alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Diana Lee NEVELL-TORREJON, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 00-10209.

D.C. No. CR-96-00327-JMR.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 14, 2001.*

Decided June 18, 2001.

*527Before HUG and T.G. NELSON, Circuit Judges, and SHADUR,** District Judge.

*

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

**

 Honorable Milton I. Shadur, Senior United States District Judge for the Northern District of Illinois.

MEMORANDUM ***

The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing a three-year term of supervised release.1 Supervised release is appropriate “to provide drug or alcohol treatment or testing,”2 from which Nevell’s two positive drug tests and unsuccessful discharge from a drug treatment facility strongly suggest she would benefit. Nor did the district court abuse its discretion in considering hearsay “victim impact” statements, because the Federal Rules of Evidence do not apply3 and those statements bore minimal indicia of reliability.4

AFFIRMED.

***

 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 Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

1

. Where probation is revoked, United States Sentencing Commission Guideline § 7B1.3 looks to §§ 5D 1.1-1.3 as to the imposition of supervised release. In turn, § 5D1.1 provides that "[t]he court may order a term of supervised release to follow imprisonment [in any case where a sentence not more than one year] is imposed."

2

. United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual, § 5D1.1, comment, (n. 1).

3

. *United States v. Walker,*117 F.3d 417, 420 (9th Cir.1997).

4

. *United States v. Ayers,*924 F.2d 1468, 1481 (9th Cir.1991).
No. 63051.

#### Armour and Company *v.*United States,

protest 326041-K (San Francisco).

*377Opinion by

Donlon, J.

In accordance witb stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of meats, prepared or preserved, not specially provided for, similar in all material respects to the meat the subject of *United States*v. *Mercantil Distribuidora, S. A., et at.*(45 C.C.P.A. 20, C.A.D. 667), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Part 2, Section I: Chart of Accounts

The Chart of Accounts provides the basic structure for the U.S. Standard General Ledger (USSGL). It 

incorporates both proprietary and budgetary accounts. The proprietary and budgetary sets of general ledger 

accounts are self-balancing (total debits equal total credits). It is important to note that central agency 

reporting requires a lower level of detail than the 6-digit USSGL account numbers provided. Therefore, the 

USSGL Board developed attributes containing various domain values that, when added to a basic 6-digit 

USSGL account, provide the appropriate level of detail needed for central agency reporting and, in effect, 

create new USSGL accounts. See Section IV for attribute definitions and domain values. It is this lower 

level of detail, the basic 6-digit USSGL account plus applicable attribute domain values, that agencies must 

capture at the transaction level to (1) comply with USSGL policy, and (2) achieve the desired result for 

proper reporting.

The basic 6-digit USSGL accounts are classified as follows:

100000 Assets

200000 Liabilities

300000 Net Position

400000 Budgetary

500000 Revenue and Other Financing Sources 

600000 Expenses

700000 Gains/Losses/Miscellaneous Items

800000 Memorandum

Agencies may expand this numbering system to as many digits as necessary to accommodate agencyspecific requirements. However, subsidiary accounts must summarize or “roll up” to the 6-digit USSGL 

accounts plus any related attributes.

In February 1999, the USSGL Board voted to delete summary accounts. However, agencies may 

summarize accounts as they find useful. Section headings replace many of the deleted summary accounts 

to maintain the integrity of the account structure.

Page 1 of 1
No. 52276.

protests 906639-G, etc. (New York).

#### Sears, Roebuck & Co. *v.*United States,

*305Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise is the same in all material respects as the gloves which were the subject of *United States*v. *Julius Kayser & Co.*(33 C. C. P. A. 179, C. A. D. 333). The claim of the plaintiff was therefore sustained.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Federal Reserve System

                    The companies listed in this notice have given notice under section 4 of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1843) (BHC Act) and Regulation Y (12 CFR Part 225) to engage                     *de novo*, or to acquire or control voting securities or assets of a company, including the companies listed below, that engages either directly or through a subsidiary or other company, in a nonbanking activity that is listed in § 225.28 of Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.28) or that the Board has determined by Order to be closely related to banking and permissible for bank holding companies. Unless otherwise noted, these activities will be conducted throughout the United States.                

                    Each notice is available for inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notice also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the question whether the proposal complies with the standards of section 4 of the BHC Act. Additional information on all bank holding companies may be obtained from the National Information Center website at                     *www.ffiec.gov/​nic/​*.                

Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding the applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than March 16, 2007.

**A. Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco**                     (Tracy Basinger, Director, Regional and Community Bank Group) 101 Market Street, San Francisco, California 94105-1579:                

*1. NHB Holdings, Inc., and Proficio Mortgage Ventures, LLC, both of Jacksonville, Florida;*                     to engage de novo through a joint venture with Plus Relocation Mortgage Solutions, Minneapolis, Minnesota, and thereby engage in Mortgage related activities pursuant to section 225.28(b)(1) of Regulation Y.                

      ( print page 9337)    
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, February 23, 2007.

Robert deV. Frierson,

Deputy Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. E7-3570 Filed 2-28-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6210-01-S
Exhibit 32.2

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 of Abgenix, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending June 30, 2004, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



August 9,
2004

| |  | /s/BARBARA RICHINGBarbara Riching Senior Director, Finance
(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
| |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

---



QuickLinks
Federal Depository Library ProgramPersistent URL Home Page      

# Target for /GPO/LPS3991 lost

The target resource for this PURL can no longer be traced. The following is a list of the targets this PURL was previously assigned to.

Powered by the Federal Depository Library Program.                A service of the U.S. Government Publishing Office.
**Exhibit      32.1**

| 1.   | The              Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period              ended September 30, 2006 (the “Report”) fully complies with the              requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act              of              1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); and |
|----------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 2.   | The              information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material              respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the              Company. |
|----------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| DATE:  | November                9, 2006 |   | BY:    | /S/                Scott V. Fainor                              |
|--------|---------------------------------|--------|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |                            |   |   | Scott                V. Fainor                                  |
|   |                            |   |   | President                and Chief Executive Officer            |
|   |                            |   |   |                                                            |
|   |                            |   |   |                                                            |
|   |                            |   |   |                                                            |
| DATE:  | November                9, 2006 |   | BY:    | /S/                Eugene T. Sobol                              |
|   |                            |   |   | Eugene                T. Sobol                                  |
|   |                            |   |   | Senior                Executive Vice President, Chief Financial |
|   |                            |   |   | Officer                and Treasurer                            |

*A      signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the      Sarbanes-Oxley Act has been provided to KNBT Bancorp, Inc. and will be retained      by KNBT Bancorp, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission      or      its staff upon request.*

----
Exhibit 12.1

# GREAT PLAINS ENERGY

# COMPUTATION OF RATIO
OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES

|                                        
|----------------------------------------
|                                        
|
|                                        
|Income (loss) from continuing operations
|before cumulative effect of changes     
|in accounting principles                
|Add:                                    
|Equity investment (income) loss         
|Minority interests in subsidiaries      
|                                        
|Income subtotal                         
|                                        
|                                        
|Add:                                    
|Taxes on income                         
|Kansas City earnings tax                
|                                        
|Total taxes on income                   
|                                        
|                                        
|Interest on value of leased             
|property                                
|Interest on long-term debt              
|Interest on short-term debt             
|Mandatorily redeemable Preferred        
|Securities                              
|Other interest expense                  
|and amortization                        
|                                        
|                                        
|Total fixed charges                     
|                                        
|                                        
|Earnings before taxes on                
|income and fixed charges                
|                                        
|                                        
|Ratio of earnings to fixed charges      
|                                        

|    | 
|--- | 
|(a) | 
|    | 
|    | 
|    |
#### Geise *vs.*Ragan.

Where G. sued R., alleging that he had turned over to R. his interest in certain goods, formerly owned by G. & R. as a Arm, and that R., in consideration of this, agreed to pay the debts of the firm Of Gr. & R., which he had failed to do; but did not allege that R. promised to pay them at any particular time; or that a reasonable time had elapsed to have allowed him to do so, the declaration was properly dismissed on demurrer.

June 1, 1888.

Partnership. Pleadings. Before Judge John T. Clarke. Terrell superior court. November term, 1887.

Reported in the decision.

Hoyl & Parks, by brief, for plaintiff.

Guerry & Griggs, for defendant.

Blandford, Justice.

The declaration in this case alleged that the plaintiff had turned over to the defendant his interest in a certain stock of goods, formerly owned by Geise *&*Ragan as a firm, and that Ragan agreed; in consideration thereof, to *733pay off the debts of the firm of Geise & Ragan, which he had failed to do. It nowhere alleges that Ragan promised to pay the debts of this firm at any particular time ; nor does it allege that a reasonable time had elapsed before the commencement of this action to have allowed Ragan to have done so.

Under a demurrer to this declaration, the court dismissed the action ; and we think the court did right.

Judgment affirmed.
Exhibit 32.2

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 of Elite Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the
Registrant) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2009 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Carter J Ward, Chief
Financial Officer and Treasurer of the Registrant, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.
C. Section 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) of the
 Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and                                                                                                                                                
| |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   
| | (2) The
 information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
 respects, the consolidated financial condition of the Registrant as of the
 dates presented and the consolidated result of operations of the Registrant
 for the periods presented.

|                      |                                             
|--------------------- | --------------------------------------------
|Date: August 19, 2009 | /s/ Carter J. Ward                          
|                      |                                             
|                      | Carter J.
 Ward                             
|                      | Chief
 Financial Officer of                 
|                      | Elite
 Pharmaceuticals, Inc.                
|                      | (Principal Accounting and
 Financial Officer

This
certification has been furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.

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

---
<PAGE>
Exhibit 99.02



                            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 Click2learn, Inc., on Form
10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Form 10-Q"), I, John D. Atherly ,
Chief Financial Officer of Click2learn, Inc., certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C.Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, that:

           (1) The Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d));
and

           (2) The information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
Click2learn, Inc.


Dated: August 14, 2002




/s/ John D. Atherly
--------------------------------------
John D. Atherly
Chief Financial 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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DIANNE NELSON,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1103 DFL KJM PS

vs.

PLACER COUNTY, et al., 

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff’s motions to appoint counsel and to modify the scheduling order and for

protective order regarding plaintiff’s deposition are presently calendared for hearing March 22,

2006. As provided by Local Rule 78-230(h), the court has determined that the matter will be

submitted on the papers without oral argument. Upon review of the motion and the file in this

action, and good cause appearing therefor, THE COURT FINDS AS FOLLOWS:

 Plaintiff again has moved for appointment of counsel under Local General Order

230. This order requires the court to determine whether: (1) plaintiff’s income is 125 percent or

less of the current poverty threshold established by the Office of Management and Budget of the

United States and is otherwise without resources to obtain counsel; (2) this case is of a type that

attorneys in this district ordinarily do not accept without prepayment of fee; (3) this case is not a

fee generating case within the meaning of California Business and Professions Code § 8030.4(g);

Case 2:04-cv-01103-DFL -KJM Document 132 Filed 03/14/06 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

and (4) this case has sufficient merit to warrant appointment. Upon consideration of these factors

and review of the voluminous pleadings in this action, the court finds appointment of counsel is

not warranted.

Plaintiff requests a further extension of the discovery cut-off. This action was

filed June 9, 2004. A scheduling order duly issued on March 22, 2005 setting a discovery cut-off

of October 5, 2005. The scheduling order was modified based on the request of the parties by

order filed September 23, 2005. The discovery cut-off is presently set for March 22, 2006. 

Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate good cause for further modification of the scheduling order

and plaintiff’s request therefore will be denied.

Plaintiff also seeks a protective order precluding further deposition of herself. 

Plaintiff contends defense counsel unreasonably refused to complete her deposition in one day

and that she is subject to further deposition. Plaintiff does not indicate defendants have

attempted to further depose plaintiff. Absent a showing under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

30(d)(2), plaintiff is not subject to further deposition and plaintiff’s request is therefore not ripe. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel is denied.

2. Plaintiff’s request to extend the discovery cut-off is denied.

3. Plaintiff’s motion for protective order is denied.

DATED: March 13, 2006.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

006

nelson.sub

Case 2:04-cv-01103-DFL -KJM Document 132 Filed 03/14/06 Page 2 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

1That document was not served on respondents. Petitioner is advised that every document

submitted to the court for consideration must be served on respondents. Fed. R. Civ. P. 5. 

Documents not to be served electronically are usually served by placing a copy in the U.S. mail. 

If an attorney has filed a document with the court on behalf of respondents, then documents

submitted by petitioner must be served on that attorney and not on the respondents themselves. 

Every document submitted conventionally to the court (e.g., by a prisoner proceeding pro se)

must include a certificate stating the date an accurate copy of the document was mailed to

respondents or their attorney and the address to which it was mailed. See Local Rule 5-135(b)

and (c). In future, plaintiff must serve any document for which he seeks consideration by the

court.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BOBBY W. ENDSLEY,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-0990 FCD GGH P

vs.

YOLO COUNTY SHERIFF’S

DEPARTMENT, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

On July 7, 2005, plaintiff submitted a request for the appointment of counsel.1 The

United States Supreme Court has ruled that district courts lack authority to require counsel to

represent indigent prisoners in § 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296,

298 (1989). In certain exceptional circumstances, the court may request the voluntary assistance

Case 2:04-cv-00990-FCD-GGH Document 20 Filed 08/05/05 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

of counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir.

1991); Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990). In the present case, the

court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. Plaintiff’s request for the

appointment of counsel will therefore be denied.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s July 7, 2005 request for appointment of counsel is denied; and

2. Plaintiff is cautioned that failure to serve any documents subsequently filed in

this action properly, and failure to include a proper certificate of service with such filing, may

result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed.

DATED: 8/5/05

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:009/bb

ends0990.35a

Case 2:04-cv-00990-FCD-GGH Document 20 Filed 08/05/05 Page 2 of 2