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

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

     In connection with the Quarterly Report of Forest Laboratories,Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended September30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission onthe date hereof (the "Report"), I, Howard Solomon, Chief ExecutiveOfficer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Actof 2002, that:

            1.          TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

            2.          Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and result of operationsof the Company.

 

/s/ Howard Solomon       Howard SolomonChairman of the Board,Chief Executive Officerand DirectorFebruary 9, 2007
#### Carl and Thelma CRAPPS v. B. W. BOYD.

SC 2572.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

July 21, 1978.

Phil A. Laird and Henry C. Wiley, Jr., of Elliott, Laird & Wiley, Jasper, for appellants.

Hugh Beaird, of Selman, Beaird & Sel-man, Jasper, for appellee.

ALMON, Justice.

The Crapps appeal from a judgment of the Circuit Court which establishes a common property line between the Crapps and Boyd. We affirm.

The Crapps instituted this action to establish the boundary line in accordance with the description in their deed. Boyd filed an answer and counterclaim, praying that the line be established according to the description in his deed and claim of adverse possession. Both descriptions were inexpertly drawn and attempt, e. g., to define a meandering line in three separate forty acre tracts of land.

The primary contention of error is the inaccuracy of a survey which the trial court relied upon in part to fix the boundary line. We agree that the survey is inaccurate, however, there was ample evidence of Boyd’s adverse possession of the lands decreed to him. This is a case where perhaps no one is absolutely certain of the line. The trial judge was called upon to fix the line. He did so, after a personal inspection, and we cannot say he is incorrect.

We have examined the voluminous testimony in the record and the evidence supports the trial court’s judgment. *Cameron v. Cain,*295 Ala. 164, 325 So.2d 157 (1976); *Casey v. Keeney,*290 Ala. 94, 274 So.2d 68 (1973).

The judgment is hereby affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

TORBERT, C. J., and BLOODWORTH, FAULKNER and EMBRY, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                         155,106
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,382
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               160,499
<PP&E>                                          47,243
<DEPRECIATION>                                   5,246
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 419,996
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           10,893
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,615
<OTHER-SE>                                     407,488
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   419,996
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  720,940
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              (17,791)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (703,149)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (703,149)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (703,149)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.04)


</TABLE>
#### JEFFERSON TERRACE AREA JUNIOR HIGH ASSOCIATION, INC. v. EAST BATON ROUGE PARISH SCHOOL BOARD et al.

No. 9553.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit.

Aug. 8, 1973.

Jerry H. Bankston, Baton Rouge, for appellant.

John F. Ward, Baton Rouge, for appel-lees.

Before LANDRY, TUCKER and PICKETT, JJ.

ON MOTION TO DISMISS THE APPEAL

LANDRY, Judge.

Defendant (Appellee) has moved to dismiss the appeal of plaintiff (Appellant) because of alleged untimely filing of the appeal bond. We grant the motion and dismiss the appeal.

On February 12, 1973, pursuant to previous assignment, the trial court heard and rendered judgment, in open court in the presence of counsel for all parties concerned, sustaining defendant’s exception of no right of action and dismissing plaintiff’s suit. Judgment to that effect was formally signed February 15 ,1973. Though present upon rendition of judgment, counsel for Appellant did not request notice of judgment. Under the circumstances, Appellant was not entitled to notice of judgment. LSA-C.C.P. art. 1913.

Appellant did not apply for a new trial. On April 26, 1973, Appellant moved for and was granted a devolutive appeal returnable to this court on June 22, 1973, conditioned *296upon the posting of a $500.00 bond. The required bond was posted June 8, 1973.

A devolutive appeal may be taken and the security therefor furnished within 90 days of expiration of the delays for applying for a new trial if an application for new trial has not been timely filed. LSA-C.C.P. art. 1974. As stated above, Appellant did not apply for a new trial. Since no notice of judgment was required, the delays for taking a new trial in this instance commenced Friday, February 16, 1973, and expired Tuesday, February 20, 1973. The delay for filing the appeal bond herein accordingly expired May 21, 1973, and the posting of bond on June 8, 1973, was untimely.

Failure of Appellant to timely file his appeal bond is jurisdictional in nature. Where such failure occurs, the Appellate Court lacks jurisdiction to hear the appeal, and the appeal must be dismissed. See Clements v. Kimble, La.App., 239 So.2d 704, and authorities therein cited.

This appeal is dismissed at Appellant’s cost.

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

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                              JAN-1-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                       5,789,437
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,209,779
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             7,783,387
<PP&E>                                      52,936,681
<DEPRECIATION>                              18,322,999
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              48,892,377
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,814,166
<BONDS>                                     33,691,575
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  10,088,758
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                48,892,377
<SALES>                                      7,286,889
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             8,896,012
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,913,705
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,194,335
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,797,704
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,651,615
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,651,615
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,651,615
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
<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 Quarterly Report of Farrel Corporation (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the period ended June 29, 2003 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Rolf K Liebergesell,
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
to the best of my knowledge:

(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
     as of, and for the periods presented in the Report.



/s/ Rolf K Liebergesell
-----------------------------------
Rolf K Liebergesell
Chairman of the Board of Directors
and Chief Executive Officer
August 11, 2003


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 the Company and will be retained
by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.





                                                                              23
*

 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of

law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the

citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under

the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

** After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined

unanimously to honor the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral

argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.(G). The case is therefore ordered

submitted without oral argument.

F I L E D

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

JAN 15 1999

PATRICK FISHER

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

 

ELISEO C. DURAN,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. No. 98-1356

JOSEPH R. GREENE, District Director of

the 19th District of the United States

Immigration and Naturalization

Service; IMMIGRATION &

NATURALIZATION SERVICE,

United States Department of Justice,

Defendants-Appellees.

(D.C. No. 97-N-1865)

(Colo.)

 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

 

Before SEYMOUR, Chief Judge, BALDOCK, and HENRY, Circuit Judges.**

 

Plaintiff Eliseo C. Duran appeals from the district court’s judgment upholding a

decision of the INS forfeiting an immigration bond upon which Plaintiff was the obligor.

We have reviewed the parties’ briefs, and carefully examined the entire record on appeal.
2

Based upon our review of the record, we conclude that the district court properly granted

summary judgment in favor of Defendants, and affirm substantially for the reasons set

forth in the magistrate judge’s recommendation on the parties’ cross motions for summary

judgment, and the district judge’s subsequent order adopting that recommendation.

AFFIRMED.

Entered for the Court,

Bobby R. Baldock

Circuit Judge
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Lovair McCOY.

No. 61702.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 17, 1978.

In re: Lovair McCoy applying for writs of habeas corpus and mandamus. Parish of Caddo.

Denied.
#### Harry BLOCH, Appellant, v. KING JOHNS & ASSOCIATES, INC., et al., Appellees.

No. 72-965.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Jan. 30, 1973.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Broward County; Stephen R. Booker.

Appeal dismissed.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the ZAT1 AJT (08) meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health Special Emphasis Panel; Discovery and Biological Signatures of Diet-Derived Microbial Metabolites.                    

*Date:*                         July 12-13, 2018.                    

*Time:*                         8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         The Madison Concourse Hotel, 1 West Dayton Street, Madison, WI 53703.                    

*Contact Person:*                         Ashlee Tipton, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Division of Extramural Activities, National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Room 401, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-451-3849,                         *ashlee.tipton@nih.gov*.                    

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.213, Research and Training in Complementary and Integrative Health, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

 Dated: June 7, 2018.

Michelle D. Trout,

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2018-12729 Filed 6-13-18; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
**B F**  IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 2 3
- 0 143 STATE OF MONTANA ,

Plaintiff and Appellee , v. BENJAMIN EUGENE COLE JR. ,

Defendant and Appellant.**ORDER** Upon consideration Appellee ’s motion for a 3 0
- day extension of time, and good cause appearing therefor, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellee is granted an extension of time to and including August 2 , 202 4 , within which to prepare, file, and serve its response brief

.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

June 26 2024

06/26/2024

Case Number: DA 23-0143
# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas**

November 10, 2022

No. 04

- 22

- 00725

- CV

David Gene BECKA
, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas, Appellee

From the 144th Judic ial District Court
, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2019CR1257 Honorable Andrew Wyatt Carruthers , Judge Presiding



### ORDER

In this accelerated appeal, t he notice of appeal was filed in the trial court on October 28
, 2022, and the reporter’s r ecord was initially due on November 7 , 2022

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 35.1 (b)

. However, t he original notice of appeal was not sent to the court reporter responsible for preparing the record, contra T EX

. C IV

. P RAC

. & R EM

. C ODE A NN

. § 51.017( a); T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 25.1(e), and no docketing statement was filed, contra T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 32.1.

On Nov ember 9 , 2022, court reporter Roxanne F. Pena filed a first motion for extension of time to file the reporter’s record . She requested a sixty

- day extension of time to fil e the record

. She notes that the “priority status [for this record] is behind three other records.”
By statute, this appeal must be given priority over all other appeals. See T EX

. H EALTH & S AFETY C ODE A NN

. § 574.070 (“ The court of appeals and supreme c ourt shall give an appeal under this section preference over all other cases and shall advance the appeal on the docket. ” (emphasis added) ).

We ORDER Roxanne F. Pena to give this record the highest priority status in the order of preparing records. See id.
The reporter’s record is due on November 17, 2022. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 35.3(c) (limiting an extension in an accelerated appeal to ten days).__________________ _______________ Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 10th day of November, 2022

.

__________ _________________________ MICHAEL A. CRUZ
, Clerk of Court
Exhibit 99.1



INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS REPORT



We have reviewed the accompanying consolidated balance sheets of First West Virginia Bancorp, Inc. and its subsidiary as of June 30,
2003 and 2002, and the related consolidated statements of changes in stockholders equity, and cash flows for the six-month period then ended and the consolidated statements of income for the six and three-month period then ended. These
financial statements are the responsibility of the Companys management.



We conducted our reviews in accordance with standards established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. A review of interim financial information consists principally of applying analytical procedures to financial data
and making inquiries of persons responsible for financial and accounting matters. It is substantially less in scope than an audit conducted in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America, the objective of
which is the expression of an opinion regarding the financial statements taken as a whole. Accordingly, we do not express such an opinion.



Based on our reviews, we are not aware of any material modifications that should be made to the accompanying financial statements for them to be in conformity with
accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.



We
have previously audited, in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America, the consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 2002, and the related consolidated statements of income, changes in
stockholders equity and cash flows for the year then ended (not presented herein); and in our report dated February 7, 2003, we expressed an unqualified opinion on those consolidated financial statements.



|/s/ S.R. Snodgrass A.C.
|-----------------------
|                       
|Wheeling, West Virginia
|August 8, 2003         



S.R.
Snodgrass, A.C.

980 National Road Wheeling, WV 26003-6400 Phone: 304-233-5030 Facsimile: 304-233-3062
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

Present: Judges Frank, McClan ahan and Retired Judge Hodges*

R.R. DONNELLEY & SONS COMPANY MEMORANDUM OPINION** v. Record No. 0727-08-3 PER CURIAM AUGUST 26, 2008 MICHAEL RODGERS

FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION (Richard D. Lucas; Lucas & Ki te, PLC, on brief), for appellant. (A. Thomas Lane, Jr., on brief), for appellee.

R.R. Donnelley & Sons Company appeals a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Commission finding that claimant has suffered anxiety, depression, a mild traumatic brain injury, and post-concussive syndrome causally related to his compensable October 9, 2005 work-related accident and that he has been totally disabled si nce February 2006. We have reviewed the record and the commission’s opinion and find that this app eal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the co mmission in its final opinion. See Rodgers v. R.R. Donnelley &

Sons Co. , VWC File No. 227-48-98 (Feb. 22, 2008). We dispense with oral argument and summarily affirm because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the Court and argument w ould not aid the decisional process. See Code § 17.1-403; Rule 5A:27.

Affirmed.

* Retired Judge William H. Hodges took part in the consideration of this case by designation pursuant to Code § 17.1-400(D). ** Pursuant to Code § 17.1-41 3, this opinion is not designated for publication.