alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2015337EN.01003101.xml

| 12.10.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 337/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.10.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 337/31

---

Action brought on 29 July 2015 — European Dynamics Luxembourg and Others v European Medicines Agency

(Case T-440/15)

(2015/C 337/32)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Parties

Applicants: European Dynamics Luxembourg SA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg), Evropaiki Dinamiki — Proigmena Sistimata Tilepikinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Αthens, Greece), European Dynamics Belgium SA (Βrussels, Βelgium) (represented by: I. Ambazis and M. Sfyri, lawyers)

Applicants:

Defendant: European Medicines Agency

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the General Court should:

| — | annul the Request Form for Services of the European Medicines Agency No SC002, in the context of the ΕΜΑ/2012/10/ICT framework-agreement, which was communicated to the applicants on 22/05/2015, by means of an e-mail from the Head of the Central Sourcing Unit; and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the Request Form for Services of the European Medicines Agency No SC002, in the context of the ΕΜΑ/2012/10/ICT framework-agreement, which was communicated to the applicants on 22/05/2015, by means of an e-mail from the Head of the Central Sourcing Unit; and

| — | order the European Medicines Agency to pay all the costs of the applicants. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Medicines Agency to pay all the costs of the applicants.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

In the opinion of the applicants, the contested Request Form for Services should be annulled under Article 263 TFEU, because the EMA altered the award criteria which were set out in the Technical Specifications, and introduced new criteria at the stage of sending a request form for the services of business analysts.

---
EXHIBIT 32.3
                               BIB HOLDINGS, LTD.
    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 Annual Report of BIB Holdings, Ltd. (the Company) on Form
10-KSB for the period ended  December 31, 2003 as filed with the  Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Olga Savelov,  Principal
Accounting Officer of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  ss.1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

      (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.

A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided to BIB Holdings,  Ltd. and will be retained by BIB  Holdings,  Ltd. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

Date:  March 17, 2004


/s/ Olga Savelov
----------------------------
Olga Savelov
Principal Accounting Officer
Exhibit 99.2

                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 Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the
Securities  Exchange  Act of 1934 on Form 10-Q of DA Consulting Group, Inc. (the
"COMPANY")  for the period ended June 30, 2002, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange  Commission  on the date hereof (the "REPORT"), I, Dennis C. Fairchild,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec.1350,
as  adopted  pursuant  to  Section  906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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  the  Company.


                            /s/__________________________________
                               Name:  Dennis  C.  Fairchild
                               Title: Chief  Financial  Officer
                               Date:  August  9,  2002


                                       17
<PAGE>
-NO 

0 

~ 

~ 

~ 0 

~ 

.~' 

•~ . 

tS! 

~L 

ta V 

~~ . 

F . . . 

~ 

~ ~ ¢ ~ ~ 

\ J 

~ z ~ u 

a 

9 

...~ 

Q 

U 

~ 

v 

1- 

~ 

~ 

a~ 

../ {.~ 

a 

¢ 

a 

~ 

[~

D

- U U E~-~ Q E~-~ W U H U U H 

z ~ z 

~ zz.~ 

' 

~ U-) m ~ z z z 

xF~ 

~ ~ 

~ 

~ 

w 

~ 

o 

0 

O 

O 

O 

e--1 

H 

d 

0 

N 

e-q 

H~ 

o 

0 

ttJ 

L-. 

0 

0 

o 

O 

o 

r-+ 

H 

0 

0 

O 

O 

0 

~ 

H 

0 

0 

o 

O 

00 

~ H ~ 

0 

0 

L~ 

~ 

0 

0 

~ 

e0 

0 

N 

'di 

o 

0 

r-i 

o0 

r-1 

H 

d 

0 

O 

ln 

o 

0 

O 

C7 

e-q 

0 

0 

O 

~ 

et 

LL ~ 

0 

0 

et! 

r 

z 

Q 3 U z ~ 

N r C7 C7 Z ~ -~3 ? ~ 

~ ° a a a Q z H 

Q ~ z o Q~~~~ 

~ w 

Q ~ ~~ Q o 

~ Q ~, x ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Q ¢ a z z z ~ 

~ Q ~ z z ~ a d w ~ w Z Q Ca7 C7 O 

z z a E" U 

Q z~ 

cn n 

z 

w 

o~ 

V~ 

Q 

cr~ 

O 

~ 

W 

z~ 

CW7 z 

a 

z 

a .._. 

z a.1 ~ ,... 

z z 

a 

... 

z 

a z ~~~ z a Q z 

w 

c~ 

a a z cn N N ~ ~ --. ~ 

p x 

w w w V ~ 

O O EO O 

U~~~~ 

O O O 

U~~ 

O ~ ~ cn 

t~ O ~ 

w 

a~ 

O ~ ~ z 

z 

z 

z 

x ~ cn 

~~ 

V ~. U' ~~ 

w 

a 

w C7 

 U~ 

z w 

a 

w 

a 

w 

a 

w 

a 

w 

a 

w 

a 

w 

a 

w~ 

a 4 z ~ g 

 U 

~ 

U ~~~ Q U 

Q 

a,~ 

w w w ~ 

 Z ~~ 

~ 

 ~ U C~ 

 w ~ 

 Q ¢ ~ w 

~ w 

 a O 

 a 

O 

 a 

O 

 a 

O 

 a 

O 

 a 

O 

 a 

O 

 a 

O,~ 

 C~ p 

~ ,..., 

 c~ 

r, N ~•, 

 ra x m ~ rm ~ ¢ 

 z¢~ 

x,~. 

 Q 

 z f~G ~ Q 

 x 

z 

 w ,.a U U U U U U U U V ~~~~UO cn 

x c1) cn cn w cn 

0 

x ~ 

U U U U 

Q~~~~~~~~ 

U U U U V ~ 

~ U ] N z V O U Q w Q U w .a cn x~ cn w cfl m cfl ca Q z 

U Q U d U Q U Q V Q U d U Q¢ U V Q U Q U Q U Q V Q V Q 

r~ Ot C7 Q cn 

x 

a, 

a 

cn cn 

x r~ w U Q 

w 

Q 

w 

Q 

w 

Q 

w w 

Q¢¢¢ 

w w w z a 

H 

cn 

H cr~ H 

cn 

H cn cn cn ~n cn cn cn cn cn Ftn ~n 

O d 

~+ 

d 

Ln 

O 

.a 

O ,-+ 

c, 

O 

~ 

oo 

O ,-+ 

rn 

O 

o 

~ r-1 c*4 H o o a o 0 0 0° Q o 

~ 

m~+ 

Q Q 

~n 

Q 

u 

o~ 

~ Q 

u~ 

o 

~ 

rn 

Q u) IC-1 
n ~ 

~ 

~ 

n r1 • 

~ 

~ 

0 

UO 

~ 

"G 

~ '+ 

~ 

~D 

~ 

~ rr 

~ 

~• 

~ t~+ 

+--1 

~ 

~ 

~ 

~ ~ ~ 

N 

n nZ 

~ y rn nz oH 

r 

n nz 

~ —? 

r 

n nz 

c°nH 

r 

n nz 

~ H 

r 

n nz °-' 

r 

n nz 

~rv ~~ 

r 

nz °~' 

r n 

°Y ° ~' ° D 

n n n 

cny ~ y ° > c°,, > °a 

n n n 

vN, O~ o y o y 

n n n n n n n n 

1 1 J 

~ 

~ 

I 

y 

~ 

~ 

~ 

N N o CA 0 

V 

CD 

~ G C3 N 

~~> ~ ~ ~ ~ n n n 

o> 

n 

t~ 

d Z r 

a C5 

M ~ W_ ~ ~ ~ 

~ 

~ 

n ~ 

`./ O ... 

z ° ~ 

o 

c Ul 

n ~ 

z ~ 

~ 

fD 

rt 0 

~ 

~
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR 

THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

______________________________

:

MARA FLAMM, : CIVIL ACTION

:

Plaintiff, :

: NO. 02-4302

v. :

:

SARNER & ASSOCIATES, P.C. and :

JOSHUA SARNER, ESQUIRE and :

LEONARD SARNER, ESQUIRE and :

JODI H. BROWN, M.D. and JOHN :

MATUSAVAGE, :

:

Defendants. :

______________________________:

ORDER

AND NOW, this 3rd day of January, 2006, upon consideration of

Defendants’ motions for summary judgment, Plaintiff’s omnibus

response, and consistent with the above discussion, it is hereby

ORDERED that:

1. The Motion for Summary Judgment of the Sarner Defendants

(Docket Entry No. 70) is DENIED.

2. The Motion of Defendant [Matusavage] for Summary Judgment

(Docket Entry No. 71) is DENIED.

BY THE COURT:

_________________________________ 

M. FAITH ANGELL

CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:02-cv-04302-MFA Document 80-2 Filed 01/04/2006 Page 1 of 1
Before the Third Division,

October 28, 1954

No. 58456.

protest 207759-K (Philadelphia).

#### Alex. Murphy & Co. *v.*United States,

Ekwall, Judge:

This case involves the question of the proper rate at which the currency of the invoice covering an importation of linen handkerchiefs from Belfast, Ireland, should be converted into United States dollars under section 522 (e) of the Tariff Act of 1930. It has been submitted upon the following stipulation of counsel:

> * * * that consular invoice covering the merchandise under protest was certified on September 16, 1949 at which time the daily exchange rate for the British Pound Sterling certified by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York was 4.027539.

> That the merchandise was mailed parcel post in England addressed to the United States on September 24, 1949 and that the merchandise actually left England on September 24, 1949 on the S/S Batory.

> That September 24, 1949 was' a Sunday or legal holiday and that the daily buying rate at noon on September 23, 1949 certified by the Federal Reserve Bank of Now York was 2.801171.

> That the proclaimed rate on the pound on both September 16, 1949 and September 24, 1949 varied by more than 5% measured by the buying rate in the New York market at noon on the day of exportation. * * *

That the country of exportation was-England.

It is well established that the date of exportation is fixed by the last sailing of the importing vessel from the country of exportation. *Forman*v. *Peaslee,*9 Fed. Cas. 452; *Sampson*v. *Peaslee,*61 U. S. (20 How.) 571; *Irvine*v. *Redfield,*64 U. S. (23 How.) 170; *Roessler & Hasslacher Chemical Co.*v. *B. H. Dyas Corporation et al.*v. *United States,*56 Treas. Dec. 268, T. D. 43600. The record before us discloses that the merchandise was exported from Belfast, Northern Ireland, and actually left England on the SS. *Batory,*which sailed on September 24, 1949, which was a holiday. Inasmuch as counsel have agreed that the daily buying rate at noon on September 23, 1949, as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York (section 522 (c) *supra),*was $2.801171 and that the proclaimed rate varied by more than 5 percent therefrom, we hold that the rate certified for said September 23, 1949, should have been used in the conversion of the currency of the invoice herein. We interpret the statement in the stipulation “That the country of exportation was England” to mean that the country of exportation was the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Judgment will, therefore, be rendered in favor of the plaintiff.
Filed 1/15/14 City of Lake Forest v. Evergeen Holistic Collective CA4/3 

Opinion following transfer from Supreme Court 

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for 

publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication 

or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. 

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

DIVISION THREE 

CITY OF LAKE FOREST, 

 Plaintiff and Respondent, 

 v. 

EVERGREEN HOLISTIC COLLECTIVE, 

 Defendant and Appellant. 

 G043909 

 (Super. Ct. No. 30-2009-00298887) 

 O P I N I O N 

 Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Orange County, David R. 

Chaffee, Judge. Affirmed. 

 D|R Welch Attorneys at Law and David R. Welch for Defendant and 

Appellant. 

 Best Best & Krieger, Jeffrey V. Dunn and Laura A. Dahl for Plaintiff and 

Respondent. 

* * * 
2

 Evergreen Holistic Collective contends local bans on medical marijuana 

dispensaries are preempted because the Legislature made clear its policy determination in 

Health and Safety Code section 11362.775 that the cultivation of marijuana for sick 

Californians by qualified cooperative or collective associations is not a nuisance, and 

therefore, what the Legislature has authorized, the City of Lake Forest (the city) may not 

ban. We agreed in a published opinion, and because the trial court granted the city’s 

injunction request solely on the basis of the city’s dispensary ban, we reversed the 

preliminary injunction and remanded the matter for further proceedings. The Supreme 

Court granted the city’s petition for review and later concluded in City of Riverside v. 

Inland Empire Patients Health & Wellness Center, Inc. (2013) 56 Cal.4th 729 (Inland 

Empire) that local governments may ban medical marijuana dispensaries without 

triggering preemption by the Compassionate Use Act of 1996 (Health & Saf. Code, 

§ 11362.5) or California’s Medical Marijuana Program (Health & Saf. Code, § 11362.7 et 

seq.). The high court transferred this case back to us to consider in light of Inland 

Empire, and because that decision is controlling authority (Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. 

Superior Court (1962) 57 Cal.2d 450, 455), we affirm the preliminary injunction. The 

parties shall bear their own costs on appeal. 

 

 ARONSON, J. 

WE CONCUR: 

RYLAARSDAM, ACTING P. J. 

FYBEL, J.
No. 54569.-

#### New Victoria Importing Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 138937-K and 138938-K (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Rao, J.

The protests were dismissed.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR
. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR
. R. 47.5.4. 

### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-10370 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee

v. AUSENCIO ESTRADA-MONTALVO Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:08-CR-9-ALL
Before SMITH, STEWART and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Ausencio Estrada-Montalvo appeals the 90-month sentence imposed following his conviction by guilty plea to illegal reentry after deportation. See 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(2). Estrada-Montalvo argues that the district court erroneousl y believed that it lacked the authority to vary from the advisory guidelines range based on the Government’s refusal to move for an addi tional level decrease under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(b). The district court’s decision not to United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D January 14, 2009 Charles R. Fulbruge III ClerkNo. 08-10370

2 grant a variance does not indicate that it believed that it lacked the authority to impose a non-guidelines sentence. The totality of the circumstances reveals that the district court denied the requested variance because it believed that a within guidelines sentencewas appropriate. SeeUnited Statesv. Newson, 515 F.3d 374, 379 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , 128 S. Ct. 2522 (2008). Estrada-Montalvo argues that the case should be remanded for resentencing because the Government declined tofile a motion for an additional level decrease under § 3E1.1(b), amounting to an “incorrect application of the Guidelines.” We review the Government’s refusal to move for the additional level decrease to determine whether that refusal was based on an unconstitutional motive or was not rationally related to a legitimate end. See Newson, 515 F.3d at 378-79. E strada-Montalvo does not argue that the Government’s refusal tofile the motion was based on an unconstitutional motive;
a defendant’s refusal to waive his right to appeal is a basis rationally related to the purposes of § 3E1.1(b). See id. Estrada-Montalvo argues that the district court erred in refusing to award him the additional level decrease for acceptance of responsibility under § 3E1.1(b), but, as he concedes, the argument is foreclosed by Newson

. See Newson, 515 F.3d at 378. Estrada-Montalvo argues that the district court erred in assessing the 16- level crime of violence increase based on his prior conviction for burglary of a habitation in reliance on his Texas judicial confession, but, as he concedes, his argument challenging the district court’s reliance on his judicial confession is foreclosed by United States v. Garcia-Arellano, 522 F.3d 477, 481 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , 129 S. Ct. 353 (2008). AFFIRMED.
TT4e
Oa

zn BANK AT HOME ierBank , -
ve
ut

August 31, 1999

Cynthia L. Johnson, Director

Washington, D.C. 20227
Dear Ms. Johnson:
The following is in response to proposed amendment to Treasury Tax & Loan Rate on Interest.

This bank has participated in the Treasury Tax & Loan Note option for many years at little or no profit, mainly as
a service to our customers. The problem requires time on the part of our staff and also entails some risk. The
latter occurs when the bank is held responsible for funds deposited into the T T & L account even if the check
was NSF. This aspect requires continuing training and diligence on the part of our staff.

Since the Treasury can call funds in T T & L account at its option, it is difficult to invest in other than Federal
Funds. By making the next note paid the same as note received, there is no margin to cover any overhead.

The current spread of 25 basic points is minimal but usually is at least a positive spread. | reviewed the Federal
Funds rate received by their bank for the past 30 days and many times the note received is less than the
published note used in the T T & L calculations. PremierBank actually lost money on a few days by anything
TT &L deposited.

If the note paid is increased from the current level, PremierBank will seriously consider ending its participantion
in the T T & L Investment program.

Very truly yours,
Lu Shy oa
ws CFL!
Jim Schafer
President
Ce: JSST T&L
JSS/cw
Fort Atkinson Jefferson Johnson Creek
70 North Main Street / PO. Box 218 320 South Center Avenue / PO. Box 178 100 Grell Lane / PO. Box 157
Fort Atkinson, WI 53538-0218 Jefferson, WI 53549-0178 Johnson Creek, WI 53038-0157
Phone 920-563-6616 Phone 920-6744500 Phone 920-699-6900
Fax 920-563-6615 Fax 920-674 2661 Fax 920:699.6909

wwwobankwithpremier.com
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

In the Matter of: CLIVE AND

YOLANDA PACE,

CLIVE PACE and YOLANDA PACE,

 Plaintiffs - Appellants,

 v.

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.; et al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 13-16602

D.C. No. 2:13-cv-00339-JCMGWF

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Nevada

James C. Mahan, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted October 20, 2015** 

San Francisco, California

Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge and REINHARDT and McKEOWN, Circuit

Judges.

FILED

OCT 23 2015

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Chapter 11 debtors Clive and Yolanda Pace appeal the district court's

affirmance of the bankruptcy court's summary judgment in their adversary

proceeding against JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., and other defendants, seeking

quiet title to real property and a declaration that defendants' loans on the properties

were unsecured. We have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

1291, and we affirm. Because the parties are familiar with the facts and procedural

history, we need not recount it here.

The Paces primarily argue that JPMorgan and Bank of America do not have

valid claims because they failed to produce original promissory notes and deeds of

trust. However, JPMorgan and Bank of America filed certified copies of the notes

and deeds and made the originals available to the Paces at hearings and settlement

conferences. 

The Paces allege that the notes and deeds are now invalid because they were

previously split. We find it unnecessary to decide whether the notes and deeds

were in fact split because the fact remains that they are currently reunited in the

care of the defendant banks. Per Edelstein v. Bank of New York Mellon, 286 P.3d

249, 252 (Nev. 2012), separating a note and deed of trust does not render either

instrument irreparably void. See also In re Montierth, 354 P.3d 648, 651 (Nev.

2015). 
The Paces’s remaining arguments depend on their first. Because we hold that

there are no genuine issues of material fact as to the validity of JPMorgan and

Bank of America’s claims, we accordingly hold that the Paces have not established

a genuine issue of material fact regarding their quiet title claim. 

AFFIRMED.
—

SS PAC

IPAC Operational Metrics for June 2022

Volume by Transaction Type

Dollar Amount] % of Total Dollar Amount Number of Transactions] % of Total Number of Transactions
Fiduciary (Investment & Borrowing) 25,475,085,236,845| 99.80%| 23,971, 17.96%
Buy/Sell 41,073,971,536| 0.16%| 108,128 $1.03%|
Benefits (RITS) 8,415,180,245| 0.03%| 512 0.38%|
[Check Aftermath (TRACS) 599,641,296] 0.00% 826 0.62%|
[Zero Dollar o 0.00%| ) (0.00%|
[Grand Total - June 2022 25,525,174,029,922| 100.00%| 133,437 100.00%6|
[Grand Total - May 2022 24,347,041,543,826| 100.00%| 129,315 100.00%6|
May to June Change 1,178,132,486,095|
Percentage Change 4.8%
[Grand Total - June 2021 19,420,496,312,221|
[June 2021 to June 2022 Change {6,104,677,717,700|
Percentage Change 31.4%|
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATIONS OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, James Merselis, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of HemoSense, Inc. on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2005 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that
information contained in such Annual Report on Form 10-K fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of HemoSense, Inc.



Date: December 2, 2005



/s/    JAMES
MERSELISJames Merselis President and Chief Executive Officer




I, Paul Balsara,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of HemoSense, Inc. on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2005 fully complies with
the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Annual Report on Form 10-K fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of
HemoSense, Inc.



Date: December 2, 2005



/s/    PAUL BALSARAPaul Balsara Vice President of Finance and Chief Financial Officer
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA :

: CRIM. NO. 04-491-1

v. :

: CIVIL NO. 08-5475

HAROLD SPURELL :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 23rd day of February , 2012, upon consideration of

Petitioner’s Habeas Corpus Motion Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (ECF No. 42), and all papers

submitted in support thereof and in opposition thereto, it is ORDERED as follows:

1. Petitioner’s Habeas Corpus Motion Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is DENIED.

2. No Certificate of Appealability shall issue. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

BY THE COURT:

 

R. BARCLAY SURRICK, J.