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



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 Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and in
connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Horizon Medical Products,
Inc. (the Corporation) for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2004, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), the undersigned, the President, Chief Operating Officer and Interim
Chief Executive Officer of the Corporation, hereby certifies: (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
Corporation.  /s/ Robert J. Wenzel  May 17, 2004 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or
other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the
signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this
written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Horizon Medical
Products, Inc. and will be retained by Horizon Medical Products, Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit 12.2

INTERSTATE POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY

RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED
CHARGES AND RATIO OF EARNINGS TO COMBINED FIXED CHARGES   AND PREFERRED DIVIDEND
REQUIREMENTS

|                                                  | Years Ended December 31,
|------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------
|                                                  |                         
|                                                  | 2005                    
|                                                  |                         
|                                                  | (dollars in millions)   
|EARNINGS:                                         |                         
|Net income                                        | $165.1                  
|Income taxes                                      | 80.8                    
|                                                  |                         
|Income before income taxes                        | 245.9                   
|                                                 
|Fixed charges as defined                          | 72.5                    
|                                                  |                         
|Total earnings as defined                         | $318.4                  
|                                                  |                         
|                                                 
|FIXED CHARGES:                                   
|Interest expense                                  | $67.7                   
|Estimated interest component of rent expense      | 4.8                     
|                                                  |                         
|Total fixed charges as defined                    | $72.5                   
|                                                  |                         
|Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges (Unaudited)    | 4.39                    
|                                                  |                         
|Preferred dividend requirements (pre-tax basis) * | $22.9                   
|                                                  |                         
|Fixed charges and preferred dividend requirements | $95.4                   
|                                                  |                         
|Ratio of Earnings to Combined Fixed Charges and  
|Preferred Dividend Requirements (Unaudited)       | 3.34                    
|                                                  |                         

* Preferred dividend requirements
(pre-tax basis) are computed by dividing the preferred dividend requirements by one
hundred percent minus the annual effective income tax rate.
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 American Banknote
Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-K/A (Amendment No. 1) for the year ended
December 31, 2002, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the "Report"), I, Steven G. Singer, Chairman and 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 the best of
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 result of operations of the Company.

| | /s/ Steven G. Singer
Steven G. Singer
Chairman and
Chief Executive Officer
| | --------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: April 29, 2003
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SHAWN HAWK, No. CIV S-04-0731-MCE-CMK-P

Plaintiff, 

vs. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

ALAMEIDA, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

On June 23, 2006, the court directed the United States Marshal to serve process

on defendant Howard. On September 18, 2006, the Marshal returned service unexecuted

because defendant Howard is deceased. In light of the suggestion on the record of defendant

Howard’s death, on September 26, 1996, the court directed plaintiff to seek substitution pursuant

to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(a)(1) within 90days of the date of the order. Plaintiff was

cautioned that failure to seek substitution would result in dismissal of the action as against

defendant Howard. More than 90 days have expired and plaintiff has not sought substitution. 

/ / /

Case 2:04-cv-00731-MCE -CMK Document 46 Filed 02/16/07 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

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(a)(1) provides, in pertinent part: “Unless the

motion for substitution is made not later than 90 days after the death is suggested upon the

record by service of a statement of the fact of the death as provided herein . . . , the action shall

be dismissed as to the deceased party.” This language is mandatory in that dismissal is required

where no timely motion for substitution is made. Because plaintiff has not sought substitution of

defendant Howard within the 90-day period, dismissal of the action as against defendant Howard

is required by the rules. 

Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that this action be

dismissed as against defendant Howard only and that the Clerk of the Court be directed to

terminate Howard as a defendant to this action.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 20 days

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge's

Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive

the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: February 15, 2007.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-00731-MCE -CMK Document 46 Filed 02/16/07 Page 2 of 2
Case No. 15,042.

#### UNITED STATES v. ELLICK.

[2 Cranch, C. C. 412.] 1

Circuit Court. District of Columbia.

March Term, 1823.

Slaves — Assault and Battert — Jurisdiction over Offence.

This court has no jurisdiction in assault and battery by a slave on a white man; and will order him to be taken before a justice of the peace to be dealt with according to law.

This was an indictment of [negro Ellick] a slave, for an assault and battery upon Henry Shortle, a white man. The jury found him guilty, and assessed the fine at 523.

1

 [Reported by Hon. William Cranch, Chief Judged

THE COURT

arrested the judgment, being of opinion that neither the court nor jury could assess a fine or inflict corporal punishment upon a slave, and that an adequate corporal punishment could only be inflicted by a justice of the peace. They therefore ordered the marshal to take the prisoner before N. S. Wise, a justice of the peace, to be dealt with according to law, and that the verdict and this order be certified to the said justice.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3963 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3963

To clarify that noncommercial species found entirely within the borders 
    of a single State are not in interstate commerce or subject to 
   regulation under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 or any other 
  provision of law enacted as an exercise of the power of Congress to 
                     regulate interstate commerce.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 14, 2024

   Mr. Lee (for himself, Mr. Cruz, and Mr. Sullivan) introduced the 
 following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                      Environment and Public Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To clarify that noncommercial species found entirely within the borders 
    of a single State are not in interstate commerce or subject to 
   regulation under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 or any other 
  provision of law enacted as an exercise of the power of Congress to 
                     regulate interstate commerce.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Native Species Protection Act''.

SEC. 2. TREATMENT OF INTRASTATE SPECIES.

    (a) Definition of Intrastate Species.--In this section, the term 
``intrastate species'' means any species of plant or fish or wildlife 
(as those terms are defined in section 3 of the Endangered Species Act 
of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1532)) that is--
            (1) found entirely within the borders of a single State; 
        and
            (2) not part of a national market for any commodity.
    (b) Treatment.--An intrastate species shall not be--
            (1) considered to be in interstate commerce; and
            (2) subject to regulation under--
                    (A) the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 
                1531 et seq.); or
                    (B) any other provision of law under which 
                regulatory authority is based on the power of Congress 
                to regulate interstate commerce as enumerated in 
                article I, section 8, clause 3 of the Constitution of 
                the United States.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JUL-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 AUG-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   OCT-31-1998
<CASH>                                         1,794,924
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  3,715,633
<ALLOWANCES>                                   61,017
<INVENTORY>                                    8,473,047
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               14,241,979
<PP&E>                                         3,386,566
<DEPRECIATION>                                 523,023
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 17,166,528
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          5,002,015
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       37,000
<OTHER-SE>                                     10,350,870
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   17,166,528
<SALES>                                        6,239,923
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               6,239,923
<CGS>                                          4,179,389
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  1,709,802
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               18,401
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               21,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             16,011
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                372,504
<INCOME-TAX>                                   119,201
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            253,303
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   253,303
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0.07
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0.07
        


</TABLE>
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).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

JOSE MIGUEL YESTE,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 09-10337

D.C. No. 4:08-cr-00288-JMR

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

John M. Roll, Chief Judge, Presiding

Submitted September 13, 2010** 

Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges. 

Jose Miguel Yeste appeals from the 120-month sentence imposed following his

guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine and

possession with intent to distribute cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1),

(b)(1)(A)(ii)(II). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

FILED

OCT 13 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 09-10337

Yeste contends that the district erred by enhancing his offense level by two

levels, under U.S.S.G § 2D1.1(b)(1), based on his co-conspirators’ possession of

firearms. The district court did not clearly err by finding that his co-conspirators’

possession of firearms was reasonably foreseeable to Yeste. See United States v.

Garcia, 909 F.2d 1346, 1349-50 (9th Cir. 1990).

Yeste also contends that the district court erred by failing to grant his request

for safety valve relief. The district court did not clearly err by finding that Yeste had

failed to truthfully disclose all of the information he had concerning the offense. See

18 U.S.C. § 3553(f)(5); United States v. Miller, 151 F.3d 957, 958 (9th Cir. 1998);

United States v. Shrestha, 86 F.3d 935, 938-39 (9th Cir. 1996). 

Finally, the district court did not plainly err by not awarding Yeste an additional

one-level downward adjustment for acceptance of responsibility, after the government

declined to move for the extra reduction because it would need to expend prosecutorial

resources as Yeste had rejected a plea agreement. See U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(b); United

States v. Johnson, 581 F.3d 994, 1002-04 (9th Cir. 2009) (“[T]he allocation and

expenditure of prosecutorial resources for the purposes of defending an appeal is a

rational basis for declining to move for the third reduction point.”). 

AFFIRMED.
Materials Not Included in

Airworthiness Directive (AD) Docket

 Docket Number: FAA-2016-3702

 Directorate Identifier: 2015NM103AD

747-71-2332 --- 5/30/2014

Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in FDMS Docket and Maintained in the 

Supplemental AD Docket

MAY BE VIEWED AT: Federal Aviation Administration

Transport Airplane Directorate

Rules Docket

1601 Lind Ave. SW.,

Renton, WA 98057

425.227.1221

DURING THE HOURS OF: 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday,

except Federal holidays.

Form Date: 03/05/2008
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

KENNETH MILLS, 

Petitioner, No. CIV S-04-0746 GEB GGH P

vs.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,

Respondents. ORDER

 /

This petition for writ of habeas corpus was denied on September 3, 2004 and

judgment entered accordingly. Petitioner’s filing, entitled request for order to show cause, filed

on August 29, 2006, does not appear to be one contemplated by the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure or the Federal Rules Governing § 2254 Cases. Therefore, this document will be

placed in the file and disregarded.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: 9/11/06 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:bb

mill0746.158 

Case 2:04-cv-00746-GEB-GGH Document 7 Filed 09/12/06 Page 1 of 1
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4197 

To amend the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 to provide for an extension 

of certain authorities under title VII of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 18, 2024 

Mr. LEE introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to 

the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 to provide 

for an extension of certain authorities under title VII 

of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978. 

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

3 SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF CERTAIN AUTHORITIES. 

4 (a) EXTENSION.— 

5 (1) IN GENERAL.—Section 403(b) of the FISA 

6 Amendments Act of 2008 (Public Law 110–261; 

7 122 Stat. 2474) is amended, by striking ‘‘April 19, 

8 2024’’ each place the term appears and inserting 

9 ‘‘May 17, 2024’’. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•S 4197 IS

1 (2) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made 

2 by paragraph (1) shall take effect as if enacted on 

3 April 18, 2024. 

4 (b) TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMENDMENT.— 

5 Section 404(b)(1) of the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 

6 (Public Law 110–261; 122 Stat. 2476), is amended, in 

7 the heading, by striking ‘‘APRIL 19, 2024’’ and inserting 

8 ‘‘MAY 17, 2024’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
Exhibit 21
                                                                      ----------


                         Subsidiaries of the Registrant
                         ------------------------------

                                                            Percentage of Voting
                                        Jurisdiction of Securities Owned
Name                                    Incorporation         by the Registrant
----                                    -------------         -----------------

Bonnie International (Hong
   Kong) Ltd.                           Hong Kong                    100%

Aetna Handbags of Haiti, S.A.*          Haiti                        100%

Bonlyn Taiwan Co., Ltd.*                Taiwan                       100%

Cosmopolitan of Haiti, S.A.*            Haiti                        100%

The Bag Factory Inc. (1)                New Jersey                   100%

Max N. Nitzberg, Inc.                   Pennsylvania                 100%

Topsville, Inc.                         Florida                      100%(2)

JLN, Inc. (3)                           Delaware                     100%(3)


-----------------------------
*    Inactive

(1) In the past, this entity also did business under the name "Satchels." Such
name is not presently used.
(2) Owned 100% by Max N. Nitzberg, Inc. which is a wholly-owned direct
subsidiary of the Registrant.
(3) In the past, this entity also did business under the name "Marilyn USA."
Such name is not presently used.
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

ARTHUR ANDERSON, 

Petitioner, No. CIV S-04-1172 GEB GGH P

vs.

CA BOARD OF PRISON TERMS, et al., 

Respondents. ORDER

 /

Petitioner has requested the appointment of counsel. There currently exists no

absolute right to appointment of counsel in habeas proceedings. See Nevius v. Sumner, 105 F.3d

453, 460 (9th Cir. 1996). However, 18 U.S.C. § 3006A authorizes the appointment of counsel at

any stage of the case “if the interests of justice so require.” See Rule 8(c), Fed. R. Governing

§ 2254 Cases. In the present case, the court does not find that the interests of justice would be

served by the appointment of counsel at the present time. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner’s January 18, 2006

motion for appointment of counsel is denied without prejudice to a renewal of the motion at a

later stage of the proceedings.

DATED: 1/30/06

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:bb/ande1172.110 

Case 2:04-cv-01172-GEB-GGH Document 51 Filed 01/30/06 Page 1 of 1