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

EXHIBIT 32.1

 

ODYSSEY PICTURES CORPORATION    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  Odyssey  Pictures  Corporation  (the Company)  on Form  10-KSB for the period  ended June 30,  2005 as filed with the Securities  and Exchange  Commission  on the date hereof (the  Report),  I, John Foster,  Chief  Executive  Officer and Chief  Financial  Officer of the Company, certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  ss.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; and

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

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

January 26, 2009

/s/ John Foster

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

John Foster    Chief Executive Officer and    Chief Financial Officer
#### Thomas C. STANLEY, Petitioner, v. L. L. WAINWRIGHT, Director, Division of Adult Corrections, Respondent.

No. 70-851.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Nov. 17, 1970.

Habeas corpus denied.
**Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record**

**Plant ID 00394**  **Removed from Public**  **(Non-CBI) Docket** **1 Copyright** 

**Flag 2**  **File Name Description**  00394\003994_HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted x 00394\00394_PartA.XLS Plant submitted survey file x 00394\00394_PartB.XLS Plant submitted survey file x 00394\00394_PartC.XLS Plant submitted survey file x 00394\00394_PartD.XLS Plant submitted survey file x 00394\00394_PartH.XLS Plant submitted survey file

00394\00394_Certification Statement.pdf Plant certification statement x 00394\Correspondence\00394_Email Correspondence.pdf Follow-up correspondence and materials for the survey. x 00394\Correspondence\00394_Email Correspondence_021511.pdf Follow-up correspondence and materials for the survey. x 00394\Correspondence\00394_PartD_021511.pdf Follow-up correspondence and materials for the survey. x 00394\Correspondence\Correspondence with Plant #394.pdf Follow-up correspondence and materials for the survey. x 00394\Correspondence\Questions for Plant 394 (Lewis Clark Station) - Response to EPA February 2011.pdf Follow-up correspondence and materials for the survey. x 00394\Correspondence\Questions for Plant 394 (Lewis Clark Station) - Response to EPA February 2011.xls Follow-up correspondence and materials for the survey. x 00394\Supporting Documentation\00394_Water Balance Diagram (2).pdf.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 00394\Supporting Documentation\00394_Water Balance.pdf.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

00394\Supporting Documentation\394_Lewis_and_Clark_Site_Map.PDF Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 00394\Supporting Documentation\394_Water Balance Diagram (2).pdf.PDF Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 00394\Supporting Documentation\394_Water Balance.pdf.PDF Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

00394\Supporting Documentation\Lewis_and_Clark_Site_Map.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 00394\00394_Checklist.XLS EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook

00394\00394_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist

1Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database

. 2Copyright documents are available from the docket.
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 21.   -  SUBSIDIARIES OF THE COMPANY


                                             Jurisdiction of
Subsidiary                                   Incorporation
----------                                   -------------

Nexell Therapeutics Inc.                     Delaware

VIMRX Genomics, Inc.                         Delaware

Innovir Laboratories, Inc.                   Delaware

VIMRX Holdings, Ltd.                         Delaware  (1)

Innovir (UK), Ltd.                           England  (2)

Innovir  GmbH                                Germany  (2)

Ribonetics GmbH                              Germany (2)


1.   Subsidiary of Innovir

2.   Subsidiary of VIMRX Holdings, Ltd.

All subsidiaries do business under their respective corporate names.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**Certification ofChief Executive Officer Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Actof 2002**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report ofFarmer Bros. Co. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter endedMarch 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission onthe date hereof (the “Report”), I, Roger M. Laverty III, President and ChiefExecutive 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) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

2.                                       The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.

 

Dated:  May 11, 2009

 
|   | /s/ Roger M. Laverty III              |
|--------|---------------------------------------|
|   |                                  |
|   | Roger M. Laverty III                  |
|   | President and Chief Executive Officer |
|   | (Principal Executive Officer)         |

 

 

A signed original of this writtenstatement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company andwill be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission or its staff upon request.

 

----
·, 

' 1, 

I 

·I 

i 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

WASHINGTdN, D.C. 20580 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE 

S.A., Compagnie de Saint-Gobaln and Saint-Gobain 

to Section 4.1 of the Commission's Rules of Practice, I (we) am (are) entering in the above 

proceeding the appearance of 

0 counsel supporting the complaint (Complete Items 1, 3, 4, and 5 below) 

0 counsel or representative for the respondent (Complete Items 1, 2, 4, and 5 below) 

IE counsel or representative for a third party (Complete Items 1, 2, 4, and 5 below) 

1. COUNSEL OR REPRESENTATIVE 2. RESPONDENT S OR THIRD PARTY IES 

Include the name, address. email address, and telephone number of each 

counsel or representative entering an appearance in the above proceeding, 

Include the address and telephone numbers of all persons, partnerships, 

corporations, or associations on whose behalf this Notiee of Appearance 

Raymond G. Areaux 

Carver, Osrden, Koretzky, Tessier, Finn, Blossman and Areaux 

11 00 Poydras Street, Surte 3100 

New Orleans, LA 70163 

areaux@carverderden.com 

504-585-3803 

Emily Lippold Gordy 

Carver, Osrden, Koretzky, Tessier, Finn. Brossman and Areaux 

1100 Poydras Street, Surte 3100 

New Orleans, LA 70163 

gordy@carverdarden.oom 

504-585-3621 

3. ASSOCIATE/ASSISTANT DIRECTOR 

is being filed. 

Ita Brewing Company 

David Blossman, President 

21084 Hwy. 36 

Abrta Springs, LA 70433 

985-693-3143 

5. DATE SIGNED 

ederal Trade Commission 

FTC Form 232 (rev. 7/11) 

oom H-113 

600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20580 

. '
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 39 (Thursday, February 27, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9010-9011]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-4925]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[Declaration of Disaster Loan Area #2925; Amendment #2]


California; Declaration of Disaster Loan Area

    In accordance with a notice from the Federal Emergency Management 
Agency, dated February 14, 1997, the above-numbered Declaration is 
hereby amended to include Kings and San Luis Obispo Counties in the 
State of California as a disaster area due to damages caused by severe 
storms, flooding, and mud and landslides beginning on December 28, 1996 
and continuing.
    In addition, applications for economic injury loans from small 
businesses located in the contiguous county of Santa Barbara in the 
State of California may be filed until the specified date at the 
previously designated location. Any counties contiguous to the above-
named counties and not listed herein have been previously declared.
    All other information remains the same, i.e., the termination date 
for filing applications for physical damage is March 5, 1997, and for 
loans for economic injury the deadline is October 6, 1997.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 59002 and 
59008)


[[Page 9011]]


    Dated: February 19, 1997.
Herbert L. Mitchell
Acting Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.
[FR Doc. 97-4925 Filed 2-26-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
#### ORKIN EXTERMINATING CO., INC. v. Hodges J. BROUSSARD, d/b/a Broussard’s Pest Control.

No. 60348.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 21, 1977.

In re: Orkin Exterminating Co., Inc., applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Parish of Vermilion. 346 So.2d 1274.

Writ denied. No error of law.
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 789 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to prohibit prescription 

drug plan sponsors and MA–PD organizations under the Medicare program from retroactively reducing payment on clean claims submitted 

by pharmacies. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 24, 2019 

Mr. WELCH (for himself, Mr. CARTER of Georgia, Mr. COLLINS of Georgia, 

and Mrs. RODGERS of Washington) introduced the following bill; which 

was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition 

to the Committee on Ways and Means, 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 amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to prohibit 

prescription drug plan sponsors and MA–PD organizations under the Medicare program from retroactively reducing payment on clean claims submitted by pharmacies. 

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 ‘‘Improving Trans5 parency and Accuracy in Medicare Part D Spending Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•HR 789 IH

1 SEC. 2. PROHIBITING MEDICARE PDP SPONSORS AND MA– 

2 PD ORGANIZATIONS FROM RETROACTIVELY 

3 REDUCING PAYMENT ON CLEAN CLAIMS SUB4 MITTED BY PHARMACIES. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1860D–12(b)(4)(A) of 

6 the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w–112(b)(4)(A)) 

7 is amended by adding at the end the following new clause: 

8 ‘‘(iv) PROHIBITING RETROACTIVE RE9 DUCTIONS IN PAYMENTS ON CLEAN

10 CLAIMS.—Each contract entered into with 

11 a PDP sponsor under this part with re12 spect to a prescription drug plan offered 

13 by such sponsor shall provide that after 

14 the date of receipt of a clean claim sub15 mitted by a pharmacy, the PDP sponsor 

16 (or an agent of the PDP sponsor) may not 

17 retroactively reduce payment on such claim 

18 directly or indirectly through aggregated 

19 effective rate or otherwise except in the 

20 case such claim is found to not be a clean 

21 claim (such as in the case of a claim lack22 ing required substantiating documentation) 

23 during the course of a routine audit as 

24 permitted pursuant to written agreement 

25 between the PDP sponsor (or such an 

26 agent) and such pharmacy. The previous 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
3 

•HR 789 IH

1 sentence shall not prohibit any retroactive 

2 increase in payment to a pharmacy pursu3 ant to a written agreement between a PDP 

4 sponsor (or an agent of such sponsor) and 

5 such pharmacy.’’. 

6 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

7 subsection (a) shall apply with respect to contracts entered 

8 into on or after January 1, 2020. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 7596 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 7596

To direct the Secretary of Defense to provide medical providers of the 
Department of Defense mandatory training with respect to the potential 
                      health effects of burn pits.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 13, 2020

  Mr. Ruiz (for himself, Mr. Bilirakis, and Mr. Welch) introduced the 
 following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To direct the Secretary of Defense to provide medical providers of the 
Department of Defense mandatory training with respect to the potential 
                      health effects of burn pits.

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

SECTION 1. MANDATORY TRAINING ON HEALTH EFFECTS OF BURN PITS.

    The Secretary of Defense shall provide to each medical provider of 
the Department of Defense mandatory training with respect to the 
potential health effects of burn pits.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED>
<CIK> 0000037008
<NAME> FIRST UNION REAL ESTATE EQUITY AND MORTGAGE INVESTMENTS
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                      23,200,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               18,513,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  3,214,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            44,927,000
<PP&E>                                     841,765,000
<DEPRECIATION>                           (159,305,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             818,012,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       38,249,000
<BONDS>                                    555,596,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                 31,737,000
<COMMON>                                    31,416,000
<OTHER-SE>                                 146,988,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               818,012,000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           240,871,000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              177,950,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            58,825,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          37,567,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (33,471,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                            (1,633,000)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                              (27,177,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.89)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.89)


</TABLE>
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-19-00856-CR

Curtis Strahan, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE 264TH DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY

NO. 77106, THE HONORABLE PAUL L. LEPAK, JUDGE PRESIDING

O R D E R A N D M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

PER CURIAM

Appellant Curtis Strahan pleaded guilty to the offense of assault of a public 

servant, see Tex. Penal Code § 22.01(b)(1), and the trial court placed him on deferred adjudication

community supervision. The State subsequently filed a motion to proceed with an adjudication 

of guilt. After Strahan pleaded “true” to the allegations in the motion to adjudicate, the trial 

court adjudicated him guilty and sentenced him to five years’ imprisonment. Strahan has filed a 

notice of appeal from the trial court’s judgment adjudicating guilt.

The rules of appellate procedure require that a trial court enter a certification of 

the defendant’s right of appeal “each time it enters a judgment of guilt or other appealable

order.” See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2). A defendant may appeal from a judgment adjudicating 

guilt. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 42.02. As a result, a trial court is required to enter a written

certification of a defendant’s right of appeal from the judgment adjudicating guilt.
2

The trial court’s certification in this case states that this is a plea-bargain case and

the defendant has no right of appeal. A plea-bargain case is defined as one in which a defendant’s 

plea was guilty or nolo contendere and the punishment did not exceed the punishment

recommended by the prosecutor and agreed to by the defendant. Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2). 

Here, Strahan did not plead guilty or nolo contendere. Instead, he pleaded true to allegations in 

the State’s motion to adjudicate. See Hargesheimer v. State, 182 S.W.3d 906, 909-10 (Tex. 

Crim. App. 2006) (holding that case in which defendant pleads true in motion to adjudicate is not 

considered plea-bargain case under rule 25.2(a)(2)); Dears v. State, 154 S.W.3d 610, 613 (Tex. 

Crim. App. 2005) (noting that rule 25.2(a)(2) specifically limits right to appeal plea bargains and 

“refers only to plea bargain with regard to guilty pleas, not pleas of true on revocation motions”).

Considering the apparent discrepancy between the certification and the record, we 

abate the appeal and remand the cause to the trial court for entry of an amended certification 

addressing Strahan’s right of appeal from the judgment adjudicating guilt. See Dears, 154 S.W.3d

at 614 (concluding that appellate court may examine certification for defectiveness and, when 

appropriate, use rules 37.1 and 34.5(c) of the rules of appellate procedure to obtain another 

certification). Once entered, the certification shall be included in a supplemental record and filed 

with this Court no later than May 8, 2020. See Tex. R. App. P. 34.5(c)(2).

It is ordered on March 25, 2020.

Before Justices Goodwin, Baker, and Kelly

Abated and Remanded

Filed: March 25, 2020

Do Not Publish
EXHIBIT
32.2





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


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
connection with the annual report of Network CN Inc. (the “Company”) on Form
10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Jennifer Fu, Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as
adopted pursuant to § 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; and





2.           The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.





/s/
      Jennifer FuJennifer
      FuChief
      Financial Officer(Principal
      Financial and Accounting Officer)





March 31,
2010








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





The
forgoing certification is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission pursuant to § 18 U.S.C. Section 1350. It is not being filed for
purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and
is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether
made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation
language in such filing.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

July 7, 2016

No. 04-16-00181-CV

THREE THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED FORTY-FIVE DOLLARS ($3,445.00) UNITED 

STATES CURRENCY,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 57th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2014-CI-08281

Honorable Larry Noll, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Appellant is an inmate acting pro se in a civil suit. In his notice of appeal, Appellant 

moved this court to appoint appellate counsel. 

A court may appoint counsel for a pro se civil litigant “under exceptional circumstances.” 

See Gibson v. Tolbert, 102 S.W.3d 710, 712 (Tex. 2003) (citing Travelers Indem. Co. of Conn.

v. Mayfield, 923 S.W.2d 590, 594 (Tex. 1996)); see also Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 24.016 (West 

2004). Exceptional circumstances are “rare and unusual,” and Appellant’s motion presents no 

such circumstances. See Gibson, 102 S.W.3d at 713 (denying court-appointed counsel to an 

indigent inmate for his civil suit against prison personnel). 

Appellant’s motion for court-appointed appellate counsel is DENIED. 

_________________________________

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 7th day of July, 2016.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
The Honorable Andrew W. Bogue, United States District Judge for the District 1

of South Dakota, sitting by designation.

The Honorable Warren K. Urbom, United States District Judge for the District 2

of Nebraska.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 96-3560

___________

Sidney Carl Vann, *

Appellant, *

 v. * District Court for the

Frank X. Hopkins, *

Appellee. *

*

* Appeal from the United States

* District of Nebraska.

* [UNPUBLISHED]

*

___________

Submitted: June 10, 1997

 Filed: June 13, 1997 

___________

Before MURPHY and HEANEY, Circuit Judges, and BOGUE, District Judge. 1

___________

PER CURIAM.

Sidney Vann appeals from the denial by the district court of his

2

petition for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Vann was convicted in

Nebraska of possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance and

sentenced as a habitual offender to 15 
-2-

to 25 years in prison. The police found drugs in plain view after gaining

access to Vann's hotel room on an arrest warrant for theft charges. Vann

claims his constitutional rights were violated by the failure of the state

court to suppress the drugs because they were found and seized as a result

of pretext and by the failure of trial and appellate counsel to litigate

his Fourth Amendment claims effectively. The police did not violate Vann's

rights because they had an objective legal justification to proceed on the

arrest warrant which led to the discovery of the drugs, United States v.

Cummins, 920 F.2d. 498, 501 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 962 (1991),

and Vann was therefore not prejudiced by the representation of his counsel.

See Kimmelman v. Morrison, 477 U.S. 365 (1986). The judgment is affirmed.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.