alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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 on Form 10-Q, filed pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, of The First Bancshares, Inc. (the Company) for the period ended March 31, 2007, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, David E. Johnson, the Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 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 Section 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.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ David E. JohnsonName:

David E. JohnsonTitle:

Chief Executive OfficerDate:

August 10, 2007


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 First Bancshares, Inc., and will be retained by The First
Bancshares, Inc., and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.1
 
                                  UROCOR, INC.
                 STATEMENT RE COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
                                  (UNAUDITED)
 
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                             THREE MONTHS ENDED            SIX MONTHS ENDED
                                                                  JUNE 30,                     JUNE 30,
                                                         ---------------------------  ---------------------------
                                                             1997           1996          1997           1996
                                                         -------------  ------------  -------------  ------------
<S>                                                      <C>            <C>           <C>            <C>
Net income.............................................  $     640,328  $    467,295  $   1,841,414  $    697,934
                                                         -------------  ------------  -------------  ------------
Divided by;
  Weighted average shares outstanding(1)...............     11,076,759     9,427,284     11,108,336     8,321,159
  Plus:
  Supplemental shares(2)...............................       --             --            --             195,499
                                                         -------------  ------------  -------------  ------------
Total weighted average shares outstanding..............     11,076,759     9,427,284     11,108,336     8,516,658
                                                         -------------  ------------  -------------  ------------
Earnings per share.....................................  $         .06  $        .05  $         .17  $        .08
                                                         -------------  ------------  -------------  ------------
                                                         -------------  ------------  -------------  ------------
</TABLE>
 
------------------------
 
(1) Convertible Preferred Stock, Class A Stock and Class B Stock are reflected
    on an "as if converted" basis for periods prior to the Company's initial
    public offering. Common Stock issuable upon exercise of outstanding options
    and warrants is reflected using the treasury stock method.
 
(2) Reflects common and common stock equivalent shares issued in the 12 months
    prior to the Company's initial public offering at an exercise price below
    the public offering price of $11.00 per share. After the first three months
    of 1996, such common stock equivalent shares are included in the calculation
    of the "weighted average shares outstanding" above.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

CASCADE COUNTY,

Appellant/Cross

- Appellee,

vs.

MONTANA PETROLEUM TANK

RELEASE COMPENSATION BOARD,

Appellee/Cross

- Appellant. Cause No.: DA 19

- 0673

ORDER GRA NTING M OTION TO SUPPLEMENT THE RECORD

Appellant/C ross

- Appellee Cascade County having filed an Unopposed

Motion to Supplement the Record , and good cause appearing therefor;

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that said Motion is GRANTED. The record on

appeal before this Cou rt is supple mented to include the complete copy of Exhibit 5

to the July 9, 2018 Stipu lated Facts (D ocument No. 3 5 in the District Court r ecord )

attached to Appellant’s Motion

.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

April 24 2020

04/24/2020

Case Number: DA 19-0673
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

JOSE PEREZ, 

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.  No. 02-1393 MARK ELRICH; THOMAS W.

ANDERSON; THE CITY OF TAKOMA

PARK, MARYLAND,

Defendants-Appellees. 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt.

Peter J. Messitte, District Judge.

(CA-01-2648-PJM)

Submitted: November 20, 2002

Decided: December 3, 2002

Before MICHAEL and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and

HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

COUNSEL

Ralph T. Byrd, Laytonsville, Maryland, for Appellant. John F.

Breads, Jr., Columbia, Maryland, for Appellees. 
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c). 

OPINION

PER CURIAM: 

Jose Perez filed a complaint in Maryland state court alleging common law defamation, as well as claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983

(2000), arising out of several comments made by the chief of police

and a city council member from Takoma Park, Maryland. The Defendants removed the action to federal court, which denied Perez’s

motion to remand and dismissed the complaint pursuant to Fed. R.

Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for the reasons stated from the bench. Perez appeals.

We have reviewed the record, the district court’s statements from the

bench, and the parties’ briefs. The district court properly found, first,

that Perez failed to state a claim under § 1983 and that, in any event,

the Defendants would be entitled to qualified immunity. See Harlow

v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982). The district court also properly found that none of the statements underlying Perez’s claims were

defamatory under Maryland state law. See Bagwell v. Peninsula Reg’l

Med. Ctr., 665 A.2d 297, 317 (Md. App. 1995). Finally, because the

district court had jurisdiction at the time it rendered final judgment,

we will not disturb its decision to deny Perez’s motion to remand to

state court. Aqualon v. MAC Equip., 149 F.3d 262, 264 (4th Cir.

1998); see also Caterpillar, Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61, 64 (1996)

("[A] district court’s error in failing to remand a case improperly

removed is not fatal to the ensuing adjudication if federal jurisdictional requirements are met at the time judgment is entered"). 

Accordingly, we affirm. 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

2 PEREZ v. ELRICH
Richmond

#### Reynolds *v.*Commonwealth.

April 8, 1897.

1. CriminalLaw—Indictment *for felony—Conviction of a*misdemeanor.—Upon an indictment for a felony in a county or corporation court the accused may be acquitted of the felony but found guilty of a misdemeanor.

Petition for a writ of error to a judgment of the County Court of Pittsylvania county.

*Refused.*

The opinion states th¿ case.

*Robert H.*Tredwcvy, for the petitioner.

By the court.

The accused was indicted and prosecuted for a felony of which the court had original jurisdiction, and although the jury by their verdict found the accused not guilty of the felony but guilty of an assault and battery, a component part of the offence charged, yet the court having properly acquired cognizance of the offence charged, we are of opinion that it was not ousted of its jurisdiction to render judgment on the verdict finding him guilty of the misdemeanor which was included within the felony for which he was indicted and tried.

The writ of error is denied.

Refused.
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 on Form 10-Q, filed pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, of The First Bancshares, Inc. (the Company) for the
period ended March 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, David E. Johnson, the Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 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 Section 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.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ David E. JohnsonName:

David E. JohnsonTitle:

Chief Executive OfficerDate:

May 13, 2008


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 First Bancshares, Inc., and will be retained by The First
Bancshares, Inc., and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### O. L. TAYLOR v. Dennis B. BOCOCK.

No. 53575.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 21, 1973.

In re: O. L. Taylor applying for Certio-rari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, Parish of DeSoto. 276 So.2d 347.

Writ denied. Based upon the factual finding that the plaintiff was not the procuring cause of the sale and upon the conclusion that the plaintiff’s exclusive listing agreement was not continued beyond its expiration date, the result is correct under Civil Code article 2277.
II 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1260 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide a standard home 

office deduction. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 27, 2013 

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico (for himself and Mr. BOOZMAN) introduced the 

following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 

a standard home office deduction. 

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 ‘‘Helping Our Middle5 Class Entrepreneurs Act’’ or the ‘‘HOME Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. STANDARD DEDUCTION FOR BUSINESS USE OF 

7 HOME. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subsection (c) of section 280A of 

9 the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding 

10 at the end the following new paragraph: 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1260 IS

1 ‘‘(7) STANDARD HOME OFFICE DEDUCTION.— 

2 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—In the case of an indi3 vidual who is allowed a deduction for the use of 

4 a home office because of a use described in 

5 paragraph (1), (2), or (4), notwithstanding the 

6 limitations of paragraph (5), if such individual 

7 elects the application of this paragraph for the 

8 taxable year, such individual shall be allowed a 

9 deduction equal to the standard home office de10 duction for the taxable year in lieu of the de11 ductions otherwise allowable under this chapter 

12 for such taxable year by reason of such use. 

13 ‘‘(B) STANDARD HOME OFFICE DEDUC14 TION.—For purposes of this paragraph, the 

15 standard home office deduction is the lesser 

16 of— 

17 ‘‘(i) $1,500, or 

18 ‘‘(ii) the gross income derived from 

19 the individual’s trade or business for which 

20 such use occurs. 

21 ‘‘(C) INFLATION ADJUSTMENT.—In the 

22 case of any taxable year beginning in a calendar 

23 year after 2013, the dollar amount in subpara24 graph (B)(i) shall be increased by an amount 

25 equal to— 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 1260 IS

1 ‘‘(i) such dollar amount, multiplied by 

2 ‘‘(ii) the cost-of-living adjustment de3 termined under section 1(f)(3) for the cal4 endar year in which the taxable year be5 gins, determined by substituting ‘2012’ for 

6 ‘1992’ in subparagraph (B) thereof. 

7 Any increase determined under the preceding 

8 sentence shall be rounded to the nearest mul9 tiple of $100.’’. 

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

11 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after 

12 December 31, 2012. 

Æ 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Opinion issued April 20, 2021

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-20-00288-CV

———————————

IN RE MLAR GROUP, LLC D/B/A INTEGRITY TRANSPORTATION 

AND SONJA ANN COLLIER, Relators

Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relators, MLAR Group LLC and Sonja Ann Collier, have filed a petition for 

writ of mandamus challenging a trial court order striking their counter-affidavit 

regarding real party in interest’s medical expenses. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM.
2

CODE § 18.001(f).1 We deny the petition. See In re Flores, 597 S.W.3d 533 (Tex. 

App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2020, orig. proceeding).

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Goodman and Farris.

1 The underlying case is Alejandro Perez v. Sanja Callier, Juan Rivas, Ernesto 

Antonio Rivas, and MLAR Group, LLC, cause number 2018-64992, pending in the 

215th District Court of Harris County, Texas, the Honorable Elaine H. Palmer 

presiding.
United States Court of Appeals 

for the Fifth Circuit ____________ 

No. 22-40788 

Summary Calendar 

____________ 

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee, 

versus

Jorge Rodriguez-Alejos, 

Defendant—Appellant. 

______________________________ 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Texas 

USDC No. 7:22-CR-1195-1 

______________________________ 

Before Jones, Southwick, and Ho, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Jorge RodriguezAlejos has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance 

with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 

632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Rodriguez-Alejos has not filed a response. We 

have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record 

_____________________ 

*

 This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. 

United States Court of Appeals 

Fifth Circuit 

FILED 

August 10, 2023 

Lyle W. Cayce 

Clerk 

Case: 22-40788 Document: 00516853969 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/10/2023
No. 22-40788 

2 

reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal 

presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s 

motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from 

further responsibilities herein, and the appeal is DISMISSED. See 5th 

Cir. R. 42.2. 

Case: 22-40788 Document: 00516853969 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/10/2023
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 142 (Tuesday, July 24, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 34987]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-15787]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Army


Intent To Grant an Exclusive License of U.S. Government-Owned 
Patents

AGENCY: Department of the Army, DoD.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with applicable laws and regulations, 
announcement is made of the intent to grant an exclusive, non-royalty-
bearing, revocable license.

ADDRESSES: Commander, U.S. Army Medical Research and Materiel Command, 
ATTN: Command Judge Advocate, MCMR-JA, 504 Scott Street, Fort Detrick, 
MD 21702-5012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For licensing issues, Mr. Paul G. 
Michaels, Office of Research & Technology Applications, (301) 619-4145. 
For patent issues, Ms. Elizabeth Arwine, Patent Attorney, (301) 619-
7808, both at telefax (301) 619-5034.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with 35 U.S.C. 209(e) and 37 
CFR 404.7(a)(1)(i), announcement is made of the intent to grant an 
exclusive, non-royalty-bearing, revocable license to United States 
Patent Application US 15/723,448, filed October 3, 2017, entitled, 
``Aerosol Concentrating Apparatus for Use with Aerosol Aging Drum,'' 
and Patent Cooperation Treaty Patent Application PCT/US2017/016845, 
filed February 7, 2017, entitled, ``Oro-Nasal Inhalation 
Plethysmography Mask Exposure System,'' and Patent Cooperation Treaty 
Patent Application PCT/US2017/016811, filed February 7, 2017, entitled, 
``Head-Only and/or Whole Body Inhalation Exposure Chamber'' to 
PneumoDose, LLC, having its principal place of business at 112 Lynhaven 
Drive, Alexandria, VA 22305.
    Anyone wishing to object to grant of this license can file written 
objections along with supporting evidence, if any, within 15 days from 
the date of this publication. Written objections are to be filed with 
the Command Judge Advocate (see ADDRESSES).

Brenda S. Bowen,
Army Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 2018-15787 Filed 7-23-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-03-P
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-1829

ROXIE ANN DAVIS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

CHERYL MORRIS; PAM MAY; CONNIE JELLIFFE,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, 

Jr., District Judge. (3:15-cv-00080-RJC-DSC)

Submitted: November 17, 2015 Decided: November 19, 2015

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Roxie Ann Davis, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Roxie Ann Davis seeks to appeal the district court’s order

dismissing her tort complaint on the basis of Younger

abstention. See Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). We have 

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, 

we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Davis 

v. Morris, No. 3:15-cv-00080-RJC-DSC (W.D.N.C. Mar. 3, 2015). 

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
SCPW-14-0001346
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI # I

Q. BRITT CORMIER, Petitioner,

vs. THE FAMILY COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT, STATE OF HAWAI # I, Respondent.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (By : Reck ten wal d, C.J ., Nak aya ma, Mc Ken na, Po lla ck, an d W ils on, JJ .)

Upon consideration of the document submitted by Petitioner Q. Britt Cormier entitled, “Notice of Appeal from the Family Court First Circuit for not Filing Documents,” which was filed as a petition for a writ of mandamus on December 8, 2014, the document attached thereto and submitted in support thereof, and the record, it appears that (1) the first circuit family court has filed several petitions for temporary restraining orders in which Petitioner sought relief against Kayla M. Malsol and Charisse Gali, and (2) the most recent petitions were filed in the first circuit family court on November 28, 2014. Petitioner, therefore, fails to demonstrate that she is entitled to the requested relief. See Kema v. Gaddis, 91 Hawai # i 200, Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCPW-14-0001346 21-JAN-2015 02:58 PM2

204, 982 P.2d 334, 338 (1999) (a writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that will not issue unless the petitioner demonstrates a clear and indisputable right to relief and a lack of alternative means to redress adequately the alleged wrong or obtain the requested action); Barnett v. Broderick, 84 Hawai # i 109, 111, 929 P.2d 1359, 1361 (1996) (mandamus relief is available to compel an official to perform a duty allegedly owed to an individual only if the individual’s claim is clear and certain, the official’s duty is ministerial and so plainly prescribed as to be free from doubt, and no other remedy is available). Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for a writ of mandamus is denied.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai # i, January 21, 2015. /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna /s/ Richard W. Pollack /s/ Michael D. Wilson