alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

                           Section 906 Certification

     The following statement is provided by the undersigned to accompany the
foregoing Report on Form 10 Q pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed pursuant to any provision of the Exchange
Act of 1934 or any other securities law:

     Each of the undersigned certifies that the foregoing Report on Form 10 Q
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m) and that the information contained in Form
10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of Omega Worldwide, Inc.

/s/ Ronald S. Elder                          /s/ Mark D. Gosling
-------------------------------------        ----------------------------------
Ronald S. Elder                              Mark D. Gosling
Chief Executive Officer                      Chief Financial Officer
Omega Worldwide, Inc.                        Omega Worldwide, Inc.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-27-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-29-1997
<CASH>                                          44,892
<SECURITIES>                                    57,322
<RECEIVABLES>                                  520,099
<ALLOWANCES>                                     9,972
<INVENTORY>                                    311,240
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               970,755
<PP&E>                                       1,542,135
<DEPRECIATION>                                 714,679
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,052,124
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          517,723
<BONDS>                                        259,688
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         4,750
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,166,165
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,052,124
<SALES>                                      3,134,590
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,134,590
<CGS>                                        3,051,734
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,051,734
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                30,996
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 550
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 51,310
<INCOME-TAX>                                    19,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             32,310
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    32,310
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .34
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .34
        

</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT 21**

 

**ALLIANT ENERGY CORPORATION**

**SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT**

 

The following are deemed to be significant subsidiaries of Alliant Energy Corporation as of Dec. 31, 2004:  

 

| Name of Subsidiary | State of Incorporation |
|--------------------|------------------------|

 

| Interstate Power and Light Company | Iowa |
|------------------------------------|------|

 

| Wisconsin Power and Light Company | Wisconsin |
|-----------------------------------|-----------|

 

| Alliant Energy Resources, Inc. | Wisconsin |
|--------------------------------|-----------|

 

| Alliant Energy International, Inc. | Iowa |
|------------------------------------|------|

 

| Grandelight Holding Limited | British Virgin Islands |
|-----------------------------|------------------------|

 

 

**WISCONSIN POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY**

**SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT**

 

The following are deemed to be significant subsidiaries of Wisconsin Power and Light Company as of Dec. 31, 2004:  

 

| Name of Subsidiary | State of Incorporation |
|--------------------|------------------------|

 

| WPL Transco LLC | Wisconsin |
|-----------------|-----------|
Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATION

The undersigned
certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, that:

(1) The accompanying Annual Report on Form
10-K for the period ended September 29, 2007, 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
accompanying Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.

|Date:December 14,
      2007 | /s/ William P. Murnane        | 
|---------------------------- | ----------------------------- | 
|                             | Chairman and                 
|                             | Chief
      Executive Officer
|                            
|                            
|Date:December 14,
      2007 | /s/ Douglas W. Keller         | 
|                             | Principal Financial Officer  

63

---
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Artemio SALGADO-CASTILLO, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 00-50254.

D.C. No. CR-99-00117-GLT.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted June 11, 2001.1

Decided June 25, 2001.

Before O’SCANNLAIN, SILVERMAN, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.

1

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

MEMORANDUM2

Artemio Salgado-Castillo appeals the 57-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea to being an alien found in the United States following deportation. Sal-gado-Castillo contends that in light of *Ap-prendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), the district court erred in imposing a sentence in excess of the two-year maximum set forth in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) based upon a prior felony to which he did not admit, and which was not submitted to a jury and proven beyond a reasonable doubt. He also contends that *Apprendi*renders inapplicable *Almendarez-Torres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 *579L.Ed.2d 350 (1998) (holding that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a sentencing factor and not a separate offense), because he did not admit to an aggravated felony. His arguments are foreclosed by this court’s recent decision in *United States v. Pacheco-Zepeda,*234 F.3d 411 (9th Cir.2000), as *amended*(Feb. 8, 2001). *United States v. Castillo Rivera,*244 F.3d 1020, 1024-45 (9th Cir.2001).

AFFIRMED.

2

. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
No. 59507.

protests 247064-K, etc. (New York).

#### Herzman Scarfs, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of silk scarves or squares the same in all material respects as those the subject of *United States*v. *The Specialty House, Inc., Bryant & Heffernan, Inc., et al.*(42 C. C. P. A. 136, C. A. D. 585), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
November 7, 1957

No. 61330.

protests 167889-K, etc.

#### Weil Ceramics & Glass, Inc. *v.*United States,

Plaintiff’s 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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID BACK,

NO. CIV. S-04-5 LKK/CMK

Plaintiff,

v. O R D E R

ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, 

INC.,

Defendant.

 /

Defendant moves to exclude recovery of the excess judgment.

It acknowledges, however, that under the court’s previous order

relative to a failure to investigate, plaintiff may obtain a

judgment which includes damages up to the policy limits plus

defense costs (asserted to be zero), and extra-contractual damages,

i.e. emotional distress and punitive damages arising out of the

failure to investigate. The court agrees with defendant’s

contention and its concession. 

////

Case 2:04-cv-00005-LKK -CMK Document 79 Filed 09/01/05 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

2

Regarding the duty to settle, plaintiff takes issue with the

court’s conclusion, citing and raising for the first time, Allen

v. Allstate Insurance Co., 655 F.2d 487, 490 (9th Cir. 1981).

While plaintiff’s counsel’s conduct may be viewed as an untimely

motion to reconsider, the court has no desire to commit error

because it refused to take up plaintiff’s contention. Accordingly,

the court ORDERS as follows:

1. Defendant’s motion to preclude recovery of the excess

judgment is GRANTED;

2. The hearing, currently set for September 26, 2005, is

VACATED;

3. Defendant shall respond to plaintiff’s contention relative

to Allen, supra, within ten days; and

4. Thereafter, plaintiff’s argument, construed as a motion

to reconsider, will stand submitted. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 1, 2005.

/s/Lawrence K. Karlton 

LAWRENCE K. KARLTON

SENIOR JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 2:04-cv-00005-LKK -CMK Document 79 Filed 09/01/05 Page 2 of 2
#### Homer E. HANRAHAN, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. James K. WILLIAMS, et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 00-2930.

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

Submitted March 16, 2001 *.

Decided April 5, 2001.

Before POSNER, EASTERBROOK, KANNE, Circuit Judges.

*

 After an examination of the briefs and the record, we have concluded that oral argument is unnecessary, and the appeal is submitted on the briefs and the record. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a); Cir. R. 34(f).

Order

Two years ago we remanded this case to the district court for a single purpose: to determine whether the availability of parole depended on the plaintiffs’ race. *Hanrahan v. Williams,*No. 98-2227, 1999 WL 253507 (7th Cir. Apr.27, 1999) (unpublished order). On remand the district court received evidence and granted summary judgment to the defendants, concluding that plaintiffs had not produced any direct evidence of discrimination and had not established even a disparate impact. Cf. *Personnel Administrator v. Feeney,*442 U.S. 256, 99 S.Ct. 2282, 60 L.Ed.2d 870 (1979); *Washington v. Davis,*426 U.S. 229, 96 S.Ct. 2040, 48 L.Ed.2d 597 (1976) (because the equal protection clause forbids action with discriminatory intent, a disparate impact may be suggestive but is not sufficient to establish a violation).

On appeal plaintiffs essentially concede the lack of evidence. Indeed, their reply brief denies that they tried to establish racial discrimination. Instead, they say, they want to demonstrate “racial profiling” in the parole process. “Racial profiling” has become a political catchphrase but does not displace the legal rules that govern claims of racial discrimination. To succeed in this case, the plaintiffs had to establish that their parole has been delayed because of race — that is, that they would have been released already (or would be released sooner) if they were of another race. Nothing in their briefs suggests that the plaintiffs have acquired (or with more discovery could acquire) any evidence supporting such a demonstration; and their appellate brief implies that plaintiffs did not try to do so. They therefore cannot succeed in this litigation, and the *369district court properly granted summary judgment to the defendants.

AFFIRMED
No. 63619.

protests 201913-K, etc. (New York).

#### Charles Hall, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of candlesticks and candelabras similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 62036, except that they are plated with gold, the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
No. 53511.

protest 968056-G (Detroit).

#### The J. L. Hudson Co. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

The protest was dismissed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                             313
<SECURITIES>                                       604
<RECEIVABLES>                                      589
<ALLOWANCES>                                        20
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 1,949
<PP&E>                                             661
<DEPRECIATION>                                      80
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   3,511
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,897
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            13
<OTHER-SE>                                       1,601
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     3,511
<SALES>                                          2,495
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 2,504
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,852
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  46
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    607
<INCOME-TAX>                                       205
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                402
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       402
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.03
        

</TABLE>
```

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 213 (Monday, November 4, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 65978]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-26363]

[[Page 65978]]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD

Draft Revised Strategic Plan for FY 2014-2018

AGENCY: Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with Office of Management and Budget Circular 
No. A-11, the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (DNFSB) is 
soliciting comments from all interested and potentially affected 
parties on its draft revised strategic plan. DNFSB will consider all 
comments received as a result of this outreach effort. The draft plan 
is available for review on DNFSB's Web site at http://www.dnfsb.gov/. 
Comments may be sent to the acting Deputy General Manager at 
mailbox@dnfsb.gov or the address below.

DATES: Comments will be accepted during the period November 1, 2013 
through November 30, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Send comments concerning this notice to: Defense Nuclear 
Facilities Safety Board, 625 Indiana Avenue NW., Suite 700, Washington, 
DC 20004-2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Mark Welch, Acting Deputy General 
Manager, 202-694-7060.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This draft strategic plan will replace 
DNFSB's FY 2011-2016 Strategic Plan, dated March 1, 2011.

    Dated: October 29, 2013.
Peter S. Winokur,
Chairman.
[FR Doc. 2013-26363 Filed 11-1-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3670-01-P
```
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARCUS R. ELLINGTON, 

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-0666 DFL KJM P

vs.

E. S. ALAMEIDA, et al., 

Defendants. ORDER

 /

On May 18, 2005, the Magistrate Judge issued an order finding service of

plaintiff’s amended complaint appropriate for some, but not all of the defendants named in that

complaint. On December 5, 2005, plaintiff filed a request for reconsideration of that order. 

Local Rule 72-303(b), states “rulings by Magistrate Judges shall be final if no reconsideration

thereof is sought from the Court within ten court days . . . from the date of service of the ruling

on the parties.” Local Rule 72-303(b). Plaintiff’s request for reconsideration of the magistrate

judge’s order of May 18, 2005 is therefore untimely.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s December 5, 2005

request for reconsideration is denied.

DATED: 4/6/2006

DAVID F. LEVI

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-00666-RSL-JLW Document 77 Filed 04/10/06 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

2

Case 2:04-cv-00666-RSL-JLW Document 77 Filed 04/10/06 Page 2 of 2
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2009-3073

FAE DRISCOLL,

Petitioner,

v.

UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE,

Respondent.

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection Board

in SF075270409-I-1.

ON MOTION

ORDER

Upon consideration of the United States Postal Service's motion for an extension

of time, until July 23, 2009, to file its brief,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

The motion is granted.

FOR THE COURT

JUN 1 6 2009

/s/ Jan Horbaly

Date Jan Horbaly

Clerk IfitalnatMEMLo poR L CIRCUIT

cc:	Keith Goffney, Esq.

Michelle A. Windmueller, Esq.

s8

JUN 16 2009

at fl I ittilbhLif

GLAK
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID BACK,

NO. CIV. S-04-5 LKK/CMK

Plaintiff,

v. O R D E R

ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, 

INC.,

Defendant.

 /

The court has before it what it treated as plaintiff’s motion

to reconsider its previous order relative to the duty to settle.

Essentially for the reasons explicated in defendant’s responsive

brief, the motion to reconsider is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 14, 2005.

/s/Lawrence K. Karlton 

LAWRENCE K. KARLTON

SENIOR JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 2:04-cv-00005-LKK -CMK Document 82 Filed 09/15/05 Page 1 of 1
115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 1395 

AN ACT 

To revise the boundaries of certain John H. Chafee Coastal 

Barrier Resources System units in Delaware. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

†S 1395 ES

1 SECTION 1. REPLACEMENT OF JOHN H. CHAFEE COASTAL 

2 BARRIER RESOURCES SYSTEM MAP. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—The map subtitled ‘‘Delaware 

4 Seashore Unit DE–07P, North Bethany Beach Unit 

5 H01’’ and dated December 6, 2013, that is included in 

6 the set of maps entitled ‘‘Coastal Barrier Resources Sys7 tem’’ referred to in section 4(a) of the Coastal Barrier 

8 Resources Act (16 U.S.C. 3503(a)) and relating to certain 

9 John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources System units 

10 in the State of Delaware, is replaced by the map entitled 

11 ‘‘Delaware Seashore Unit DE–07/DE–07P, North Beth12 any Beach Unit H01’’ and dated March 18, 2016. 

13 (b) AVAILABILITY.—The Secretary of the Interior 

14 shall keep the replacement map referred to in subsection 

15 (a) on file and available for inspection in accordance with 

16 section 4(b) of the Coastal Barrier Resources Act (16 

17 U.S.C. 3503(b)). 

Passed the Senate January 23, 2018. 

Attest: 

Secretary. 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 1395 

AN ACT 

To revise the boundaries of certain John H. Chafee 

ware. Coastal Barrier Resources System units in Dela-
## Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

Janet Lee Guajardo , Appellant

No. 06

- 23

- 00055

- CR v.

The State of Texas , Appellee Appeal from the 114th District Court of
Smith County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 114

- 0889

- 20 ). Memorandu m Opinion delivered by Justice van Cleef

, Chief Justice Stevens
and Justice Rambin participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court
below. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

We note that the appellant, Janet Lee Guajardo , has adequately indicated h er inability to
pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED SEPTEMBER 15, 2023 BY ORDER OF THE COURT SCOTT E. STEVENS CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST: Debra K. Autrey , Clerk
**Exhibit 32.2****Certification of Chief Financial Officer**     Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, theundersigned officer of Terayon Communication Systems, Inc. (the “Company”) herebycertifies, to such officer’s knowledge, that:     (i) the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended September 30, 2006 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, asamended; and     (ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.          Dated:  January 10,2007      /s/ Mark. A Richman         Mark A. Richman    Chief Financial Officer and
No. 63636.

protest 58/12410 (New York).

#### J. M. P. R. Trading Corp. and Alltransport, Inc. *v.*United States,

.Opinion by

Ford, X

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of monofilament fishing lines the same in all material respects as those the subject of Abstract 60183, the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
NOVJANAPR82000 2001200222             captures             15 Aug 00 - 18 Oct           04CloseHelp
Table of Contents 

UNITED STATESPATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

_________________________________________

TECHNICAL REFERENCE MODEL

Version 5.0

October 26, 1999

Chief Information OfficerOffice of System Architecture and EngineeringWashington, D.C. 20231

Table of Contents
      Table Of Contents             Approval Letter
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DARREL L. SMITH,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-0702 MCE PAN P

vs.

KING, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff seeks an extension of time to file and serve an opposition to defendant’s

March 17, 2006 motion for summary judgment pursuant to the order of April 28, 2006. Good

cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff's May 18, 2006 motion for an extension of time is granted; and

2. Plaintiff is granted 30 days from the date of this order to file and serve an

opposition to defendant’s March 17, 2006 motion for summary judgment. Defendants' reply, if

any, shall be filed seven days thereafter.

DATED: May 25, 2006.

/mp/004

smit0702.36(2)

Case 2:04-cv-00702-MCE -EFB Document 105 Filed 05/26/06 Page 1 of 1
No. 47826.

#### Protests 666348-G, etc., of Henry Pollak, Inc. (New York).

*358Opinion by

Tilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the harvest hats in question are similar to those involved in *Caradine*v. *United States*(9 Cust. Ct. 69, C. D. 664), those imported prior to the effective date of the trade agreement with the Netherlands (T. D. 48075) were held dutiable at 25 percent ad valorem under paragraph 1504 (b) (5) and those imported subsequent to the effective date of said trade agreement were held dutiable at *12%*percent under the same paragraph and T. D. 48075. .