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

                                                                  EXHIBIT 23.1

               CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statement (Form S-8) pertaining to the 2000 Equity Incentive Plan, the 2000
CEO Nonqualified Stock Option Plan, the 1997 Stock Option Plan, and the 1995
Stock Option Plan of Pharsight Corporation, of our report dated May 22, 2000
(except as to Note 16 as to which the date is July 10, 2000, and Note 17, as
to which the date is August 8, 2000), with respect to the financial
statements and schedule of Pharsight Corporation included in Amendment No. 4
to the Registration Statement (Form S-1 No. 333-34896) and related Prospectus
of Pharsight Corporation filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
August 9, 2000.

                                                       /s/ Ernst & Young LLP

San Jose, California
August 25, 2000
**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**

The undersigned hereby certifies, in his capacity as the Principal Executive Officer of China ShouGuan Mining Corporation****(the “Company”), for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of his knowledge:

(1)  The Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2015 (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.

| Dated:  August 19, 2015

/s/ Feize Zhang

  

Feize Zhang

Chairman and Principal Executive Officer

 

(Principal Executive Officer)

This certification accompanies each Report pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of §18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

A signed original 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. |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 164 (Thursday, August 23, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42754-42755]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-18178]


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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice: 10518]


Notice of Determinations; Culturally Significant Object Imported 
for Exhibition--Determinations: ``Odyssey: Jack Whitten Sculpture, 
1963-2017'' Exhibition

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: I 
hereby determine that a certain object to be included in the exhibition 
``Odyssey: Jack Whitten Sculpture, 1963-2017,'' imported from abroad 
for temporary exhibition within the United States, is of cultural 
significance. The object is imported pursuant to a loan agreement with 
the foreign owner or custodian. I also determine that the exhibition or 
display of the exhibit object at The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New 
York, New York, from on or about September 6, 2018, until on or about 
December 2, 2018, and at possible additional exhibitions or venues yet 
to be determined, is in the national interest. I have ordered that 
Public Notice of these determinations be published in the Federal 
Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elliot Chiu, Attorney-Adviser, Office 
of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-632-
6471; email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#91e2f4f2e5f8feffa3a5a4a8d1e2e5f0e5f4bff6fee7"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="0c7f696f786563623e3839354c7f786d7869226b637a">[email protected]</span></a>). The mailing address is U.S. 
Department of State, L/PD, SA-5, Suite 5H03, Washington, DC 20522-0505.

[[Page 42755]]


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The foregoing determinations were made 
pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 
(79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), E.O. 12047 of March 27, 1978, the 
Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681, 
et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, et seq.), Delegation of Authority No. 234 
of October 1, 1999, and Delegation of Authority No. 236-3 of August 28, 
2000.

Marie Therese Porter Royce,
Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department of 
State.
[FR Doc. 2018-18178 Filed 8-22-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4710-05-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
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 Quarterly Report of Trig Acquisition 1, Inc.  (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2011 (the “Report”), I, Norman Kunin, Chief Financial 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), as applicable, 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: August 15, 2011
/s/ Norman KuninNorman KuninChief Financial Officer

(Principal Financial Officer)
<PAGE>
Exhibit 32.2
                CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER 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 Coram Healthcare Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2003, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Scott
R. Danitz, Chief Financial 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; 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/  SCOTT R. DANITZ
                                            ------------------------------------
                                            Scott R. Danitz
                                            Senior Vice President,
                                            Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer &
                                            Principal Accounting Officer

Date:  April 14, 2004
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3227 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3227

To repeal the reduction in the deductible portion of business meals and 
     entertainment made by the Revenue Reconciliation Act of 1993.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 6, 1993

Mr. Jefferson (for himself, Mr. Abercrombie, Mrs. Maloney, Ms. Pelosi, 
  Mr. Lightfoot, Mr. Manton,  Mr. Bilbray, Mr. Nadler, Mr. Shaw, Mr. 
Lewis of Georgia, Mr. Brewster, Mr. Tauzin, Mr. Baker of Louisiana, Mr. 
   Blute, Mr. Torkildsen, Mr. Zeliff, Mr. Crane, Mr. Sundquist, Mrs. 
Vucanovich, Mr. Fields of Louisiana, Mr. Zimmer, Mr. Hall of Ohio, Mr. 
 Andrews of New Jersey, Mr. Roth, Mr. Clement, Mr. Filner, Mr. Hayes, 
 Mr. Duncan, Mr. Machtley, Mr. McCrery, Mr. Livingston, Mr. Reynolds, 
    Mr. Rangel, Mr. Payne of New Jersey, Mrs. Mink, Mrs. Collins of 
   Illinois, Mr. Flake, Miss Collins of Michigan, Mr. Kopetski, Mr. 
  Hilliard, Mr. de Lugo, Mr. Matsui, and Mr. Oberstar) introduced the 
 following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To repeal the reduction in the deductible portion of business meals and 
     entertainment made by the Revenue Reconciliation Act of 1993.

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

SECTION 1. REPEAL OF REDUCTION IN DEDUCTIBLE PORTION OF BUSINESS MEALS 
              AND ENTERTAINMENT.

    Section 13209 of the Revenue Reconciliation Act of 1993 is hereby 
repealed, and the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 shall be applied and 
administered as if such section (and the amendments made thereby) had 
not been enacted.

                                 <all>
```
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

BRIAN K. MORGAN,

 Petitioner

 v.

UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION

BOARD OF REVIEW,

 Respondent

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 61 WAL 2015

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the

Order of the Commonwealth Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 23rd day of July, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED.
# C_2015045EN.01000601.xml

| 7.2.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 45/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.2.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 45/6

---

Acknowledgement of receipt of complaint CHAP(2014) 1984

(2015/C 45/04)

| 1. | The European Commission has received a series of complaints about the plans of the Government of Spain for investigation, prospecting and exploitation of hydrocarbons in various areas of the Mediterranean Sea and Atlantic Ocean. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The European Commission has received a series of complaints about the plans of the Government of Spain for investigation, prospecting and exploitation of hydrocarbons in various areas of the Mediterranean Sea and Atlantic Ocean.

| 2. | The Commission has registered these complaints in the central application for the registration of complaints on the application of Union law by a Member State under reference number CHAP(2014) 1984. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Commission has registered these complaints in the central application for the registration of complaints on the application of Union law by a Member State under reference number CHAP(2014) 1984.

| 3. | Given the significant number of complaints it received on this subject, the Commission, with a view to responding swiftly and informing those concerned while making the most economical use of its administrative resources, is publishing this acknowledgment of receipt in the Official Journal of the European Union, and on the Internet at: http://ec.europa.eu/eu_law/complaints/receipt/index_en.htm |
| --- | --- |

3.

Given the significant number of complaints it received on this subject, the Commission, with a view to responding swiftly and informing those concerned while making the most economical use of its administrative resources, is publishing this acknowledgment of receipt in the Official Journal of the European Union, and on the Internet at: http://ec.europa.eu/eu_law/complaints/receipt/index_en.htm

Official Journal of the European Union

| 4. | The complainants will be informed, through the same channels, of the results of the Commission's examination of these complaints and of the follow-up that the Commission may decide to take. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The complainants will be informed, through the same channels, of the results of the Commission's examination of these complaints and of the follow-up that the Commission may decide to take.

---
No. 00-7382.

#### Hooks *v.*Pennsylvania et al.

C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### James L. Gray, Respondent, *vs.*Ermine Case, Jr., Appellant.

1. *Sheriffs’ sales*— Purchaser, *liability of*— Contract.—A. bought property at a sheriffs’ sale, but the next morning informed the sheriff that he bought the property as agent for B., when the sheriff entered the name of B. on the sale book as purchaser, with a memorandum of the facts. *Held,*that the contract of sale and purchase was complete when the bid was accepted and entered on the sale book, and A. was liable for the purchase money.

*Appeal from, Jackson Circuit Court.*

*Lay, Belch & E. Case Jr.,*for Appellant.

*Warwick Hough,*for Respondent.

The contract of sale and purchase was complete, when the property was struck off to appellant and his name was entered in the sale book as purchaser. The sheriff had no power to alter or affect that contract, and the rights of the execution creditors therein, by any subsequent alteration or amendment thereof, made by him.

Wagner, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court.

This was a motion filed under the statute (1 W. S., 610-11, §§ 46, 47,) by the plaintiff us sheriff of Jackson county ^ for judgment against the defendant, for the difference in amount of bids at which defendant bought certain property at sheriff’s sale, and which he refused to pay for, and what the property brought at a re-sale at the same term.

The testimony in the case shows that the property was sold under several executions, and that the defendant bid it in in his own name, and that the entry was made by the deputy sheriff who conducted the sale accordingly. The purchase money was not paid oh that day, and on the next morning, the defendant informed the deputy that he did not bid for himself, but purchased for one Ellwood, and that Ellwood had concluded not to take the property.

The deputy then, the day after the sale, entered the name of Ellwood on the sale book as purchaser, accompanied with a memorandum of the facts; this was the first information that the officer had that defendant was buying for any person other than himself. Defendant was attorney in the executions hut *464there is no pretense that he was bidding in the property for his clients. Ell wood, whom he claims he bought for, was a stranger to ail the proceedings.

I do not think the sheriff could release the defendant from his bids after the property was struck off to him. The contract of sale and purchase was complete when the bids were accepted and entered on the sale book.

The execution creditors then acquired rights which it was not competent for the officer by an alteration to divest.

The judgment in the court below was for the plaintiff. In my opinion, it was right and should be affirmed.

The other judges concur.
No. 11628.

#### The Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co. *v.*Linn, Admx., et al.

Decided November 16, 1909.

Error to Circuit Court of Holmes county.

*Mr. George W. Sharp*and *Messrs. Arrel, Wilson & Harrington,*for plaintiff in error.

*Messrs. J. & E. G. Huston; Mr. W. Stihvell; Messrs. Cary & Mullins; Messrs. Allen, Waters, Young & Andress*and *Mr. George W. Sharp,*for defendants in error.

Judgment affirmed.

Crew, C. J., Summers and Price, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 10.15 -DirectorCompensationSummary




Exhibit 10.15


Covisint Corporation Director Compensation Summary




The Directors’ compensation program provides two alternative compensation models intended to compensate Directors for all Board and Committee meetings for Directors to select from:


		
	1.
	Three Year Compensation Plan.  The Three Year Compensation Plan consists of a grant of Covisint Options valued at $375,000 on the date of the Director’s first appointment or election to the Board or selection of this compensation model (“Commencement Date”), or on the third anniversary of the Commencement Date.  The options will vest in equal parts over three years.  To arrive at the number of options to be granted, the Corporation will utilize the Black-Scholes formula to determine the fair market value of an option on the grant date.  The Corporation will then divide $375,000 by the fair market value of the option to determine the total number of shares to be awarded.


 
		
	2.
	Annual Compensation Plan. The Annual Compensation Plan consists of three elements: an annual equity award, an annual cash retainer for Board service and annual cash retainers for committee membership.  Each director receives the following:




		
	•
	An annual option grant awarded on the Director’s Commencement Date and each anniversary thereafter valued at $100,000.  The options will vest in equal parts over four (4) years.  To arrive at the number of options to be granted, the Corporation will utilize the Black-Scholes formula to determine the fair market value of an option on the grant date.  The Corporation will then divide $100,000 by the fair market value of the option to determine the total number of shares to be awarded. 


		
	•
	An annual cash retainer of $25,000 payable annually on Director’s Commencement Date and each anniversary thereafter via wire transfer deposit to an account the Director specifies.


		
	•
	A Committee membership annual cash retainer payable on annually on Director’s Commencement Date and each anniversary thereafter via wire transfer deposit to an account the Director specifies.  The cash retainer amount is based on the Committee and the Director’s role on the Committee as follows:




	
			
	

Committee
	Committee Chairperson
	Committee Member

	Audit
	$15,000
	$5,000

	Compensation
	$10,000
	$3,750

	Nominating/Governance
	$5,000
	$2,500






A Director’s election must be made in writing.  The election of either compensation model will remain in effect until a new election has been made by the Director.  If a Director wishes to modify his/her election, the new election must be made in the calendar year prior to the year in which the change will take effect.  A Director may decide to change compensation to the Annual Compensation Plan from the Three Year Compensation Plan effective at the start of the fourth year.  A Director may change from an Annual Compensation Plan to the Three Year Compensation Plan effective on any anniversary of the Commencement Date.


Equity Ownership


All Directors are encouraged to have an equity stake in the company.  


Dated: January 8, 2014
*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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 98-10533

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

REGINALD TRENT ROSE,

Defendant-Appellant.

 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:97-CR-134-1-Y

 

March 15, 1999

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, AND DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Reginald Trent Rose appeals his convictions for possession and

possession with intent to distribute cocaine base. He first

contends that the district court erred by reading excerpts of a

witness’s testimony in response to a specific jury question about

the time at which a witness identified the defendant. The danger

in reading excerpted testimony to the jury is that the district

court will “substitute its judgment for that of the jury, or . . .

invade its province as factfinder.” United States v. Alonzo, 681
2

F.2d 997, 1003 (5th Cir. 1982). In contrast to United States v.

Rivera-Santiago, 107 F.3d 960, 965-67 (1st Cir. 1997), the judge’s

selections of excerpts here were not one-sided. Because the

defendant can point to no omitted testimony potentially relevant to

the jury’s question, we find that the district court did not abuse

its discretion. See Alonzo, 681 F.2d at 1003.

We also find no error in the district court’s decision to give

an Allen charge. “The district court has broad discretion to give

an Allen charge when the jury indicates that it is deadlocked.”

United States v. Rivas, 99 F.3d 170, 175 (5th Cir. 1996). The jury

had informed the court after about six hours of deliberation that

it was not unanimous and that “[i]t looks as if we wont [sic] get

there.” This scenario affords an excellent example of when an Allen

charge may be useful, and the district court certainly did not

abuse its discretion in giving one.

AFFIRMED.
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 Trig Acquisition 1, Inc.  (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2011 (the “Report”), I, AJ Cervantes, 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), as applicable, 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: August 15, 2011
/s/ AJ CervantesAJ CervantesChief Executive Officer

(Principal Executive Officer)
#### A. L. MASSEY v. Annis Massey WELLS, Admrx. of Estate of Annie L. Massey, et al.

No. 47428.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Feb. 25, 1974.

A. S. Scott, Jr., Laurel, William A. Stewart, Jr., Jackson, for appellant.

Paul G. Swartz fager, Laurel, for appel-lees.

Before GILLESPIE, C. J., and ROBERTSON, SUGG, WALKER and BROOM, JJ.

Appeal from Chancery Court, Jasper County; L. B. Porter, Chancellor.

Affirmed.
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 quarterly report on Form 10-Q/A of CFC International, Inc. and subsidiaries (the Company) for the quarter ended June 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Dennis W. Lakomy, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 and 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: August 14, 2006 |  | /s/ Dennis W. Lakomy                                
|                      |  | Dennis W. Lakomy                                    
|                      |  | Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not,
except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of § 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

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



29