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

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Cougar Biotechnology, Inc. does hereby certify that, to his knowledge:



| | (a) | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Cougar Biotechnology, Inc. for the quarter ended September 30, 2008 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (b) | information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Cougar Biotechnology, Inc.
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                         |  |  |  |                               
|------------------------ |  |  |  | ------------------------------
|Dated: November 10, 2008 |  |  |  | /S/ CHARLES R. EYLER          
|                         |  |  |  | Charles R. Eyler              
|                         |  |  |  | Senior Vice President, Finance
# Exhibit 32

Section 1350
Certifications.

---

# Exhibit 32

# CERTIFICATION PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, the Chief Executive
Officer and the Chief Financial Officer of Beach First National Bancshares, Inc. (the
Company), each certify that, to his knowledge on the date of this
certification:

| | 1. | The annual report of the Company for the period ended December 31, 2005 as
          filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on this date (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/  Walter E. Standish, III
| |  | ----------------------------
| |  | Walter E. Standish, III     
| |  | Chief Executive Officer     
| |  | March 20, 2006              

| |  | /s/  Richard N. Burch  
| |  | -----------------------
| |  | Richard N. Burch       
| |  | Chief Financial Officer
| |  | March 20, 2006
| (1)   | The      Quarterly Report on Form 10Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended      June 30, 2009, (“The Report”) fully complies with the requirements of      section 13(a) or 15(d) of the      Securities     Exchange Act of 1934      (15U.S.C  78m or 78 o (d));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:  July      31, 2009 | By:    | /s/   Craig      Hodgkins                                    |
|-------------------------------------|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                |   | Craig      HodgkinsPresident      and Director(Principal      Executive Officer) |
|                                |   |                                                                             |

| Date:  July      31, 2009 | By:    | /s/ Katherine A      Ostruszka                                                        |
|-------------------------------------|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                |   | Katherine      A OstruszkaChief      Financial Officer & Controller(Principal      Financial Officer) |
|                                |   |                                                                                                      |
#### Ben Arthur SMITH, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 86-1171.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Feb. 10, 1987.

*78Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and N. Joseph Durant, Jr., Miami, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., and Mark J. Berkowitz, Tallahassee, for appel-lee.

Before HUBBART, BASKIN and FERGUSON, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The defendant appeals an order revoking probation and imposing a sentence for imprisonment on a finding that he committed the offenses of burglary and robbery.

Marie Buffone, the victim, testified that as she returned home from a shopping trip she noticed a car behind her; and that she parked in her yard but remained in the car until the vehicle behind passed. The suspicious vehicle, driven by the defendant, continued to the corner and made a left turn out of her sight. . It was only then that she got out of her car and started up the walkway to enter the house. As she walked up her driveway the man who was a passenger in the passing automobile ran up behind her and, after a brief struggle, took her purse and absconded. Both suspects were apprehended after a chase by police officers. The defendant was positively identified as the driver.

The defendant contends in this appeal that the evidence was legally insufficient to prove that he was an aider and abettor to the crime of burglary or robbery, relying mainly on *A.Y.G. v. State,*414 So.2d 1158 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982), where we held that evidence that the defendant drove the getaway car from the scene of the burglary at the burglar’s request, without more, was insufficient to convict as an aider and abettor. We agree.

A defendant cannot be convicted of a charged substantive offense based on evidence which proves involvement only as an accessory after the fact. *Jackson v. State,*436 So.2d 1085 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); *A.Y.G. v. State.*Likewise probation cannot be revoked where the proof supports only an offense other than the one charged. *Brown v. State,*468 So.2d 439 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). Nothing in the record excludes the reasonable inference that the defendant had no knowledge of the robbery until after it occurred.1

Reversed and remanded.

1

. There is no double jeopardy bar to the state filing a new affidavit of probation violation based on the lesser offense,
----

| (1) | the      Report fully complies with the requirements of §13(a) or 15(d) of the      Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. §78m or 78o(d),      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:  November      13, 2009 | /s/ Darin M. Myman                         |
|------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------|
|                                     | Darin      M. Myman                        |
|                                     | President      and Chief Executive Officer |

----
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 14**  **- 7093** 

BERNARD GIBSON, JR. , Petitioner

- Appellant ,
v. ERIC D. WILSON , Respondent

- Appellee
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Alexandria
. James C. Cacheris , Senior District Judge. ( 1:14

- cv - 00454

- JCC

- TRJ )

Submitted : November 20, 2014 Decided: November 25 , 2014

Before KING and KEENAN , Circuit Judges , and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge
.
Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Bernard Gibson, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Bernard Gibson, Jr. , seeks to appeal the district
court ’ s order denyin g relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 ( 2012 )
p etition , which the court correctly treated as a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion, as well as its order denying Gibson’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certifica te of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28
U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the meri ts, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional r ight. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Gibson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Gibson’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, deny a3 certificate of appealability , and dismi ss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
**Exhibit 23.1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We consent to theincorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Nos. 333-116691,333-14373, 333-25973, 333-62631, 333-34200, 333-61688,333-64892, 333-102444 and 333-106197) on Form S-8of North American Scientific, Inc. of our report dated January 10,2006 relating to our audit of the consolidated financial statements, andfinancial statement schedule and internal control over financial reporting,which appear in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of  North American Scientific, Inc.. for theyear ended October 31, 2005.

/s/ SINGER LEWAK GREENBAUM &GOLDSTEIN LLP

LosAngeles, California

January 13, 2006

----
#### TEX-ARK JOIST COMPANY, a Delaware corporation, Petitioner, v. DERR AND GRUENEWALD CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, formerly Derr Steel Erection Company or Derr of Colorado Inc., Respondent.

No. 86SC176.

Supreme Court of Colorado, En Banc.

Nov. 3, 1986.

Petition for Writ of Certiorari GRANTED.
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2230 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on yarn of combed cashmere 

or yarn of camel hair. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 29, 2009 

Mr. LIEBERMAN (for himself and Mr. DODD) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on yarn of 

combed cashmere or yarn of camel hair. 

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

3 SECTION 1. YARN OF COMBED CASHMERE OR YARN OF 

4 CAMEL HAIR. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.03.01 of the Har6 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

7 yarn of combed cashmere or yarn of camel hair) is amend8 ed by striking ‘‘12/31/2009’’ and inserting ‘‘12/31/2011’’. 

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

10 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2230 IS

1 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

2 the date of enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with BILLS
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 24, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

134305 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. PATRICK C. BRONIAK, Stephen J. Markman, Plaintiff-Appellant, Justices 

v SC: 134305 

 COA: 274584 
 Wayne CC: 06-605677-CZ

MARTIN A. CLENDENING, DURAN GRISA, 

and MEGO, INC.,

Defendants-Appellees, 

and 

MIDAS INTERNATIONAL, INC., 

 Defendant.
 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 12, 2007 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

t0917 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

September 24, 2007 

 Clerk
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.                  

###### Commission on Civil Rights

Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission), and the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), that a meeting of the Nevada Advisory Committee (Committee) to the Commission will convene on Friday, March 30, 2012, at 1 p.m. and adjourn at approximately 3:30 p.m. at the Department of Employment, Training and Rehabilitation, 2800 East St. Louis Ave., Las Vegas, Nevada 89104. The purpose of the meeting is for the Committee to receive an orientation and plan future activities.

                    Members of the public are entitled to submit written comments. The comments must be received in the Western Regional Office by April 30, 2012. The mailing address is Western Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 300 N. Los Angeles St., Suite 2010, Los Angeles, CA 90032. Persons wishing to email their comments may do so to                     *atrevino@usccr.gov.*                     Persons that desire additional information should contact Angelica Trevino, Office Manager, Western Regional Office, at (213) 894-3437.                

Hearing-impaired persons who will attend the meeting and require the services of a sign language interpreter should contact the Regional Office at least ten (10) working days before the scheduled date of the meeting.

                    Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced at the Western Regional Office, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Persons interested in the work of this advisory committee are advised to go to the Commission's Web site,                     *www.usccr.gov,*                     or to contact the Western Regional Office at the above email or street address.                

The meeting will be conducted pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the Commission and FACA.

Dated in Washington, DC, March 12, 2012.

Peter Minarik,

Acting Chief, Regional Programs Coordination Unit.

[FR Doc. 2012-6360 Filed 3-15-12; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6335-01-P
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 209 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify and extend the 

credit for alternative motor vehicles, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 12, 2009 

Mrs. BOXER 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 modify 

and extend the credit for alternative motor vehicles, and 

for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. EXTENSION AND MODIFICATION OF THE AL4 TERNATIVE MOTOR VEHICLE CREDIT. 

5 (a) EXTENSION.—Subsection (j) of section 30B of 

6 the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to termi7 nation) is amended— 

8 (1) by striking ‘‘December 31, 2010’’ each 

9 place it appears in paragraphs (2) and (4) and in10 serting ‘‘December 31, 2012’’, and 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with BILLS
2 

•S 209 IS

1 (2) by striking ‘‘December 31, 2009’’ in para2 graph (3) and inserting ‘‘December 31, 2012’’. 

3 (b) MODIFICATION OF CREDIT AMOUNT.—Paragraph 

4 (2) of section 30B(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 

5 1986 (relating to credit amount) is amended— 

6 (1) by striking ‘‘$2,400’’ in the table contained 

7 in subparagraph (A)(i) and inserting ‘‘$2,700’’, and 

8 (2) by striking ‘‘$1,000’’ in the table contained 

9 in subparagraph (B) and inserting ‘‘$1,300’’. 

10 (c) TERMINATION OF LIMITATION ON NUMBER OF

11 VEHICLES ELIGIBLE FOR CREDIT.—Section 30B of the 

12 Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking 

13 subsection (f). 

14 (d) LIMITATION ON ADJUSTED GROSS INCOME OF

15 INDIVIDUALS CLAIMING CREDIT.—Section 30B of the In16 ternal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended by subsection 

17 (c), is amended by inserting after subsection (e) the fol18 lowing new subsection: 

19 ‘‘(f) LIMITATION BASED ON ADJUSTED GROSS IN20 COME.—In the case of an individual, no credit shall be 

21 allowed under this section for the taxable year if the tax22 payer’s adjusted gross income for the preceding taxable 

23 year exceeds $100,000 ($200,000 in the case of a joint 

24 return).’’. 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with BILLS
3 

•S 209 IS

1 (e) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

2 this section shall apply to vehicles placed in service after 

3 December 31, 2008, in taxable years ending after such 

4 date. 

Æ 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with BILLS
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Luis Martinez, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Joseph Cerbone, J.), rendered November 17, 1988, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of two counts of robbery in the first degree and one count of burglary in the first degree, and sentencing defendant to three concurrent indeterminate terms of imprisonment of from *l-Vi*to 15 years, unanimously affirmed.

Appellant and an accomplice, with guns drawn, rushed into the partially open door of a 6th floor apartment in the Bronx tied up the occupants, and removed money and jewelry from their persons. On this appeal, defendant takes exception to various portions of the trial court’s charge to the jury. Defendant’s arguments are unpreserved as a matter of law (CPL 470.05 [2]). Moreover, were we to reach these issues in the interest of justice, we would nevertheless affirm defendant’s conviction.

The court’s failure to charge, with respect to the burglary count, that defendant must have formed an intent to commit a crime at the time of the unlawful entry, does not constitute reversible error in this case. Unlike the situation in *People v Gaines*(74 NY2d 358), the defendant in this case did not proceed upon the theory that he formed an intent to commit a crime after he was inside the apartment, and presented no evidence which would reasonably lead to such inference, nor was there any reasonable view of the evidence that would lend itself to the conclusion that the defendant’s intent to commit the crime was formed subsequent to his unlawful entry. *(See, People v Santana,*172 AD2d 299.) The court’s charge that no unfavorable inference arose from defendant’s *334failure to testify, in the absence of a request for such a charge by defendant, constitutes harmless error in light of the overwhelming evidence of defendant’s guilt *(see, People v Vereen,*45 NY2d 856).

We have considered defendant’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur—Carro, J. P., Milonas, Rosenberger and Kupferman, JJ.