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




CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)
 
 In connection with the Annual Report of Pharmacyclics, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), on Form 10-K for the year ended June 30, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Robert W. Duggan, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. §1350), that to 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 result of operations of the Company.
 
 /s/ ROBERT W. DUGGAN
 
 Robert W. Duggan
 Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer
 September 13, 2011
 
 
 
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)
 
 In connection with the Annual Report of Pharmacyclics, Inc, a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), on Form 10-K for the year ended June 30, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Rainer M. Erdtmann, Vice President, Finance and Administration and Secretary of the Company, certify, pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. §1350), that to 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 result of operations of the Company.
 
 /s/ RAINER M. ERDTMANN
 
 Rainer M. Erdtmann
 Vice President, Finance & Administration & Secretary
 September 13, 2011
#### In re Emil V. HEGEDUS.

No. 89-OB-0144.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 27, 1989.

In re Hegedus, Emil V.; — Plaintiff(s); applying for permission to take the Louisiana State Bar Examination.

Denied.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 11


                      ROSS TECHNOLOGY, INC. AND SUBSIDIARY

                     EARNINGS (LOSS) PER SHARE COMPUTATIONS
                      (IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER SHARE DATA)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                          YEAR ENDED   YEAR ENDED     YEAR ENDED
                                           MARCH 31,     APRIL 1,       APRIL 3,
                                             1997          1996          1995
                                           --------      --------      --------
<S>                                        <C>           <C>           <C>      
Net income (loss) ....................     $(86,705)     $ 18,160      $(10,669)
Dividends related to preferred stock .           --          (832)         (176)
                                           --------      --------      --------
Net income (loss) applicable to common
  shareholders .......................      (86,705)     $ 17,328      $(10,845)
                                           ========      ========      ========
Shares used in earnings per share
  computations .......................       23,396        20,880         7,356
                                           ========      ========      ========
Net income (loss) per common share ...     $  (3.71)     $   0.83      $  (1.47)
                                           ========      ========      ========
</TABLE>

          COMPUTATION OF SHARES USED IN EARNINGS PER SHARE COMPUTATIONS

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                     YEAR ENDED   YEAR ENDED   YEAR ENDED
                                      MARCH 31,     APRIL 1,     APRIL 3,
                                         1997          1996         1995
                                        ------        ------        -----
<S>                                     <C>           <C>           <C>  
Average outstanding common shares ...   23,396        14,067        7,200
Average common equivalent shares -                             
  dilutive effect of preferred 
  shares ............................       --         4,312            *
Average common equivalent shares -                             
  dilutive effect of option shares ..        *         2,501          156
                                        ------        ------        -----
Shares used in earnings per share                              
  computation .......................   23,396        20,880        7,356
                                        ======        ======        =====
</TABLE>



*Excluded due to anti-dilutive effect.
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-30767 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus JOHN BOE, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 95-CA-1017

- - - - - - - - - - May 26, 1997 Before DAVIS, EMILIA M. GARZA and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * John Boe appeals the district court’s order denying his postconviction motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Boe contends that the district court should not have denied his motion without holding an evidentiary hearing and that his attorney was ineffective in failing to file a notice of appeal. A district court may dispose of a defendant’s § 2255 motion without an evidentiary hearing if “the motion and the files and records of the case conclusively show that the prisoner is entitled to noNo. 95-30767 - 2 - relief.” United States v. Drummond , 910 F.2d 284, 285 (5th Cir. 1990) (internal quotations omitted). Boe filed his own affidavit in support of his motion in which he stated that he had asked his attorney whether he could appeal his sentence, that his attorney had stated that he had “never heard of such a process.” The Government attached to its answer the affidavit of Boe’s trial counsel, in which counsel stated that he advised Boe of his appellate rights and that Boe had not instructed him to file an appeal. In rejecting this issue, the district court credited the attorney’s affidavit and determined that the motion could be resolved without an evidentiary hearing. The district court erred. Contested issues of fact may not be decided on the basis of affidavits alone unless the affidavits are supported by other evidence in the record. United States v. Hughes , 635 F.2d 449, 451 (5th Cir. 1981); Owens v. United States , 551 F.2d 1053, 1054 (5th Cir. 1977). “This Court’s policy has been strongly in favor of the position that a waiver will not be assumed unless the facts clearly support such an assumption.” See Chapman v. United
States , 469 F.2d 634, 637 (5th Cir. 1972). Neither the plea agreement, the sentencing transcript, nor the transcript of the rearraignment, mention Boe’s right to appeal his sentence. The record does not corroborate counsel’s affidavit and the district court should have held a hearing. Accordingly, this portion of the district court’s order is VACATED and the case is REMANDEDNo. 95-30767 - 3 - for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Boe has failed to demonstrate that his attorney rendered ineffective assistance in connection with the entry of the guilty plea and at sentencing. Boe has also failed to raise a cognizable issue with respect to the district court’s application of the sentencing guidelines. See United States v. Faubion , 19 F.3d 226, 233 n.36 (5th Cir. 1994). Those portions of the district court’s order are AFFIRMED.
AFFIRMED IN PART; VACATED AND REMANDED IN PART.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

KEITH JUDD; et al.,

 Plaintiffs - Appellants,

 v.

BARACK OBAMA, in his capacity as a

candidate on the ballot for the US

President in 2012 election; et al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 12-57177

D.C. No. 8:12-cv-01888-DOC-AN

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

David O. Carter, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted August 13, 2014** 

Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

Appellants appeal from the district court’s order striking their complaint and

terminating their action alleging fraud in the 2012 presidential election. We have

FILED

AUG 20 2014

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. 

Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam). We affirm.

After careful examination of the record, we conclude that the district court

did not abuse its discretion. We reject as meritless appellants’ contentions of

judicial bias and that the district court’s dismissal violated their constitutional

rights.

AFFIRMED.

2 12-57177
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack

, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, 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.

March 8 , 2019 

# Order

Clerk March 8 , 2019

157812 (74 )

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appell ee

, SC: 157812

v COA: 334024

Wa yne CC: 15

- 010216

- FC

ARTHUR LAROME JEMISON

, Defendant

- Appell ant

. _________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion of defendant

- appellant to extend the time for filing

his brief is GRANTED. The brief will be accepted as timely filed if submitted on or before

May 8, 2019

.
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 23.1

                         INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

   We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements No.
333-61101, as amended; and No. 333-35051 on Form S-3 of Hearst-Argyle
Television, Inc. and in Registration Statement No. 333-35043 on Form S-8 of
Hearst-Argyle Television, Inc. of our report dated February 6, 2002, appearing
in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Hearst-Argyle Television, Inc. for the
year ended December 31, 2001.

/s/  DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

New York, New York
March 27, 2002
Exhibit 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-3 (Nos. 333-41165,
333-37341 and 333-63263) and in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-14373, 333-25973, 333-62631 and
333-34200) of North American Scientific, Inc. of our report dated December 19, 2000, except as to Note 4, which is as of January 9, 2001, relating to the
financial statements and financial statement schedule, which appears in this Form 10-K.



Orange
County, California
January 26, 2001

---

QuickLinks
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2408 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on 1-Acetyl-4-(3-dodecyl-2, 5- 

dioxo-1-pyrrolidinyl)-2,2,6,6-tetramethylpiperidine. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 29, 2009 

Mrs. HAGAN 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 1-Acetyl4-(3-dodecyl-2, 5-dioxo-1-pyrrolidinyl)-2,2,6,6- 

tetramethylpiperidine. 

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

3 SECTION 1. 1-ACETYL-4-(3-DODECYL-2, 5-DIOXO-1- 

4 PYRROLIDINYL)-2,2,6,6- 

5 TETRAMETHYLPIPERIDINE. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.04.06 of the Har7 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

8 1-Acetyl-4-(3-dodecyl-2, 5-dioxo-1-pyrrolidinyl)-2,2,6,6- 

9 tetramethylpiperidine) is amended by striking the date in 

10 the effective period column and inserting ‘‘12/31/2011’’. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2408 IS

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

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

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

4 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 21

- 3111

_____________________________
D AVID L EMON , Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Clay County

. Don H. Lester , Judge

. September 6, 2022

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

.
L EWIS , O STERHAUS , and W INOKUR , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Jessica J. Yeary, Public Defender, and Joel Arnold, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee
, for Appellant ; David Lemon, pro se, Appellant

. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee
, for Appellee.
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19

- 10346 Summary Calendar

MCR OIL TOOLS, L.L.C.,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v. SPEX GROUP US, L.L.C.; SPEX ENGINEERING (UK), LIMITED,

Defendants

- Appellants

Appeal from the United States District Court Northern District of Texas

U S D C No. 3:18

- CV

- 731

Before STEWART, HIGGINSON , and COSTA, Circuit Judges

. PER CURIAM: * Plaintiff

- Appellee MCR Oil Tools, L.L.C. (“MCR”) filed this lawsuit against Defendants

- Appellants SPEX Group US, L.L.C. and SPEX Engineering (UK), Limited (“SP EX” ) in state court in Texas. The complaint alleged that SPEX misappropriated trade secrets and engaged in unfair competition.

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED November 20, 2019 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 19-10346 Document: 00515207579 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/20/2019No. 19

- 10346

2 After removing the suit to federal court, SPEX sought to dismiss MCR’s
claims under Texas’s anti

- SLAPP statute, the Texas Citize ns Participation Act (“TCPA”). See T EX

. C IV

. P RAC

. & R EM

. C ODE § 27.00 1

– 27.011. MCR later moved to determine the applicability of the TCPA, a state law, in federal diversity
cases like this one. The district court held that the TCPA did not apply in federa l court and thus denied as moot SPEX’ s motion to dismiss MCR ’s suit under the TCPA. S PEX appealed, arguing that the TCPA does in fact apply in federal court and that the district court erred by holding otherwise. SPEX also argued
that MCR should have been estopped from challenging the applicability of the TCPA after fighting SPEX’ s motion to dismiss on the merits for several
months. SPEX ’s appeal was held in abeyance pending the decision by a different panel of this court in Klocke v. Watson , 936 F.3d 240 (5th Cir. 2019), as revised (Aug. 29, 2019)

. The panel in Klocke was faced with deciding as an issue of first impression whether the TCPA applies in federal court. Id. at 242. The court held that “ the TCPA does not apply to diversity cases in federal c ourt .” Id. Under the “rule of orderliness,” “[t]hree

- judge panels . . . abide by a prior Fifth Circuit decision until the decision is overruled, expressly or implicitly, by either the United States Supreme Court or by the Fifth Circuit sitting en banc .” G ahagan v. United States Citizenship & Immigration Servs. , 911 F.3d 298, 302 (5th Cir. 2018) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Accordingly, pursuant to Klocke , the district court’s decision to deny SPEX’ s motion to
dismiss on the ground that the TCPA does not apply in federal court is AFFIRMED. Case: 19-10346 Document: 00515207579 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/20/2019
Exhibit 32.2

Written Statement of the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer

Pursuant to
Section 906

of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350)

The undersigned, the Chief Executive Officer and the Chief Financial Officer of Emergency Medical Services Corporation, as general partner of Emergency
Medical Services L.P., a Delaware limited partnership (the Company), each hereby certifies that, to his knowledge on the date hereof:



| | (a) | the Form 10-Q/A of the Company for the fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2006, filed on the date hereof with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report),
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



/s/ William A. SangerWilliam A. SangerChief Executive Officer Emergency Medical Services Corporation, as general partner of Emergency Medical Services L.P. August 16, 2006/s/ Randel G. OwenRandel G. OwenChief Financial Officer Emergency Medical Services Corporation, as general partner of Emergency Medical Services L.P. August 16, 2006
#### Moore & Munger Company, Respondent, *v.*Motor Trades Publishing Company, Appellant.

*Moore & Munger Co.*v. *Motor Trades Publishing Co.,*170 App. Div. 779, affirmed.

(Argued February *25,*1916;

decided March 14, 1916.)

Appeal, by permission, from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered November 26, 1915, which affirmed an order of Special Term overruling a demurrer to the complaint in an action for libel. This action is brought to *684recover damages for the publication by defendant in its trade journal *Automobile Topics*of the following article concerning the plaintiff on the contention that it contains matter libelous *per se :*

*“*Moore & Munger Plant Is Sold.

“The automobile body-building plant of Moore & Munger at 602 West Fifty-second Street, New York City, has been purchased by the Universal Auto Painting Co. The latter will continue the body-building work of Moore & Munger and will also do general repairing and painting work. The firm of Moore & Munger went into bankruptcy several months ago due, it was said, to the losses sustained in the failure of the Palmer Singer and Benz Companies in New York.”

The following question was certified: “ Does the complaint state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action ? ”

' *William F. Goldbeck*and *Herman Goldman*for appellant.

*L. F. Warren*for respondent.

Order affirmed, with costs, and question certified answered in the affirmative; no opinion.

Concur: Willard Bartlett, Ch. J., Chase, Collin, Cuddeback, Cardozo, Seabury and Pound, JJ.
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2120 

To suspend temporarily the duty on certain hydrogenated polymers of 

norbornene derivatives. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 29, 2009 

Mr. BUNNING introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on certain hydrogenated 

polymers of norbornene derivatives. 

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

3 SECTION 1. CERTAIN HYDROGENATED POLYMERS OF 

4 NORBORNENE DERIVATIVES. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

6 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

7 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

8 new heading: 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2120 IS

‘‘ 9902.01.00 1,4:5,8- 

Dimethanonaphthalene, 2- 

ethylidene-1,2,3,4,4a,5,8,8aoctahydro-, polymer with 

3a,4,7,7a-tetrahydro-4,7- 

methano-1H-indene, hydrogenated (CAS No. 881025– 

72–5); 1,4-methano-1H-fluorene, 4,4a,9,9a-tetrahydro-, 

polymer with 

1,2,3,4,4a,5,8,8a-octahydro1,4:5,8- 

dimethanonaphthalene and 

3a,4,7,7a-tetrahydro-4,7- 

methano-1H-indene, hydrogenated (CAS No. 503442– 

46–4); and 1,4-methano-1Hfluorene, 4,4a,9,9atetrahydro-, polymer with 

1,2,3,4,4a,5,8,8a-octahydro1,4:5,8- 

dimethanonaphthalene, hydrogenated (CAS No. 

503298–02–0); (all the foregoing provided for in subheading 3902.90.00) ............. Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2011 ’’. 

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

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

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

4 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with BILLS
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 9 (Friday, January 13, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2062-2063]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-636]


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

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION


Sunshine Act Meeting

    Pursuant to the provisions of the ``Government in the Sunshine 
Act'' (5 U.S.C. 552b), notice is hereby given that the Federal Deposit 
Insurance Corporation's Board of Directors will meet in open session at 
10 a.m. on Tuesday, January 17, 2012, to consider the following 
matters:

Summary Agenda: No substantive discussion of the following items is 
anticipated. These matters will be resolved with a single vote unless a 
member of the Board of Directors requests that an item be moved to the 
discussion agenda.
    Disposition of minutes of previous Board of Directors' Meetings.
    Memorandum and resolution re: Final Rule on Resolution Plans 
Required for Insured Depository Institutions with $50 Billion or More 
in Total Assets.
    Personnel Resolution for Retiring Executive.

Discussion Agenda

    Memorandum and resolution re: Stress Testing Requirements for 
Certain Banks: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to Implement Section 
165(i)(2) of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection 
Act.
    The meeting will be held in the Board Room on the sixth floor of 
the FDIC Building located at 550 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC
    This Board meeting will be Webcast live via the Internet and 
subsequently made available on-demand approximately one week after the 
event. Visit http://www.vodium.com/goto/fdic/boardmeetings.asp to view 
the event. If you need any technical assistance, please visit our Video 
Help page at: http://www.fdic.gov/video.html.
    The FDIC will provide attendees with auxiliary aids (e.g., sign 
language interpretation) required for this meeting. Those attendees 
needing such assistance should call (703) 562-2404 (Voice) or (703) 
649-4354 (Video Phone) to make necessary arrangements.
    Requests for further information concerning the meeting may be 
directed to Mr. Robert E. Feldman, Executive

[[Page 2063]]

Secretary of the Corporation, at (202) 898-7043.

     Dated: January 10, 2012.
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
Robert E. Feldman,
 Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-636 Filed 1-11-12; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE P