alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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
Sypris Solutions, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of the undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec.
1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, in his capacity as an officer of Sypris Solutions, Inc., that to his knowledge:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); 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: March 23, 2010 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ Jeffrey T. Gill                
|                     |  |  |  |     |  | Jeffrey T. Gill                    
|                     |  |  |  |     |  | President & Chief Executive Officer



|                     |  |  |  |     |  |                                         
|-------------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | ----------------------------------------
|Date: March 23, 2010 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ Brian A. Lutes                      
|                     |  |  |  |     |  | Brian A. Lutes                          
|                     |  |  |  |     |  | Vice President & Chief Financial Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written
statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Sypris Solutions, Inc. and will be retained by Sypris Solutions, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

The foregoing certification is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission as an exhibit to the Form 10-K and shall not be considered filed as
part of the Form 10-K.
#### Richard Clayton BRAGG, Appellant, v. Louie L. WAINWRIGHT, Director, Division of Corrections, State of Florida, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, Appellee.

No. 70-148.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Sept. 17, 1971.

Walter R. Talley, Public Defender, and D. Turner Matthews, Asst. Public Defender, Bradenton, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Charles Corees, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

LILES, Acting Chief Judge.

In February 1964, appellant was charged with breaking and entering with intent to commit a felony. He entered a plea of not guilty and was tried by a jury. He was convicted and sentenced to five years imprisonment. In 1970 appellant filed a writ of habeas corpus in this court alleging he was denied a right of appeal. This court appointed Circuit Judge Archie M. Odom to take testimony and make a finding of fact regarding the denial of appellant’s right to appeal.

Judge Odom found that appellant had not been informed of his right of appeal and upon this recommendation this court granted appellant a full appeal. Appellant’s only point is that he was represented by incompetent counsel at his trial. A review of the record reveals that he was represented by Mr. Ed Weaver, Jr. Mr. Weaver conducted a full and skillful cross-examination and generally conducted the trial in a knowing manner. The record fails to show that the trial was a mockery or a farce; but to the contrary, the case was well tried.

For these reasons the point on appeal is not meritorious and we therefore affirm.

HOBSON and McNULTY, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                                    <C>  
<PERIOD-TYPE>                          3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                      JAN-03-1998
<PERIOD-START>                         DEC-29-1996
<PERIOD-END>                           MAR-29-1997
<CASH>                                 2,899,000
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                         20,886,000
<ALLOWANCES>                             309,000
<INVENTORY>                           12,755,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                      39,183,000
<PP&E>                                51,938,000
<DEPRECIATION>                        36,513,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                        55,329,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                 18,795,000
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                 555,000
<OTHER-SE>                            32,161,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>          55,329,000
<SALES>                               30,341,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                      30,341,000
<CGS>                                 22,450,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                         22,450,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                       5,118,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        75,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                        2,698,000
<INCOME-TAX>                             998,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                    1,700,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                           1,700,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                              $0.30
<EPS-DILUTED>                              $0.30
        

</TABLE>
258 La. 363

#### Willis L. GORE et al. v. AMERICAN MOTORISTS INSURANCE COMPANY.

No. 51325.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 22, 1971.

In re: American Motorists Insurance Company applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of East Baton Rouge. 244 So.2d 894.

Application denied; the judgment of the Court of Appeal is correct.
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7768 

To require that independent agencies comply with all requirements of 

rulemaking, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 24, 2020 

Mr. BUDD (for himself, Mr. ROY, Mr. CLINE, Mr. FLORES, and Mr. SMITH

of Nebraska) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Oversight and Reform, and in addition to the Committees 

on the Judiciary, and Small Business, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions 

as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To require that independent agencies comply with all 

requirements of rulemaking, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Freedom from Regula5 tions Act of 2020’’. 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 7768 IH

1 SEC. 2. INDEPENDENT AGENCIES TO COMPLY WITH GOV2 ERNMENT-WIDE RULES ON AGENCY ACTION. 

3 Notwithstanding any other provision of law, an inde4 pendent agency (as such term is defined in section 

5 3502(5) of title 44, United States Code, but in any event 

6 not including the Board of Governors of the Federal Re7 serve System) shall comply with any provision of law appli8 cable to the agency action of any other agency, including 

9 the provisions of subchapter II of chapter 5 of title 5, 

10 United States Code, chapter 6 of title 5, United States 

11 Code, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, the 

12 Economic Growth and Regulatory Paperwork Reduction 

13 Act of 1996, and section 515 of the Consolidated Appro14 priations Act, 2001. 

15 SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS. 

16 Terms used in this Act have the meanings given such 

17 terms in section 551 of title 5, United States Code. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
#### Harvey D. ARRANT, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 71-379.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

May 13, 1971.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Orange County; Roger H. Barker, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Harold BATISTE.

No. 61040.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 15, 1978.

John M. Blanchard, Orleans Indigent Defender Program, New Orleans, for defendant-appellant.

William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Barbara Rutledge, Asst. Atty. Gen., Harry F. Con-nick, Dist. Atty., Nick F. Noriea, Asst. Dist. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
254 La. 866

#### Annie CLEVELAND v. Katherine Grey TODD.

No. 50220.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 17, 1969.

In re: Katherine Grey Todd applying for writ of review.

The application is denied. It does not appear that the trial judge has abused his discretion.
#### Bernard Webster SMILEY and George Washington, Jr., Appellants, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-1061.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Nov. 10, 1970.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
##### 



Exhibit 23 (a)

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS CONSENT

The Board of Directors
Oxford Health Plans, Inc.:

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration
statements (Nos. 33-49738, 33-70908, 333-988, 333-28109, 333-35693, 33-94242,
333-79063, 333-42920, 333-33226 and 333-111119) on Form S-8 of Oxford Health
Plans, Inc. of our reports dated January 30, 2004, relating to the consolidated
balance sheet of Oxford Health Plans, Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31,
2003 and 2002 and the related consolidated statements of operations,
shareholders equity and comprehensive earnings and cash flows for each of the
three years in the period ended December 31, 2003, which report appears in the
December 31, 2003 annual report on Form 10-K of Oxford Health Plans, Inc.

| |  |                  
| |  | -----------------
| |  | Ernst & Young LLP

New York, New York
February 4, 2004
### • AHRI working on FTC label • Manufacturers -

– Working on proof of concepts for nameplate label

– W orking on alternative penalties to fines from DOE 

### • Distributors - bring back working group’s “violation” for distributors • DOE

– Getting clarity on term “product” in prohibited act for manufacturers

– Getting department’s opinion on definitions

– Bringing back “violations” for deal/ contractors and distributors

– Bringing back split opinions on prohibited acts

– Does DOE have legal authority to require contractors to “fix” installations

– Length of time that records should be kept

– Skeleton of rulemaking

– Trifold ideas for group to review 

### • DOE and distributors/ contrators working on record retention 

# Action Items (9/4/2014)
| (1)   | The      Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and |
|-----------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

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

| Date:      May 17, 2010 | By:    | /s/  William A.      Johnson           . |   |
|-------------------------|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                    |   | William      A. Johnson, Chief Executive Officer                                                          |   |

| Date:      May 17, 2010 | By:    |  /s/  Michael K.      Solomon     |   |
|-------------------------|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                    |   | Michael      K. Solomon, Chief Financial Officer                     |   |
* Pursuant to 5 TH 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 5 TH CIR
. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED September 27, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk 

### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-40009 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee

v. ERWIN EUGENE SEMIEN Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 1:05-CR-158-1
Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Erwin Eugene Semien appeals his conviction and sentence for conspiracy to possess with the intent to distribute less than 500 grams of cocaine, possession with the intent to distribute less than 500 grams of cocaine, possession with the intent to distribute less than 50 grams of methamphetamine, and possession ofa firearm by a felon. Semien argues that the evidence is insufficient tosupport his convictions. He contends that no one
sawhim give narcotics to Clint Larive, and there is no evidence ofa conspiracy.No. 07-40009

2 He also argues that numerous people had access to the narcotics and the firearms that were seized. Testimony established that Larive distributed cocaine and that he traveled tothe location on County Road 154 between narcotics transactions. A search of the premises resulted in the seizure of large amounts of cocaine and methamphetamine as well as drug paraphernalia. There was evidence that Semien owned this property and owned or leased the vehicles on this property. Further, photographs of Larive were found in Semien’s residence. Thus, the evidence is sufficient to established that Larive engaged in a conspiracy with Semien to distribute cocaine. Although Semien argues that numerous people had access tothe cocaine, methamphetamine, and firearms, it is reasonable to infer that Semien had knowledge of and access to the contraband. See United States v. Mergerson, 4 F.3d 337, 349 (5th Cir. 1993). Thus, a reasonable trier of fact could have found Semien guilty of all the charges beyond a reasonable doubt. See United States v. Mendoza, 226 F.3d 340, 343 (5th Cir. 2000). Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">Active Care Medical Supply Corp., as Assignee of Cope, Asseletta, Appellant,<br><br>against<br><br>Ameriprise Auto &amp; Home, Respondent.</font></b></div><br><br><p>The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell, Esq.), for appellant.Bruno, Gerbino &amp; Soriano, LLP (Mitchell L. Kaufman, Esq.), for respondent.</p><p>Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Devin P. Cohen, J.), entered August 8, 2014. The order granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.</p><p>ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with $25 costs.</p><p>In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Civil Court which granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that plaintiff had failed to appear for duly scheduled examinations under oath.</p><p>For the reasons stated in <i>Flatbush Chiropractic, P.C., as Assignee of Silface, Gala v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.</i> (__ Misc 3d ___, 2017 NY Slip Op _____ [appeal No. 2014-2172 K C], decided herewith), the order is affirmed.</p><p>PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and SOLOMON, JJ., concur.</p><br>ENTER:<br>Paul Kenny<br>Chief Clerk<br>Decision Date: November 03, 2017<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_2_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
#### Murray A. WOODWORTH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 01-56377.

D.C. No. CV-00-07453-CAS.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*113Submitted July 22, 2002.*

Decided July 30, 2002.

Before BROWNING, KOZINSKI, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Murray A. Woodworth, a federal prisoner, appeals pro se the district court’s dismissal of his action alleging a work-related injury, removal from his UNICOR job, and transfer to a lower-paying job in the prison. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, *Barnett v. Centoni,*31 F.3d 813, 816 (9th Cir.1994) (per curiam), and affirm.

We agree with the district court that 18 U.S.C. § 4126 is Woodworth’s exclusive remedy for exposure to toxic chemicals while working at a prison job. *See United States v. Demko,*385 U.S. 149, 152-53, 87 S.Ct. 382, 17 L.Ed.2d 258 (1966); *Vander v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice,*268 F.3d 661, 663 (9th Cir.2001).

The district court properly dismissed Woodworth’s claims concerning removal from his UNICOR job and transfer to a lower-paying position because he has neither a liberty nor a property interest in his prison job. *See Sandin v. Conner,*515 U.S. 472, 483-84, 115 S.Ct. 2293, 132 L.Ed.2d 418 (1995); *Board of Regents v. Roth,*408 U.S. 564, 577, 92 S.Ct. 2701, 33 L.Ed.2d 548 (1972).

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 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
#### Robert L. RABORN v. LOUISIANA HEALTH AND HUMAN RESOURCES ADMINISTRATION et al.

No. 60718.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 13, 1978.

MOTION TO DISMISS

NOW INTO COURT come Robert L. Ra-born, plaintiff-appellant-applicant in the above matter and on suggesting to the court that he now wishes to dismiss his application and writ now before this court which was argued on the 6th day of March, 1978, and is now under consideration by the Court, with prejudice.

IT IS ORDERED that the above matter is hereby dismissed at the cost of the plaintiff-appellant-appellant, Robert L. Raborn, with prejudice.

JOE W. SANDERS Chief Justice

FRANK W. SUMMERS Associate Justice

ALBERT TATE JR. Associate Justice

JOHN A. DIXON JR. Associate Justice

PASCAL F. CALOGERO JR. Associate Justice

WALTER F. MARCUS JR. Associate Justice

JAMES L. DENNIS Associate Justice
"R,\G\NAL

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D,C, 20580 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE

CASE NAME FILE/DOCKET NUMBER

In the Matter of Polypore Int'l Docket No. 9327

~ Pursuant to Section 4.1 of the Commission's Rule of Practice, enter in the above proceeding

the appearance of

r counselor representative for the respondent (Complete items 1, 2, 4, and 5 below)

IX counsel supporting the complaint (Complete items 1, 3, 4, and 5 below)

1. COUNSEL OR REPRESENTATIVE 2. RESPONDENTS

Include name, address and telephone of each Include address and telephone numbers of all persons, partnerships,

corporations, or associations

Eric D. Edmondson

Federal Trade Commssion

90 i Market Street, Suite 570

San Francisco, CA 94103

3. ASSOCIATE/ASSISTANT DIRECTOR

Catharine Moscatelli, Assistant Director, Bureau of Competition

1ØE ~F SENIOR COUNSEL I 5;;11/6 j

Return this form to: H-135

Federal Trade Commission

600 Pennsylvania Ave. NW

Washington, D.C. 20580

FTC Form 232 (rev, 1/07)
CERTIFICA TE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on October 31, 2008, I fied via hand and electronic mail delivery an

original and two copies of the foregoing Notice of Appearance for Eric Edmondson with:

Donald S. Clark, Secretary

Office of the Secretar

Federal Trade Commssion

600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Rm. H-135

Washington, DC 20580

I hereby certify that on October 31,2008, I served via electronic mail and mail delivery

a copy of the foregoing Notice of Appearance for Eric Edmondson with:

The Honorable D. Michael Chappell

Administrative Law Judge

. Federal Trade Commssion

600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, H-106

Washington, DC 20580

oali (ßftc.gov

I hereby certify that on October 31,2008, I served via electronic mail delivery and first

class mail two copies of the foregoing Notice of Appearance for Eric Edmondson with:

Wiliam L. Rikard, Jr., Esq.

Eric D. Welsh, Esq.

Parker, Poe, Adams & Bernstein, LLP

401 South Tryon Street, Suite 3000

Charlotte, North Carolina 28202

wiliamrkard (ßparkerpoe.com

ericwelsh (ßparkerpoe.com

Linda D. Cunnin

Federal Trade Co ssl n

600 Pennsylvania A venue, NW

Washington, DC 20580

Telephone: (202) 326-2638

1cunningham (ß ftc. gov
UNED STATES OF AMRICA

BEFORE THE FEDERA TRAE COMMSSION

In the Matter of

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 9327

Polyp ore International, Inc.

a corporation.

. NOTICE OF APPEARCE

Please note my appearance as complait counsel for the Federal TradeÇQ1rimissiQllinum

the above referenced matter. In accordance with Rule 4.1(d) of the Federal Trade Commssion's

Rules of Practice, I certfy that I am a member of the bars of the Distrct of Columbia (BarNo.

450294) and Virgia (Bar No. 36445), and am in good standing withn the legal profession.

Dated: October 30, 2008 ~Ubmitted

Eric D. Edmondson

Attorney

Federal Trade Commssion - Western Region

901 Market Strect, Smte 570

San Francisco, CA 94103
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                        9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JAN-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   OCT-31-1998
<CASH>                                           6,121,446
<SECURITIES>                                       556,390
<RECEIVABLES>                                   26,088,312
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,190,446
<INVENTORY>                                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                35,526,108
<PP&E>                                          22,575,745
<DEPRECIATION>                                   7,961,120
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  51,085,692
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           29,587,434
<BONDS>                                          1,701,079
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                           462,859
<OTHER-SE>                                      18,783,049
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    51,085,692
<SALES>                                        106,698,013
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               106,698,013
<CGS>                                           86,406,798
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   86,406,798
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                20,441,594
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   574,813
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 143,214
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (650,849)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       264,300
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (386,549) 
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (386,549)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        (0.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        (0.05)
        

</TABLE>