alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit  32.2





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO  18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350





Pursuant  to Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code, the  undersigned officer of Genesis  HealthCare Corporation (the Company) does hereby certify with respect to  the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the period ended December 31, 2005 (the Report) 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.




|Date:    February 8, 2006 | /s/ James V.    McKeon    
|------------------------- | --------------------------
|                          |                           
|                          | James V.    McKeon        
|                          | Chief    Financial Officer




The  foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 1350 of  Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code and is not being filed as part  of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.





---
**Exhibit 31.1**

** **

**CERTIFICATIONS**

 

I, William R. Ringo,certify that:

 

1.             Ihave reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Abgenix, Inc.;

 

2.             Basedon my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement ofa material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements weremade, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterlyreport;

 

3.             Basedon my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects thefinancial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant asof, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

 

4.             Theregistrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:

 

a) designed suchdisclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;

 

b) evaluated theeffectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness ofthe disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered bythis quarterly report based on such evaluation; and

 

c) disclosed in thisquarterly report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

 

5.             Theregistrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

 

a) all significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and

 

b) any fraud, whether ornot material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

 

Dated: November 5, 2004

 
|   |   /s/ WILLIAM R. RINGO      |   |
|--------|---------------------------------------|--------|
|   | William R. Ringo                      |
|   | President and Chief Executive Officer |
|   | (Principal Executive Officer)         |

 

 

----
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

McGREGOR W. SCOTT

United States Attorney

PHILLIP A. TALBERT

Assistant U.S. Attorney

501 I Street, Suite 10-100

Sacramento, CA 95814

Telephone: (916) 554-2789

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

 

VICENTE OCADIO,

 

 Defendant.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CR-S-04-0389-MCE

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 

WITHDRAWING MOTION FOR

PRODUCTION OF ALLEGED COCONSPIRATOR STATEMENTS

Plaintiff United States of America, by its counsel Assistant

United States Attorney Phillip A. Talbert, and defendant Vicente

Ocadio, by and through his counsel David G. Currie, hereby

stipulate and agree that defendant's Motion for Production of

Alleged Co-Conspirator Statements, filed May 24, 2005, shall be

withdrawn, without prejudice to refiling consistent with any

motions schedule later set by the Court, to allow the parties to

continue producing and reviewing discovery materials in the case.

Date: June 24, 2005 McGREGOR W. SCOTT

United States Attorney

By: /s/ Phillip A. Talbert 

PHILLIP A. TALBERT

Assistant U.S. Attorney

Date: June 24, 2005 By: /s/ David G. Currie by PAT 

 DAVID G. CURRIE, Attorney for 

 defendant VICENTE OCADIO

Case 2:04-cr-00389-MCE Document 142 Filed 06/28/05 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

27

28 2

O R D E R

FOR GOOD CAUSE SHOWN, IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 27, 2005. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:04-cr-00389-MCE Document 142 Filed 06/28/05 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

27

28

BOUTIN DENTINO GIBSON

DI GIUSTO HODELL INC.

Chris Gibson, Esq., SBN 073353

Michael E. Chase, Esq., SBN 214506

555 Capitol Mall, Suite 1500

Sacramento, CA 95814

915/321-4444

Attorney for plaintiff

CONCRETE WASHOUT SYSTEMS, INC.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CONCRETE WASHOUT SYSTEMS, INC. ) CASE NO. CIV. S-04-1005 WBS/DAD

a California corporation, )

) [PROPOSED] ORDER RE: REQUEST TO 

) FILE UNDER SEAL EXHIBIT “A” TO THE

Plaintiff, ) IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S

) OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ 

 vs. ) MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

)

MINEGAR ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS, ) Date: July 11, 2005

INC., a California corporation, PETER J. ) Time: 1:30 p.m.

MINEGAR, and DOES 1-10, ) Dept.: 5

) Judge: Hon. William B. Shubb

Defendants. )

)

______________________________________)

 The Court considered the REQUEST TO FILE UNDER SEAL EXHIBIT “A” TO THE

DECLARATION OF DANIEL P. MAGUIRE IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION

TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT.

For good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Request is GRANTED. 

Exhibit “A” to the Declaration of Daniel P. Maguire in Support of Plaintiff’s Opposition to

Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment shall be filed under seal. The party who files the exhibits

shall make sure that copies of the exhibits in their entirety, unsealed, are provided along with copies

///

///

///

Case 2:04-cv-01005-WBS-DAD Document 80 Filed 06/23/05 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

27

28

of the papers which are submitted to the judge’s chambers at the time the exhibits are filed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 22, 2005

Case 2:04-cv-01005-WBS-DAD Document 80 Filed 06/23/05 Page 2 of 2
Bureau of the Fiscal Service

1

OTCnet Printable Job Aid

Cancel a Card Payment

In option one, to cancel a card payment with Process Payment, complete the following steps:

1. From the Card Capture—Perform Card Transaction page, enter the pertinent card details 

using Process Payment. Click Cancel Transaction as shown in Figure 1 to cancel the 

payment.

Figure 1. Card Capture - Perform Card Transaction, cancel card payment

It takes about 6-8 seconds to process a payment. To cancel a payment, you must click 

Cancel Transaction during this time. On the card terminal, customers receive a 

message communicating that the transaction has been canceled.

2. The system prints a receipt with “Result = Canceled”. Select Return Home to go to the 

OTCnet homepage.

The receipt is printed to your default Windows receipt printer. Print Receipt stays 

enabled to allow you to print multiple copies of a receipt.

Application Tip

Application Tip
Bureau of the Fiscal Service

2

OTCnet Printable Job Aid

In option two, to cancel a card payment with Manual Card Entry, complete the following steps:

1. From the Card Capture—Perform Card Transaction page, enter the pertinent card details, 

using Manual Card Entry. Click Cancel Transaction to cancel the payment.

2. The system prints a receipt with “Result = Canceled”. Select Return Home to go to the 

OTCnet homepage.

In option three, to cancel a card payment, follow this step:

1. The customer is presented with the “Transaction Amount” screen. The customer clicks the 

red button (X) twice.

• A customer can cancel a card payment at any time during the payment process. 

• The customer must press the red button (X) twice to cancel the payment.

• The first time the customer presses the red button (X) it cancels PIN entry.

• The second time the customer presses the red button (X) it cancels the 

transaction.

Application Tips
No. 61839.

#### International Packers, Ltd. *v.*United States,

protests 243910-K, 247320-K, and 247387-K (Nogales).

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

In accordance with 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 al.*(45 C. C. P. A. 20, C. A. D. 667), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
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 

Darrel L. Smith,

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

vs. Order

King, et al.,

Defendants.

-oOoPlaintiff is a prisoner, without counsel, who claims

defendant King was deliberately indifferent to plaintiff’s safety

by releasing confidential information about plaintiff’s enemies. 

Plaintiff requests leave to examine by deposition Mark Baker, a

prisoner not a party to this action, and defendant King. 

A party may discover any matter, not privileged, that is

relevant to the claim or defense of any party. Fed. R. Civ. P.

26(b)(1). Information is relevant if it would be admissible at 

trial or it is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of 

Case 2:04-cv-00702-MCE -EFB Document 68 Filed 09/08/05 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

admissible evidence. Id. 

Plaintiff would ask Mark Baker whether Baker requested

plaintiff be moved to another cell March 10, 2003; to whom Baker

submitted any such request; whether Baker is epileptic; and

whether Baker takes medication to treat epilepsy.

Plaintiff does not explain the relevance of the information

he seeks. Nothing in the record suggests information about

Baker’s health, medication or request to move to a different cell

is within the scope of discovery.

Plaintiff would ask defendant King to whom King reported

March 10, 2003, after he and other officers moved Baker from cell

105 to the medical clinic. 

Plaintiff does not explain the relevance of this

information. Nothing in the record suggests this information is

within the scope of discovery.

For these reasons, plaintiff’s June 29, 2005, motion is

denied.

So ordered.

Dated: September 8, 2005. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:04-cv-00702-MCE -EFB Document 68 Filed 09/08/05 Page 2 of 2
No. 47849.

#### Protest 16860-K of Ciba Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Cole, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the “Silvatol I” contains 29 percent of materials provided for in said section 701, “Sapamine KWC pat.” 53 percent, and “Albatex POC pat.” 41 percent, the said merchandise was held taxable at 3 cents per pound to the extent that the weight by quantity of the taxable material bears to' the total weight of each of the imported products. The protest was sustained to that extent..
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 40 (Thursday, March 1, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 9319]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-3601]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP07-175-000]


Alliance Pipeline L.P.; Notice of Proposed Change in FERC Gas 
Tariff

February 23, 2007.
    Take notice that on February 20, 2007, Alliance Pipeline L.P. 
(Alliance) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Original 
Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets, to become effective March 
12, 2007:

First Revised Sheet No. 256.
Original Sheet No. 256A.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must 
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of 
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, 
motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of 
Section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). 
Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that 
document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on 
or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to 
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an 
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the 
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription'' 
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail 
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For 
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#aee8ebfcede1c0c2c7c0cbfddbdedec1dcdaeec8cbdccd80c9c1d8"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="71373423323e1f1d181f14220401011e030531171403125f161e07">[email protected]</span></a>, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-3601 Filed 2-28-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
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

DAVID SOTO,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-04-1432 LKK DAD P

vs.

EDWARD S. ALAMEIDA, et al.,

Respondents. ORDER

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a writ of

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States

Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local General Order No. 262.

On August 3, 2005, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations

herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any

objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fifteen days. Petitioner

has filed objections to the findings and recommendations. Pursuant to the magistrate judge’s

order, filed on August 30, 2005, respondents have filed a reply.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72-

304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Based on the new evidence provided

by respondents in their reply, the findings and recommendations will not be adopted, the

Case 2:04-cv-01432-LKK -DAD Document 24 Filed 09/20/05 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

respondents’ motion to dismiss will be denied, and respondents will be ordered to file their

answer. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed August 3, 2005, are not adopted;

2. Respondents’ renewed motion to dismiss, filed on February 8, 2005, is denied;

and

3. Within sixty days from the service of this order, respondents shall file their

answer to petitioner’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus.

DATED: September 20, 2005.

/s/Lawrence K. Karlton 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

/soto1432.805

Case 2:04-cv-01432-LKK -DAD Document 24 Filed 09/20/05 Page 2 of 2
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOHN LUCAS,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.
DONNY YOUNGBLOOD; et al.,

Defendants

- Appellees. No. 18

- 17420

D.C. No. 1:18

- cv
- 00654

- DAD

- JLT

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Dale A. Drozd, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted November 18, 2019 **

Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
John Lucas appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his
action alleging federal and state law claims

. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291

. We review de novo a dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6). Hebbe v. Pliler , 627 F.3d 338, 341 (9th Cir. 2010). We affirm.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

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

# FILED

NOV 26 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 18

- 17420

The district court properly dismissed Lucas’s action because Lucas failed to
allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim. See Allen v. Gold Country Casino ,
464 F.3d 1044, 1048 (9th Cir. 2006) ( 18 U.S.C. § 242 is a “ criminal statute [] that

do [es] not give rise to civil liability ”); Jackson v. City of Bremerton , 268 F.3d 646 , 653 (9th Cir. 2001) (“Neither a municipality nor a supervisor . . . can be held liable
under § 1983 where no injury or constitutional violation has occurred.”); Vill. of

Willowbrook v. Olech , 528 U.S. 562, 564 (2000) (per curiam) (elements of an
equal protection “class of one” claim) ; Ellis v. City of San Diego , 176 F.3d 1183 , 1189 (9th Cir. 1999) ( the California Penal Code “ sections do not create enforceable
individual rights ”); see also Hebbe , 627 F.3d at 341

- 42 (although pro se pleadings
are liberally construed, a plaintiff must allege facts sufficient to state a plausible
claim)

. The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Lucas’s first
amended complaint without leave to amend because amendment would have been

futile. See Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. , 656 F.3d 1034 , 1041 (9th

Cir. 2011) (setting forth standard of review and explaining that a district court may
dismiss without leave to amend when amendment would be futile).
Contrary to Lucas’s contention, the district court did not grant defendants’
motion for a prot ective order.
We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on3 18

- 17420

appeal. See Padgett v. Wright , 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

We do not consider documents not presented to the district court

. See

United States v. Elias , 921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990) (“Documents or facts not
presented to the district court are not part of the record on appeal.”).

AFFIRMED.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on this date I caused a true and correct copy of Defendant Greater

Hatboro Chamber of Commerce’s Motion In Limine to Exclude All Evidence of Alleged

Sexual Harassment to be served by United States Mail, First Class Service, properly addressed

and postage prepaid, upon the following:

Anita F. Alberts, Esquire

301 South Main Street

The Atrium, Suite W-2

Doylestown, PA 18901

(Attorney for Plaintiff)

 /s/Sidney L. Gold, Esquire SG1387 

SIDNEY L. GOLD, ESQUIRE

Attorney for Defendants 

DATE: September 9, 2005

Case 2:02-cv-04421-PBT Document 48-2 Filed 09/09/2005 Page 1 of 1