alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 32.1

SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION OF 
PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER 
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In
connection with the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K of SonoSite, Inc.
for the year ended December 31, 2003, I, Kevin M. Goodwin, Chief Executive
Officer of SonoSite, Inc., hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as
adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

| | (1)
  such Annual Report on Form 10-K of SonoSite, Inc. for the year ended December
  31, 2003, 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 such Annual Report on Form 10-K of SonoSite,
  Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2003, fairly presents, in all material
  respects, the financial condition and results of operations of SonoSite, Inc.

| | /S/    KEVIN M. GOODWIN                                              
| | ---------------------------------------------------------------------
| |                                                                      
| | Kevin M.
  Goodwin                                                   
| | President and Chief Executive Officer
  (Principal Executive Officer)

March 12, 2004

66

---

---
Searched for **https://www.childreninadversity.gov/**

 

19961997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009201020112012201320142015201620172018201920202021202220232024

*Note:* This calendar view maps the number of captures of **https://www.childreninadversity.gov/**, *not* how many times the site was actually updated.

Look Up URL in general Internet Archive web collection.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-2154
SANJEEV MALHOTRA, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WATERGATE AT LANDMARK (WAL) CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, WAL Board of Directors and/or its assignees, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (CA-05-76-LMB) Submitted: March 23, 2006 Decided: March 27, 2006 Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Sanjeev Malhotra, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Curtis Gartner, WHITEFORD, TAYLOR & PRESTON, Washington, D.C., for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Sanjeev Malhotra appeals the district court’s orders dismissing his claim of wrongful termination and granting summary judgment to Defendant on his claim that his Flexible Spending Account funds were being withheld. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See (R. Vol. 2 at 2-7); Malhotra v. Watergate at Land Condo Assoc. , No. CA-05-76-LMB (E.D. Va. filed Sept. 13, 2005 and entered Sept. 14, 2005). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
1

STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA

SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS

 

Murray American Energy, Inc.,1

Employer Below, Petitioner

v.) No. 22-923 (JCN: 2020016744)

 (ICA No. 22-ICA-33)

 

Sean Stapel, 

Claimant Below, Respondent

MEMORANDUM DECISION 

Petitioner Murray American Energy, Inc. appeals the November 15, 2022, memorandum 

decision of the Intermediate Court of Appeals of West Virginia (“ICA”). See Murray Am. Energy, 

Inc. v. Stapel, No. 22-ICA-33, 2022 WL 17164526 (W. Va. Ct. App. Nov. 15, 2022) (memorandum 

decision). Respondent Sean Stapel filed a timely response.2 The issue on appeal is whether the 

ICA erred in affirming the decision of the West Virginia Workers’ Compensation Office of 

Judges,

3 which reversed the claim administrator’s February 17, 2022, order and granted 

authorization for a pain management consultation.

The employer asserts that the Office of Judges, as affirmed by the ICA, erred in finding 

that the pain management consultation was reasonably required and medically related to the 

compensable injury. The claimant maintains that the employer points to no erroneous procedure, 

no arbitrary or capricious conclusions, and no abuse of discretion or jurisdictional error by the 

tribunals below. 

1 For reasons not readily apparent in the record on appeal, the parties have substituted 

“Marshall County Coal Resources, Inc.” for the employer that was identified below, “Murray 

American Energy, Inc.” However, we use the name of the employer as designated in the order on 

appeal.

2 The petitioner is represented by counsel Aimee M. Stern, and the respondent is 

represented by counsel Christopher J. Wallace. 

3 The ICA, not the Workers’ Compensation Board of Review, reviewed the Office of 

Judges’ decision in this case because the Office of Judges’ order was entered during the transfer 

to the reconstituted Board of Review. See W. Va. Code § 23-5-8a(a) (transferring powers and 

duties of Office of Judges to Board of Review).

FILED

August 1, 2024

C. CASEY FORBES, CLERK

SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS

OF WEST VIRGINIA
2

This Court reviews questions of law de novo, while we accord deference to factual findings

unless the findings are clearly wrong. Syl. Pt. 3, Duff v. Kanawha Cnty. Comm’n, No. 23-43, 2024 

WL 1715166 (W. Va. Apr. 22, 2024). Upon consideration of the record and briefs, we find no 

reversible error and therefore summarily affirm. See W. Va. R. App. P. 21(c). 

 Affirmed.

ISSUED: August 1, 2024

CONCURRED IN BY:

Chief Justice Tim Armstead

Justice Elizabeth D. Walker

Justice John A. Hutchison

Justice William R. Wooton 

Justice C. Haley Bunn
Exhibit4.7.5  ADDITIONAL
AGREEMENT No. 5 to Network
Interconnection Contract No.1-DVF dated August 01,
2003 between
Rostelecom and Dalsvyaz as revised by
the Agreement dated January 01, 2006  Moscow
  
  2008  Rostelecom Open Joint-Stock Company
of Long Distance and International Communication,hereinafter
referred to as Rostelecom, represented by Rostelecom OJSC Director General Mr. Konstantin Yuryevich Solodukhin, acting on
the basis of the Articles of Association, on the one part, and Open Joint-Stock
Company Far East Telecom, hereinafter referred to as the Operator,
represented by its acting Director General Mr. Vitaly Ivanovich Dobrovolsky, acting on the basis of Power of
Attorney No. DSV-Z/GD dated January 28th, 2007, on the other part,
collectively referred to as the Parties and separately as the Party, have
made this Additional Agreement (hereinafter  the Agreement) to Network
Interconnection Contract No.1-DVF dated August 01st, 2003 as revised
by the Agreement dated January 01st, 2006 (hereinafter  the Contract)
as follows:  1.SUBJECT
OF AGREEMENT  1.1In compliance with this Agreement the
Operator shall use differential Rates for zonal call termination at the network
of the Operator/Interconnected Operator in the Primosky branch of Dalsvyaz OJSC.  2.CONDITIONS
OF RATES  2.1The differentiated Rates shall be applied
only within the term of this Agreement subject to the conditions listed in
Table 1 below.  Table1.Conditions of Rates  The total traffic from the services of zonal call
  termination at the Operators
  network and zonal call termination at the network of the Interconnected
  operator in the Primorsky Kray, thousands of minutes per month
  
  Rates for the total trafficup
  to 5,100
  
  1.52
  rub./min.from
  5,100 to 6,000
  
  1.37
  rub./min.over
  6,000
  
  1.25
  rub./min.  Note: 1) The rates given in Table 1 are in rubles without
taxes which shall be charged in addition to the rates in compliance with the
current laws.  3.All
the terms used in this Agreement shall have the meaning prescribed in the
Contract.  4.Any
issues not specified by this Agreement shall be regulated by the Contract.  5.This
Agreement shall be made in the Russian language in two original counterparts,
one for each Party.  6.This
Agreement shall take effect from the date of its signing and shall remain in
force until termination of Network Interconnection Contract No.1-DVF dated August 01st, 2003 as revised by the Agreement dated January 01st, 2006.  1


7.Banking details and signatures of the
Parties:  Rostelecom
  OJSC:
  
  Legal address: 191002, St.
  Petersburg, 15, Dostoevskogo Street
  
  Director General
  
  Mr. K.Yu.Solodukhin
  
  2008
  
  Dalsvyaz
  OJSC:
  
  Legal address: 690950,
  Vladivostok, 57, Svetalnskaya Street
  
  Acting Director General
  
  
  Mr.V.I.Dobrovolsky
  
  2008[Seal]
  
  [Seal]  2
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19
- 6723

STEVE C. CHADWICK , Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v. FRANK BISHOP, JR.; MARYLAND ATTORNEY GENERAL , Respondents

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Baltimore

. Richard D. Bennett , District Judge. ( 1:17

- cv - 00101

- RDB )

Submitted : July 16, 2019 Decided: July 19, 2019

Before MOTZ , WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Steve Carl Chadwick , Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Steve Carl Chadwick seeks to appeal the district court’s order dism issing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a subst antial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Chadwick has not

ma de the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would no t aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
EXHIBIT 32.2

SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350



In connection with the accompanying Annual Report on
Form 10-K of SonoSite, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2004, I, Michael J. Schuh, Chief Financial Officer of SonoSite, Inc., hereby certify
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:


| |  | (1)  such Annual Report on Form 10-K of SonoSite, Inc.
for the year ended December 31, 2004, 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 such Annual Report
on Form 10-K of SonoSite, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2004, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of SonoSite, Inc.
| |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/S/ MICHAEL J. SCHUHMichael J. SchuhVice President-Finance, Chief Financial Officerand Treasurer (Principal Financial
Officer)


March 15, 2005

85

---
No. 65765.

#### Page & Jones, Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 59/12465, etc. (Mobile).

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

The protests were dismissed for lack of prosecution.
No. 42020.

#### Protest 948462-G of Ovington Bros. Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Sullivan, J.

On the record presented it was held that the candlestick holders in question should have been assessed at 60 percent under paragraph 218 (c) as claimed. The protest was therefore sustained.
##### 



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. §1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
§906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
   (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 as of the dates and for the
periods expressed in the Report.
 /s/ John H. Marmaduke

John H. Marmaduke
President and Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)/s/ Dan Crow

Dan Crow
Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
 A signed original of this written statement required by §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has
been provided to Hastings Entertainment, Inc. and will be retained by Hastings Entertainment, Inc.
and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission, or its staff, upon request.
ex10_1.htm



  
    [TerreStar
      Letterhead]

    


    December
      __, 2007

    


    [Executive]

    [Address]

    


    Dear
      [Executive]:

    


    As
      you
      know, the employment agreement entered into on May 1, 2007, between yourself
      and
      TerreStar Networks Inc. (the “Employment Agreement”) will
      expire by its terms on January 1, 2008.  We have presented to you an
      offer for continued employment on and after January 1, 2008 under the terms
      and
      conditions of a proposed successor employment agreement (the “Successor Agreement”) (a copy
      of which is enclosed).  We are prepared to have the Successor
      Agreement executed on behalf of TerreStar Networks Inc. by January 1, 2008
      in
      order that your employment continue uninterrupted.  In light of the
      upcoming holidays, however, if you would prefer to delay the execution of this
      Successor Agreement until early January so that you will have sufficient time
      to
      review it with your counsel, we are willing to extend your employment under
      the
      terms and conditions of the Employment Agreement until January 15,
      2008.  Furthermore, if the Compensation Committee determines that your
      base salary is to be adjusted upward for 2008, we will make such adjustment
      retroactive to January 1, 2008 upon your execution of the Successor
      Agreement.

    


    If
      you
      wish to extend the terms and conditions of your employment under the Employment
      Agreement until January 15, 2008, please sign and return a copy of this letter
      to me for my receipt by no later than December 31, 2007.  I will
      accept a faxed copy to _______________ by December 31, 2007, followed by
      overnight delivery to me as of the second business day of 2008 at
      __________________________.  If, on the other hand, you wish to pursue
      executing the Successor Agreement by year end and you have any questions or
      concerns regarding that offer, please contact me directly.

    


    Sincerely,

    


    David
      Meltzer

    Chair,
      Compensation Committee

    


    


    **************

    By
      my
      signature below, I agree to the extension of my employment under the terms
      and
      conditions of my existing Employment Agreement until January 15, 2008.

    


    


    


                                             
      
      
        	 	 	Date:  	 	 
	Executive
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF THE REGISTRANT INCLUDED IN ITS FIRST QUARTER REPORT TO
SHAREHOLDERS FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                      18,121,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                              171,809,000
<ALLOWANCES>                               (3,482,000)
<INVENTORY>                                144,329,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           361,331,000
<PP&E>                                     165,866,000
<DEPRECIATION>                            (76,632,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             522,259,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      176,188,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                   158,324,000
<OTHER-SE>                                 173,804,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               522,259,000
<SALES>                                    151,741,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           152,168,000
<CGS>                                      104,420,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              126,267,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             7,459,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             297,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             18,145,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                 6,411,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         11,734,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                11,734,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.18
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.18
        

</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 86 (Friday, May 4, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 25267]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-8543]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[I.D. 050107C]


North Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of public meetings.

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

SUMMARY: The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) 
Observer Advisory Committee will meet in Seattle, WA.

DATES: The meeting will be held on May 21, 2007, from 12:30 p.m. to 5 
p.m. and May 22, 2007, from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Alaska Fishery Science 
Center, 7600 Sand Point Way NE, Bldg 4, Room 1055, Seattle, WA 98115.
    Council address: North Pacific Fishery Management Council, 605 W. 
4th Ave., Suite 306, Anchorage, AK 99501-2252.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nicole Kimball, Council staff, 
telephone: (907) 271-2809.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Committee will review proposed 
regulatory changes to the existing North Pacific Fishery Groundfish 
Observer Program and provide recommendations on alternatives and 
options for analysis.

Special Accommodations

    The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. 
Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids 
should be directed to Gail Bendixen at (907) 271-2809 at least 7 
working days prior to the meeting date.

    Dated: May 1, 2007.
Tracey L. Thompson,
Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine 
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. E7-8543 Filed 5-3-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-S
No. 46413.

#### Protests 35676-K, etc., of Artmart Linen Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise in question is similar to that the subject of *Bullocks*v. *United States*(6 Cust. Ct. 110, C. D. 441). It was therefore held that countervailing duty is not applicable to said articles.
No. 62114.

#### Amicale Yarns, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 227503-K (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise, wool yarn, and the facts and issues are the same in all material respects as those the subject of *R. J. Saunders & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(37 Cust. Ct. 267, C. D. 1834), the collector was directed to reliquidate the entries, assessing duty upon the basis of the unit appraised value per conditioned pound' or kilo, multiplied by the total number of conditioned pounds or kilos, as set forth in the invoices.
No. 6392.

#### STATE OF LOUISIANA vs. MENARD BROTHERS.

Syllabus.

Wholesale liquor establishments that likewise make sales at retail in quantities of less than five gallons, are liable for a license under Section 1 of Act 176 of 1908. The license is imposed without regard to the character of the) place where the sales are made.

Appeal from the Civil District Court, Parish of Orleans, Division “ C, ” No. 110,636. Honorable E. K. Skinner, Judge.

W. W. Westerfield, for plaintiff and appellee.

Ker & Eeliu, for defendant and -appellant.

His Honor, EMILE GODCHAUX,

rendered the opinion and decree of the 'Court, as follows:

Defendants appeal from a judgment condemning them to pay the minimum liquor license of $200.00 a year im*344posed by Section 1 of Act 179 of 1908, for selling intoxicating liquors in less quantities than five gallons.

Opinion and decree, June 30, 1915.

Rehearing refused, July 22, 1915.

Writ denied, October 20, 1915.

Defendants admit that they sell in less quantities than five gallons, but claim that they are not liable because they are strictly wholesalers and pay a license as such under Act 171 of 1898.

It is unnecessary to inquire whether wholesalers are exempted from the license tax of Act 176 of 1908, since the proof is, that while defendants sell only to dealers f>r re-sale, their sales occasionally are not “by the 'Original or unbroken package or barrel.” Consequently these sales are at retail, since they are not within the definition of wholesale.

State vs. Spence, 127 La., 336.

The further defense that defendants should not be held liable for the license because their sales are not made at barrooms and other like places which they are pro- ' hibited from conducting under Section 11 of Act 176 of 1908, is likewise without merit, for the license is imposed without regard to the place where the sales aro made.

State vs. Pabst Brewing Co., 128 La., 770.

State vs. DeBarry & Co., 130 La., 1090.

State ex rel. Boston Club vs. John Fitzpatrick, 131 La., 1079.

We find no error and the judgment is accordingly affirmed.

Affirmed.