) 682-3746

PROPOSED ORDER CONTINUING

PRE TRIAL MOTIONS DUE DATE & TRIAL DATE

- 2 -

3. The period of delay resulting from this continuance from November 14, 2005 to February

13, 2006 is excluded for speedy trial computation purposes under 18 U.S.C. 3161(h)(8)(A) and (B) as

this is a reasonable period of delay. 

ACCORDINGLY:

The Jury Trial is CONTINUED to Monday, FEBRUARY 13, 2006 @ 9:00 a.m

The Pretrial Conference is rescheduled for FEBRUARY 2, 2006 @ 9:00 a.m.

The Motions Cutoff date is extended to December 6, 2005.

DONE this 19th day of October, 2005.

ARONALD B. LEIGHTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Presented by:

s/Walter G. Palmer 

WALTER G. PALMER

Attorney for Defendant Crittendon

Washington State Bar Number 4756

1111 3rd Avenue, Suite 2220

Seattle, WA 98101-3207

Telephone: 206/442-9232

Facsimile: 206/682-3746

E-Mail: wgpalmer@mindspring.com

crittendon order to continue

Case 3:05-cr-05657-RBL Document 21 Filed 10/19/05 Page 2 of 2
From: SDLVirginian@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 4:51:41 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Steve Leonard

Sarasota, FL 34233
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Kurtis T. Wilder

Elizabeth T. Clement, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, 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.

 November 21, 2018

t1114

Order 

Clerk

November 21, 2018

157522

HONIGMAN MILLER SCHWARTZ AND

COHN, LLP,

Petitioner-Appellee,

v SC: 157522

COA: 336175 

Tax Tribunal: 16-000202

CITY OF DETROIT,

Respondent-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 18, 2018 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is GRANTED. The parties shall 

address whether the Court of Appeals erred in its construction of the phrase “services 

rendered within the city” in the Uniform City Income Tax Ordinance, MCL 141.623. 

The time allowed for oral argument shall be 20 minutes for each side. MCR 7.314(B)(1). 

The City of Grand Rapids and the Taxation Section of the State Bar of Michigan 

are invited to file briefs amicus curiae. Other persons or groups interested in the 

determination of the issue presented in this case may move the Court for permission to 

file briefs amicus curiae.
Case 2:05-cv-01607-MJP Document 44 Filed 11/07/06 Page 1 of 1
November 29, 1965

No. 69661.

#### Eastman Tag *&*Label Co. and Harper, Robinson & Co. *v.*United States,

protest 62/15657.

Plaintiffs’ application

for rehearing granted.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 ORDER

Page - 1

HONORABLE RONALD B. LEIGHTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

JOHN ROBINSON,

 Plaintiff,

v.

JOSEPH LEHMAN,

Defendant.

Case No. C05-5277 RBL

ORDER

THIS MATTER comes on before the above-entitled Court upon Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment

of Counsel on Appeal [Dkt. #30].

Having considered the entirety of the records and file herein, it is hereby

ORDERED that the motion is DENIED. 

The Clerk shall send uncertified copies of this order to all counsel of record, and to any party appearing

pro se.

Dated this 15th day of November, 2005.

ARONALD B. LEIGHTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-05277-RBL Document 34 Filed 11/15/05 Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-26-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-28-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-26-1998
<CASH>                                           2,975
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   36,121
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (26,495)
<INVENTORY>                                    275,389
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               511,681
<PP&E>                                         270,302
<DEPRECIATION>                                (83,077)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,774,529
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          707,678
<BONDS>                                        850,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      61,945
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,774,529
<SALES>                                      4,987,365
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,987,365
<CGS>                                        4,517,507
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                4,517,507
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               481,990
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 1,845
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              62,804
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (85,289)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       821
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (86,110)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (86,110)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
From: ktcallan@cox.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 7:54:46 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Katie Callan

Tucson, AZ 85710
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title: Geologicmap of the Beta Regio quadrangle (V-17), Venus**
 
Map | Pamphlet
 
SuDoc Number:I 19.91/3:3023
Item Number:0619-G-33 (online)
CGP systemNumber: 000956954
 
July 24, 2018
Before Judge Ford,

December 12, 1968

No. R68/43.

reappraisement R64/15576 (Cleveland).

No. R68/44.

reappraisement R62/3267 (Baltimore).

No. R68/45.

reappraisement R61/23215 (Los Angeles).

No. R68/46.

reappraisement R62/6909 (Chicago).

No. R68/47.

reappraisement R62/6910 (Chicago).

No. R68/48.

reappraisement R62/6911 (Chicago).

No. R68/49.

reappraisement R62/836 (New York).

No. R68/50.

reappraisement R62/3232 (New York).

No. R68/51.

reappraisement R62/4007 (New York).

No. R68/52.

reappraisement R62/6479 (New York).

No. R68/53.

reappraisement R62/6507 (New York).

No. R68/54.

reappraisement R62/7720 (New York).

No. R68/55.

reappraisement R62/10206 (New York).

No. R68/56.

reappraisement R62/5064 (Houston).

#### Blaser & Mericle, Inc. *v.*United States, Carey Machinery and Supply Co., Inc. *v.*United States, Castelazo & Associates, a/c Hahn Hallet Machinery Co. *v.*United States, Gallagher & Ascher Co. *v.*United States, Gallagher & Ascher Co. *v.*United States, Gallagher & Ascher Co. *v.*United States, Gehrig, Hoban *&*Co., Inc. *v.*United States, Gehrig, Hoban & Co., Inc. *v.*United States, Gehrig, Hoban & Co., Inc. *v.*United States, Gehrig, Hoban and Co., Inc. *v.*United States, Gehrig, Hoban and Co., Inc. *v.*United States, Gehrig, Hoban & Co., Inc. *v.*United States, Gehrig, Hoban & Co., Inc. *v.*United States, Patrick & Graves *v.*United States,

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the issue is the same in all material respects as that involved in *United States*v. Gehrig, *Hoban & Co., Inc.*(54 CCPA 129, C.A.D. 924), the court found and held that export value, as that value is defined in section 402(b), Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, is the proper basis for the determination of value for the Eleroda D-l or D-1S sparking machines, with accessories, in issue and that such value is the appraised value, less agent commission.
Case No. 6,497a.

#### HILL v. PATTERSON.

[Hempst. 173.] 1

Superior Court, Territory of Arkansas.

Jan., 1832.

Slander — Costs—V erdict.

In actions for slander, or trespass vi et armis, the plaintiff recovering less than ten dollars, can recover only two thirds of the costs of suit. Geyer, Dig. 230.

Error to St. Francis circuit court

Before JOHNSON, ESKRIDGE, and CROSS, JJ.

JOHNSON, J.

This was an action of trespass on the case for slander, brought by [William] Patterson against [John] Hill. On the trial in the court below, Patterson obtained a verdict against Hill for one cent damages; upon which the court rendered judgment in favor of Patterson for the sum of one cent for his damages, together with his costs in and about the suit in that behalf expended. The only ground relied upon in the assignment of error is, that the court gave judgment in favor of the plaintiff below for all the costs by him expended about his suit in that behalf, when, according to the law, he was entitled to judgment for two thirds of those costs only. The forty-eighth section of the act regulating judicial proceedings (Geyer, Dig. 200) provides, that “if in any action of trespass on the case for slander. or action of trespass vi et armis, that may hereafter be instituted in any court of record within this territory, the plaintiff shall recover less than ten dollars, such plaintiff shall be allowed to recover two thirds of the costs given by law in such suit, and no more.” In accordance with the above provision, the judgment should have been rendered for two thirds of the costs of the suit, and having been given for all the costs, is consequently erroneous, and must be reversed. Judgment reversed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                             5
       
<S>                                   <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                         3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                     May-31-1997         
<PERIOD-START>                        Jun-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                          Aug-31-1996
<CASH>                                $613,000
<SECURITIES>                          $0
<RECEIVABLES>                         $7,973,000
<ALLOWANCES>                          $350,000
<INVENTORY>                           $15,281,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                      $24,074,000
<PP&E>                                $9,768,000
<DEPRECIATION>                        $7,563,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                        $27,846,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                 $20,813,000
<BONDS>                               0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                 0
<PREFERRED>                           0
<COMMON>                              6,717,000
<OTHER-SE>                            0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>          $27,846,000
<SALES>                               $11,577,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                      $11,577,000
<CGS>                                 $6,935,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                         $6,935,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                      $5,075,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                      $0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                    $561,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                       ($994,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                          $0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                   ($994,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                        $0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                       $0
<CHANGES>                             $0
<NET-INCOME>                          ($994,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                         ($0.15)
<EPS-DILUTED>                         ($0.15)
        


</TABLE>
THE JAPAN AGRICULTURAL EXCHANGE COUNCIL 

MERIDIAN NORTR-OFFIClfBUILDING 


10740 MERIDIAN AVENUE NORTH, SUITE 209 


SEATTLE, WA 98133 


TEL (206) 622·8523 


FAX (206) 621-0528 


The Honorable Ray LaHood 

United States Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE 

Washington D.C. 20590 

There are many Japanese 

Our business travelers look to the convenience of flying into 

On behalf of The Japan Agricultural Exchange Council, I am writing to express our 

strong support fur the application of Delta Air Lines for new nonstop service between Seattle 

and Haneda, 'lbkyo InternationalAirport. 

Approval of Delta's new service would be a major benefit for our region, where many 

cor,porationshavestro~g,trage andm:rrket presence with Japan. . "'.- '-', "._' '-' , ,.\ ,,",( ! 

coJllpanie$l<X:ated i-P, W~shWgton, and hUndreds more whose business models rely on access to 


Jap~.and,:it'i3l113J;ket. The growth of our business ties with Japan has created demand for 


~~~SE3dcap~citY to 'lbkyo. 


'lbkyo's downtown Haneda airport. 


Seattle is proven and successful gateway to Asia, and as airports that can support 

trans'pacific routes. The addition ofHaneda as a destination is a natural fit that would clearly 

benefit our travelers. 

Th.aD.k you for consideration ofthis request. 

Sincerely, 

. . ''fA;/ " /..( ~ 

ashiYosinka~;'. ",', ;>. '.' 
 , ". ' " -_._'-. ,,}' t;.,: - :.-~ 

Direct()r, S~attle,Branchb:fflce .:, 


The JapanAgriculturalExch.angeColillcil", 
 '.-' '-: -,> "',
Before the Second Division,

September 13, 1960

No. 64525.

#### Matson Manufacturing Co. *v.*United States,

protests 284224-K and 302435-K (New York).

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of synthetic filaments similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Empire Brushes, Inc., et al.*v. *United States*(42 Cust. Ct. 145, C.D. 2078), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.