alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**EXHIBIT32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,****ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906****OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Medwave, Inc.(the “Company”) for the quarterly period ended July 31, 2003, as filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 12, 2003 (the“Report”), the undersigned, in the capacities and dates listed below, herebycertifies that:

 

(1)                                  The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable,of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)                                  The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

This Certification is provided solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and shall not be deemed part of the Report or“filed” for any purpose whatsoever, nor shall it be deemed incorporated byreference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934.

 

 
| Date:                    September 12,  2003 | Medwave, Inc. |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------|
|                                                                                                                                             |
|                                                                                                                                             |
|                                                                                                                                             | By:           |   /s/ Timothy J. O’Malley |   |
|                                                                                                                                             |          | Timothy J. O’Malley |
|                                                                                                                                             |          | President and Chief Executive Officer |
|                                                                                                                                             |          | (Principal Executive Officer and |
|                                                                                                                                             |          | Principal Financial Officer) |

 

1

----
Before the Third Division,

July 23, 1952

No. 56803.

#### Catalda Fine Arts, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 178791-K (New York).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

An examination of the record failing to disclose evidence sufficient to overcome the presumption of correctness attaching to the collector’s action, the protest was overruled.
NEWMAN & NEWMAN,

ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP

505 Fifth Ave. S., Ste. 610

Seattle, Washington 98104

(206) 274-2800

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

DEFS.’ MOT. FOR

RECONSIDERATION - 1

(CV06-0204JCC)

The Honorable John C. Coughenour

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

JAMES S. GORDON, Jr., a married

individual, d/b/a

‘GORDONWORKS.COM’; OMNI

INNOVATIONS, LLC., a Washington

limited liability company,

Plaintiffs,

v.

VIRTUMUNDO, INC, a Delaware

corporation d/b/a

ADNOWLEDGEMAIL.COM;

ADKNOWLEDGE, INC., a Delaware

corporation, d/b/a

ADKNOWLEDGEMAIL.COM; SCOTT

LYNN, an individual; and JOHN DOES,

1-X,

Defendants.

No. CV06-0204JCC

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION OF DATE

BY WHICH PLAINTIFFS MUST

FILE THEIR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT MOTION

NOTE ON MOTION CALENDAR:

November 9, 2006

The Court issued an order (Dkt. No. 46) today, November 9, 2006, granting

Plaintiffs’ motion for relief from deadline (Dkt. No. 42). The Court directed Plaintiffs “to

file their summary judgment motion by Monday December 18, 2006, as requested.” 

However, Plaintiffs’ request was that the Court order “the Plaintiff to file a motion for

summary judgment within 30 days”. See Plaintiffs’ Mot. for Relief, Dkt. No. 42, at 3:18-

19. Thirty (30) days from the date of Plaintiffs’ motion is not December 18, but rather

December 4, 2006. FED. R. CIV. P. 6(a).

Consequently, Defendants respectfully request the Court reconsider its order that

Case 2:06-cv-00204-JCC Document 47 Filed 11/09/2006 Page 1 of 2

Gordon v. Virtumundo Inc et al Doc. 47

Dockets.Justia.com
NEWMAN & NEWMAN,

ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP

505 Fifth Ave. S., Ste. 610

Seattle, Washington 98104

(206) 274-2800

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

DEFS.’ MOT. FOR

RECONSIDERATION - 2

(CV06-0204JCC)

the Plaintiffs file their summary judgment motion by December 18, 2006. Plaintiffs

should be required to honor their commitment to file within 30 days, namely by

December 4, 2006 (or by December 11, 2006, if the 30 days began the day the Court

issued its order).

 DATED this 9th day of November, 2006.

Respectfully Submitted,

NEWMAN & NEWMAN,

ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP

By:

Derek A. Newman, WSBA No. 26967

Roger M. Townsend, WSBA No. 25525

Attorneys for Defendants

Case 2:06-cv-00204-JCC Document 47 Filed 11/09/2006 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 99.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


     In connection with the Quarterly Report of Laser-Pacific  Media Corporation
(the  "Company")  on Form 10-Q for the period ended  September 30, 2002 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),
I, James R. Parks, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,  certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that to my 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.


/s/James R. Parks
-----------------
James R. Parks
Chief Executive Officer
November 13, 2002
**Exhibit      32.1**

**CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE      SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

|               | (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. |

|  Date:                 January 17, 2007                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          |                      |                     | /s/                A. William Allen, III |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------|------------------------------------------|
|                                                              |                      |      | A.                William Allen, III     |
|                                                         |                      |      | Chief                Executive Officer   |
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

DETENTION ORDER

Page - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT W. D. OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff,

v.

BRAYDON MIRABACK,

 Defendant.

Case No. 05-5174M

DETENTION ORDER

THE COURT, having conducted a detention hearing pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §3142, finds that no condition or combination

of conditions which defendant can meet will reasonably assure the appearance of the defendant as required and/or the safety of any

other person and the community.

This finding is based on 1) the nature and circumstances of the offense(s) charged, including whether the offense is a

crime of violence or involves a narcotic drug; 2) the weight of the evidence against the person; 3) the history and characteristics of

the person including those set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g)(3)(A)(B); and 4) the nature and seriousness of the danger release would

impose to any person or the community.

Findings of Fact/ Statement of Reasons for Detention

Presumptive Reasons/Unrebutted:

 ( ) Conviction of a Federal offense involving a crime of violence. 18 U.S.C.§3142(f)(A)

 ( ) Potential maximum sentence of life imprisonment or death. 18 U.S.C.§3142(f)(B)

 ( X ) Potential maximum sentence of 10+ years as prescribed in the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C.§801 et seq.), the

Controlled Substances Import and Export Act (21 U.S.C.§951 et seq.) Or the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act (46

U.S.C. App. 1901 et seq.)

 ( ) Convictions of two or more offenses described in subparagraphs (A) through (C) of 18 U.S.C.§3142(f)(1) of two or more

State or local offenses that would have been offenses described in said subparagraphs if a circumstance giving rise to

Federal jurisdiction had existed, or a combination of such offenses.

Safety Reasons:

 ( ) Defendant has violated prior orders on probation.

 ( ) Defendant was on bond on other charges at time of alleged occurrences herein.

 ( ) Defendant’s prior criminal history.

leged quantity of drugs involved and sophistication of activity. (X ) 

Flight Risk/Appearance Reasons:

 ( X ) Defendant’s lack of community ties and resources..

 ( X) Immigration and Customs Enforcement detainer.

 ( ) Detainer(s)/Warrant(s) from other jurisdictions.

 ( ) Failures to appear for past court proceedings.

 ( ) Past conviction for escape.

Order of Detention

< The defendant shall be committed to the custody of the Attorney General for confinement in a corrections facility

separate, to the extent practicable, from persons awaiting or serving sentences or being held in custody pending appeal,

without prejudice to review..

< The defendant shall be afforded reasonable opportunity for private consultation with counsel.

< The defendant shall on order of a court of the United States or on request of an attorney for the Government, be delivered

to a United States marshal for the purpose of an appearance in connection with a court proceeding.

 September 27, 2005.

s/ J. Kelley Arnold 

J. Kelley Arnold, U.S. Magistrate Judge

Case 3:05-cr-05704-FDB Document 17 Filed 09/27/05 Page 1 of 1
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

MAJOR MARGARET WITT,

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE

AIR FORCE, et al.,

 Defendants. 

Case No. C06-5195RBL

ORDER

THIS MATTER comes before the above-entitled Court on Cross Motions for Summary Judgment

[Dkt. #s 102 and 118]. The Court has reviewed the materials submitted for and against each motion. Oral

argument would not be helpful to the Court as it wrestles with the issues presented by the motions. For the

reasons stated below, both motions are DENIED.

This case focuses on the constitutionality of the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell statute, 10 U.S.C. § 654.

Resolution of that issue is a matter of broad public importance. The parties have submitted materials which

include assumptions and conjecture about the past and current conduct of others as well as speculation and

predictions about the future conduct and attitudes of members of the unit to which Major Witt was formerly

Case 3:06-cv-05195-RBL Document 133 Filed 08/13/10 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

27

28

 ORDER

Page - 2

assigned. Both sides marshal the “facts” to present widely different versions of the evidence each side deems

to be relevant to issues at hand. The Court believes that this case is replete with genuine issues of material

fact that make summary disposition impossible to accomplish. On the strength of the record before it, the

Court is unprepared to adopt any of the conclusions advanced by either party. Finally, and perhaps more

importantly, this Court believes that a case of this importance should not be decided in a summary fashion

based solely upon written submittals. In short, a more developed record, in the form of a trial where the

content of testimony and demeanor of each witness can be evaluated, is necessary before this Court will be

prepared to answer the vital question put before it. 

Dated this 13th day of August, 2010.

A

RONALD B. LEIGHTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-05195-RBL Document 133 Filed 08/13/10 Page 2 of 2
Order entered September 1, 2016

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05 - 16 - 00857 - CV VILIA RIOS AND CHARL IE RIOS, Appellant

V. MO & ASSOCIATE LLC, Appellee On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 5

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC - 16 - 03194 - E



### O RDER By letter dated August 25, 2016, Dallas County Clerk John F. Warren has informed us that appellant’s affidavit of indigence was not contested. Accordingly, app ellant is entitled to proceed without advance payment of costs. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 20.1( f). We ORDER Mr. Warren and court reporter Vikki Ogden to prepare the appellate record without prepayment. See id. 20.1(k). The record remains due September 12, 20 16.

/s/ ELIZABETH LANG

- MIERS JUSTICE
#### Karen A. CURRIE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JOHN HANCOCK LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 00-55017.

D.C. No. CV-99-05506-RSWL.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted June 7, 2001.*

Decided June 11, 2001.

Before D.W. NELSON, FERNANDEZ, and RYMER, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Karen Currie appeals the district court’s dismissal without leave to amend of her first amended complaint. We dismiss the appeal.

Currie’s brief fails to comply with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28. *N/S Corp. v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co.,*127 F.3d 1145, 1146 (9th Cir.1997). The opening brief does not contain a statement of facts with appropriate references to the record. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 28(a)(7). It has no standard of review section explaining what the applicable standard of review is, and this omission is not corrected elsewhere in the brief. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 28(a)(9)(B); 9th Cir. R. 28-2.5; *N/S Corp.,*127 F.3d at 1146. The summary of argument section does not contain an accurate statement of the arguments made in the body of the brief and fails to comply with Fed. R.App. P. 28(a)(8). There are virtually no record citations anywhere in the brief. *See*Fed. RApp. P. 28(a)(9)(A); 9th Cir. R. 28-2.8.

Beyond this, we cannot tell which issues Currie is actually raising or arguing other than that the district court ignored Rule 8(a) in dismissing her complaint and that the district court did not follow law with respect to the abstention doctrine1 in dismissing her 1994 action. Neither issue has merit, the first because it does not directly address the grounds upon which the district court relied and the second, because it is barred by res judicata. *See Lazzrone v. Bank of America,*181 Cal.App.3d 581, 226 Cal.Rptr. 855, 860 (Cal.Ct.App.1986).

Other, unargued issues are waived. *See Greenwood v. Fed. Aviation Admin.,*28 F.3d 971, 977 (9th Cir.1994) (‘We review only issues which are argued specifically and distinctly in a party’s opening brief. We will not manufacture arguments for an appellant, and a bare assertion does not preserve a claim, particularly when, as *502here, a host of other issues are presented for review.”) (citations omitted). Even if we were to consider them, no basis appears for reversing the district court’s ruling. Her claims either fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or are barred by the statute of limitations (ERISA), res judicata or the *Rooker-Feld*man2 doctrine.

DISMISSED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

1

. *See Ankenbrandt v. Richards,*504 U.S. 689, 112 S.Ct. 2206, 119 L.Ed.2d 468 (1992).

2

. *Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co.,*263 U.S. 413, 44 S.Ct. 149, 68 L.Ed. 362 (1923); *District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman,*460 U.S. 462, 103 S.Ct. 1303, 75 L.Ed.2d 206 (1983).
O· 

Antelope Valley Air Quality Management District 

43301 Division St., Suite 206 

Lancaster, CA 93535-4649 

September 24, 2013 

Patrick Au 

State of California 

Environmental Protection Agency 

Air Resources Board 

P. 0. Box 2815 

Sacramento, California 95812 

661.723.8070 

Fax 661.723.3450 

Eldon Heaston, Executive Director 

Project Title: Amendment of AV AQMD Rule 1124 - Aerospace Assembly and Component 

Manufacturing Operations 

Dear Mr. Au: 

The Antelope Valley Air Quality Management District (AVAQMD) requests that the California 

Air Resources Board (CARB) submit amended Rule 1124 -Aerospace Assembly and 

Component Manufacturing Operations, to the United States Environmental Protection Agency 

(USEP A) for inclusion in the State Implementation Plan (SIP). Rule 1124 was amended to 

update the rule and align specialty coating categories with the 1998 United States Environmental 

Protection Agency (USEPA) Control Techniques Guideline (CTG) entitled Control of Volatile 

Organic Compound Emissions from Coating Operations at Aerospace Manufacturing and 

Rework Operations. 

The AVAQMD previously amended Rule 1124 on March 20, 2007 and submitted this rule for 

inclusion in the SIP. This amendment has not been approved into the SIP because USEPA 

indicated there were several specialty coating categories from the CTG that were not included in 

the rule amendment. It is expected that this submission will replace the previous submission. 

If you have any questions regarding this submittal, please contact me at (760) 245-1661, 

extension 6726, or Tracy Walters at extension 6122. Please note that all documents required for 

a complete submission were sent electronically on September 24, 2013. 

AJD/tw CARB SIP Submittal Request Rule 1124 

e1ean_ 

Cities 

Antelope Valley
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 192 (Thursday, October 5, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 69231]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-22234]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--Point of Care Marketing Association

    Notice is hereby given that, on July 24, 2023, pursuant to section 
6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 
15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), POINT OF CARE MARKETING 
ASSOCIATION (``POCMA'') has filed written notifications simultaneously 
with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing 
(1) the name and principal place of business of the standards 
development organization and (2) the nature and scope of its standards 
development activities. The notifications were filed for the purpose of 
invoking the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust 
plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances.
    Pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act, the name and principal place 
of business of the standards development organization is: Point of Care 
Marketing Association, Verona, NJ. The nature and scope of POCMA's 
standards development activities are: to develop, promulgate and 
publish voluntary consensus standards for the Point of Care Media 
Advertising Industry using procedures that incorporate the attributes 
of openness, balance of interests, due process, and appeals process, 
and consensus. The POCMA intends to standardize the terms and 
conditions for point of care media advertising to make it easier for 
advertising agencies and marketers to buy and capture value from 
advertising in healthcare settings.

Suzanne Morris,
Deputy Director Civil Enforcement Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 2023-22234 Filed 10-4-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P