alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATION OFCHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF2002

In connection with thequarterly report of Continental Materials Corporation (the “Company”) on Form10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, James G. Gidwitz, theChairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and I, JosephJ. Sum, the Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, herebycertify, pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, asamended, and Section 1350, of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code,as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that toour knowledge:

(1)          The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(2)          The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company for the periodspresented in the Report.
| May 15, 2007 |      |                                       |   |   |
|--------------|-----------|--------------------------------------------|--------|--------|
|         | By:  | /s/   James G. Gidwitz      |   |   |
|         |      | James G. Gidwitz                           |   |   |
|         |      | Chairman of the Board and                  |   |   |
|         |      | Chief Executive Officer                    |   |   |
|         |      |                                       |   |   |
|         |      |                                       |   |   |
|         | By:  | /s/   Joseph J. Sum         |   |   |
|         |      | Joseph J. Sum                              |   |   |
|         |      | Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |
|              |           |                                            |        |        |  |  |

 

----
THOMAS I. BUNCH,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D13-4398

_____________________________/

Opinion filed November 13, 2014.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia County.

Gary L. Bergosh, Judge.

Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and Danielle Jorden, Assistant Public 

Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Michael McDermott, Assistant Attorney 

General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

PADOVANO, MARSTILLER, and OSTERHAUS, JJ., CONCUR.
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 14** 
**- 1673** 

MIKE WILLOUGHBY ,
Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v.

HENRICO COUNTY; OWEN I. ASHMAN; LEE A. HARRIS, JR.; COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA; HENRICO COUNTY COMMONWEALTH'S ATTORNEY OFFICE ,
Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Richmond

. Henry E. Hudson , District Judge. ( 3:14

- cv
- 00223

- HEH )

Submitted : October 16 , 2014 Decided: October 20, 2014

Before MOTZ, WYNN , and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Mike Willoughby, Appellant Pro Se. Andrew Ramsey Newby, OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ATTORNEY, Henrico, Virginia; Sherry A. Fox, THOMPSON MCMULLAN PC, Richmond, Virg inia; Erin Rose McNeill, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Mike Willoughby appeals the district court ’ s order
denying relief on his complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 12132 (2012),

42 U.S.C. § 1983 (20 12 ) , and state negligence law . We have
reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly,
we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See
Willoughby v. Henrico Cnty. , No. 3:14

- cv
- 002 23

- HEH (E.D. Va.

June 27, 2014). We dispense with oral argument because the
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the

materials before th is court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Douglas R. LEVERETT v. Warden Frank BLACKBURN and the District Attorney of the 16th Judicial District, State of Louisiana.

No. 62265.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

July 3, 1978.

In re: Douglas R. Leverett applying for writ of mandamus. St. Mary Parish.

Writ denied.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

April 24, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

132176 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 132176 

 COA: 260594 

Allegan CC: 04-013795-FH 

XAVIER ZACHARIAH BENDER,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 17, 2006 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

s0416 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

April 24, 2007 

 Clerk
#### Luis ACEVEDA, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-295.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

May 13, 1970.

Appeal dismissed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> UT
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                      2168700
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                      18800
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                          431800
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                        246800
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                  527600
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 3393700
<COMMON>                                           400
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                      1033300
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                             513900
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                 1547600
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      22900
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                            661200
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                              124600
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                   43800
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                        0
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                          0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                     0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                  993600
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                  3393700
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                       640100
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                             65800
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                      433800
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                      499600
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                         140500
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                               13300
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                  153800
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         45100
<NET-INCOME>                                    108700
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                        400
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                   108300
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                         81800
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                        46700
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                          199300
<EPS-BASIC>                                       2.63
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.63


</TABLE>
#### Donald SAXTON, Appellant, v. Franklin J. MILLER, by his next friend Marjorie Manna, and Marjorie Manna, Appellees.

No. 2230.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Fourth District.

Sept. 24, 1969.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 30, 1970.

Lee Weissenborn, of Weinstein, Weissen-born, & Burr, Miami, for appellant.

John.H. Lewis, of Glasel, Meyer, Leben, Fixel & Gaines, Hollywood, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

No abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court has been demonstrated. The order on appeal which granted a new trial on the sole issue of damages is hereby affirmed. Cloud v. Fallís, Fla.1959, 110 So. 2d 669.

Affirmed.

WALDEN, McCAIN and REED, JJ., concur.

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING

PER CURIAM.

Defendant suggests that we overlooked in our initial opinion his assignment of error No. 3, complaining about the trial court’s order assessing costs against the defendant. He is correct. We did overlook it.

We have examined the record and find this state of affairs. The defendant did file his assignment of error as mentioned. *686However, the defendant did not include, directly or indirectly, this judicial act as a statement of a point or question in his brief. Further, the defendant did not mention this assignment of error in his brief with reference to the point that he did make or otherwise. Looking at defendant’s brief, we find a two-sentence paragraph on page 28 of the argument which comments upon the assessment of costs, and this is the sole mention.

Under Rule 3.7(f) (3 and 4)., F.A. R., 32 F.S.A., it is provided that appellant’s brief shall contain the points involved with specific assignments of error from which the points argued arise. We further note that in Rule 3.7 (i) “such assignments of error as are not argued in the briefs will be deemed abandoned and may not be argued orally.” (Of course, the court may notice judicial or fundamental error regardless, but such is not here involved.) We interpolate into this rule that assignments of error which are not “properly” argued will be deemed abandoned. And we think that defendant’s failure to include the assignment of error in the brief and to make the assessment of costs a point on appeal results in the abandonment of assignment of error No. 3.

Good practice, as well as Florida Appellate Rule 3.7(f) (4), compels that an appellant in his brief state the points relied on for reversal, and that specific assignments of error from which the points argued arise be stated. De Fonce Construction Co., Inc. v. Ewing, Fla.App. 1958, 99 So.2d 718. Although assignments of error are appropriately filed contesting the correctness of a judgment, if no point is made on appeal addressed to these assignments of error, they are deemed abandoned. Central Bank & Trust Co. v. Banner Trading Co., Fla.App.1963, 157 So.2d 201. Assignments of error not made points in the brief are considered abandoned. Schmidt v. Tracey, Fla.App.1963, 150 So.2d 275.

With this explanation of our understanding and application of the appellate rules, the appellant’s petition for rehearing is hereby denied.

Petition denied.

WALDEN, McCAIN and REED, JJ., concur.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6250

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus GREGORY WHYTE, a/k/a Charles Chambler, a/k/a Charlos Chambler, a/k/a Manny, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Herbert N. Maletz, Senior Judge, sitting by designation. (CR-91-357-HAR, CA-97-4219-HNM) Submitted: July 8, 1999 Decided: July 14, 1999 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gregory Whyte, Appellant Pro Se. Martin Joseph Clarke, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM:Gregory Whyte seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 1999). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion andfind no reversible error. Accordingly, because we find that counsel was not ineffective, we affirm. See Strickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668 (1984); see also Lockhart v. Fretwell , 506 U.S. 364 (1993). 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
| Name       | Model Number | Specification | (t) | Quantity | Unit Price | Total Amount | Delivery Time                                                                                                 |
|------------|--------------|---------------|-----|----------|------------|--------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| SSAW  | Q235B        | 426*7         | ton | 320      |       |         | Delivery by instalments on the request of Party B. Party B shall notify Party A 20 days before each delivery. |
| SSAW  | Q235B        | 529*8         | ton | 450      |       |         |
| SSAW  | Q235B        | 630*8         | ton | 480      |       |         |

----

| Party A:                                        | Party B:                                        |
|-------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------|
|                                            |                                            |
| Xi’an Guolian Spiral Tubulation Co., Ltd. | Xi’an Ronglian Steel Pipe Sales Co., Ltd. |
|                                            |                                            |
| (SEAL)                                          | (SEAL)                                          |
|                                            |                                            |
| Authorized representative (Signature):          | Authorized representative (Signature):          |
|                                            |                                            |
| Agent:                                          | Agent:                                          |
|                                            |                                            |
| TEL:                                            | TEL:                                            |
|                                            |                                            |
| Account bank:                                   | Account bank:                                   |
|                                            |                                            |
| Account number:                                 | Account number:                                 |
|                                            |                                            |
| Zip Code:                                       | Zip Code:                                       |

----
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-20720

Summary Calendar

CATHY CATCHING,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, ACTING COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL

SECURITY,

Defendant-Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:11-CV-1693

Before WIENER, ELROD, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Plaintiff-Appellant Cathy Catching appeals the judgment of the district

court dismissing her action based on her claim of disability under Title II of the

Social Security Act, which was denied initially by the AdministrativeLaw Judge. 

We have reviewed the record on appeal, including, inter alia, the extensive

transcript and the 64-page Memorandum Recommendation of the Magistrate

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

April 10, 2013

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

 Case: 12-20720 Document: 00512204516 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/10/2013
No. 12-20720

Judge which patiently sets out in extreme detail the relevant facts and findings

regarding Catching’s conditions, principal among which are chronic fatigue

syndrome and fybromyalgia. In the end, we find no reversible error, concluding

that, as the Commissioner’s brief summarizes, “Catching fails to prove that her

alleged chronic fatigue syndrome and fibromyalgia equated to medically

determinable impairments” and “fails to point to any medical evidence that

suggests chronic fatigue syndrome or fybromyalgia caused additional functional

limitations not already included in the ALJ’s residual functional capacity

finding.”

AFFIRMED.

2

 Case: 12-20720 Document: 00512204516 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/10/2013
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

In connection
with the Quarterly Report of Daxor Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for
the period ending June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date thereof (the Report), I, Joseph Feldschuh, M.D.,
President 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:

(1)
The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)
The information contained in the Report fairly resents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Daxor Corporation.

| |                             
| | ----------------------------
| | /s/ Joseph
  Feldschuh, M.D.
| |                             
| |                             
| | Joseph
  Feldschuh, M.D.    
| | President
  and Chief       
| | Executive
  Officer         
| | November 13,
  2007         
| |                             
|

-18-

---
Exhibit 32
                    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 Cash Systems, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ending December 31, 2003, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Annual
Report"), we, Craig Potts, CEO and President and Christopher Larson, CFO, 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:

     (1)  The Annual 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 Annual Report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
Company.


Dated: 3/30/04                         /s/ Craig Potts
      ----------                       ---------------------------
                                       Craig Potts
                                       CEO, President and director

Dated: 3/30/04                         /s/ Christopher Larson
      ----------                       ---------------------------
                                       Christopher Larson
                                       CFO and director
Exhibit 23.1


                         Consent of Independent Auditors


We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Annual Report (Form 10-K)
of Reinhold Industries, Inc. of our report dated February 18, 2003, included in
the 2002 Annual Report to Shareholders of Reinhold Industries, Inc.

We also consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement
(Form S-8 No. 333-101589) pertaining to the Amended and Restated Reinhold
Industries, Inc. Stock Incentive Plan and the Registration Statement (Form S-8
No. 333-39925) pertaining to the Reinhold Industries, Inc. Stock Incentive Plan
of our report dated February 18, 2003, with respect to the consolidated
financial statements of Reinhold Industries, Inc. incorporated by reference in
this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2002.

Our audits also included the information as of and for the years ended December
31, 2002 and 2001 included in the financial statement schedules of Reinhold
Industries, Inc. listed in Item 15(a). These schedules are the responsibility of
the Company's management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion based on
our audits. In our opinion, the financial statement schedules referred to above,
when considered in relation to the basic financial statements taken as a whole,
present fairly in all material respects the information set forth therein.




/s/ Ernst & Young LLP


Orange County, California
March 26, 2003
II 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2630 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 22, 2021 

Received 

AN ACT 

To amend the Temporary Reauthorization and Study of the 

Emergency Scheduling of Fentanyl Analogues Act to extend until October 2021, a temporary order for fentanylrelated substances. 

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


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 2630 RDS

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Extending Temporary 

3 Emergency Scheduling of Fentanyl Analogues Act’’. 

4 SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF TEMPORARY ORDER FOR 

5 FENTANYL-RELATED SUBSTANCES. 

6 Effective as if included in the enactment of the Tem7 porary Reauthorization and Study of the Emergency 

8 Scheduling of Fentanyl Analogues Act (Public Law 116– 

9 114), section 2 of such Act (Public Law 116–114) is 

10 amended by striking ‘‘May 6, 2021’’ and inserting ‘‘Octo11 ber 22, 2021’’. 

12 SEC. 3. DETERMINATION OF BUDGETARY EFFECTS. 

13 The budgetary effects of this Act, for the purpose of 

14 complying with the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010, 

15 shall be determined by reference to the latest statement 

16 titled ‘‘Budgetary Effects of PAYGO Legislation’’ for this 

17 Act, submitted for printing in the Congressional Record 

18 by the Chairman of the House Budget Committee, pro19 vided that such statement has been submitted prior to the 

20 vote on passage. 

Passed the House of Representatives April 21, 2021. 

Attest: CHERYL L. JOHNSON, 

Clerk. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
Docket Number FAA-2014-0448
<PAGE>

                                                                    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

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Escalon Medical Corp. (the
"Company") for the year ended June 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Richard J. DePiano,
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:

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: September 28, 2007

/s/ Richard J. DePiano
--------------------------------------------
Richard J. DePiano
Chief Executive Officer

                                       76