alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[ARTICLE] 5
<TABLE>
<S>                             <C>
[PERIOD-TYPE]                   YEAR
[FISCAL-YEAR-END]                          JUN-30-2000
[PERIOD-END]                               JUN-30-1999
[CASH]                                               0
[SECURITIES]                                         0
[RECEIVABLES]                                        0
[ALLOWANCES]                                         0
[INVENTORY]                                          0
[CURRENT-ASSETS]                                     0
[PP&E]                                               0
[DEPRECIATION]                                       0
[TOTAL-ASSETS]                                       0
[CURRENT-LIABILITIES]                                0
[BONDS]                                              0
[PREFERRED-MANDATORY]                                0
[PREFERRED]                                 10,000,000
[COMMON]                                     1,295,367
[OTHER-SE]                                           0
[TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY]                         0
[SALES]                                              0
[TOTAL-REVENUES]                                     0
[CGS]                                                0
[TOTAL-COSTS]                                   33,725
[OTHER-EXPENSES]                                     0
[LOSS-PROVISION]                                     0
[INTEREST-EXPENSE]                                   0
[INCOME-PRETAX]                                      0
[INCOME-TAX]                                         0
[INCOME-CONTINUING]                                  0
[DISCONTINUED]                                       0
[EXTRAORDINARY]                                      0
[CHANGES]                                            0
[NET-INCOME]                                  (33,725)
[EPS-BASIC]                                      (.01)
[EPS-DILUTED]                                    (.01)
</TABLE>
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 32(a)

                            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 DUSA Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2005, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, D. Geoffrey Shulman,
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) 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: November 8, 2005                  /s/ D. Geoffrey Shulman
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        D. Geoffrey Shulman
                                        Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
                                        (principal executive officer)

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
required by Section 906, has been provided to the Company and will be retained
by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.
#### State v. Bae

17629

9/01/94

Affirmed
#### Cooke v. Marzec

25274

07/26/2004

Dismissed

104 Hawai'i 321, 89 P.3d 534
#### Will Goff, Plaintiff in Error, v. The State of Florida, Defendant in Error.

A Writ of Error to a Judgment of the Circuit Court within and for the County of Clay.

A. H. Bell, for Plaintiff in Error;

T. F. West, Attorney General, for the State.

Writ of error dismissed on motion of Attorney General; costs taxed against the County of Clay.
IV 

114TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 582 

Condemning and censuring President Barack Obama. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 7, 2016 

Mr. PALAZZO (for himself, Mr. COLE, Mr. COLLINS of Georgia, Mr. YOHO, 

Mr. ABRAHAM, Mr. WESTERMAN, Mr. DESJARLAIS, Mr. FINCHER, Mr. 

ROUZER, Mr. HUNTER, Mr. STEWART, Mr. JODY B. HICE of Georgia, 

and Mrs. BLACKBURN) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

RESOLUTION 

Condemning and censuring President Barack Obama. 

Whereas upon entering the Execution of the Office of President of the United States, President Barack Obama affirmed his constitutional oath as follows: ‘‘I do solemnly 

swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President 

of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, 

preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the 

United States’’; 

Whereas President Barack Obama has failed to faithfully 

execute the Office of the President of the United States 

and has failed to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States; 


SSpencer on DSK9F6TC42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 582 IH 

Whereas President Barack Obama has failed to fulfill his 

duty in article II, section 3 of the Constitution of the 

United States that he ‘‘shall take Care that the Laws be 

faithfully executed’’; 

Whereas the Constitution of the United States in article I, 

section 1 provides that ‘‘All legislative Powers herein 

granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United 

States’’; 

Whereas the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the 

United States provides that ‘‘the right of the people to 

keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed’’; and 

Whereas, on January 5, 2016, President Barack Obama defied article I, section 1 of the Constitution of the United 

States by implementing unconstitutional executive actions 

without congressional consideration, debate, or approval 

in order to infringe on the Second Amendment right of 

the American people to keep and bear arms: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives does 

2 hereby censure and condemn Barack Obama for having 

3 willfully disregarded the legislative powers of the duly 

4 elected Congress provided by the Constitution of the 

5 United States through his executive actions to deprive 

6 American citizens of their constitutionally mandated right 

7 to bear arms under the Second Amendment. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK9F6TC42PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT
TO RULE 13a-14(b) OR RULE 15d-14(b)

OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

AND 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

I, Kenneth A. Myszkowski, Chief Financial Officer of Arrowhead Research Corporation (the Company), certify, pursuant to Rule 13(a)-14(b) or Rule 15(d)-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that (i) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2009, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and (ii) the information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                        |  |  |  |                             
|----------------------- |  |  |  | ----------------------------
|Date: February 11, 2010 |  |  |  |                             
|                        |  |  |  | /s/    KENNETH A. MYSZKOWSKI
|                        |  |  |  | Kenneth A. Myszkowski,      
|                        |  |  |  | Chief Financial Officer     

A signed original of these written statements required by 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 has been provided to Arrowhead Research Corporation and will be retained by Arrowhead Research Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
# C_2019054EN.01001202.xml

| 11.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 54/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 54/12

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rayonen sad Haskovo (Bulgaria) lodged on 4 December 2018 — QH v Varhoven kasatsionen sad of the Republic of Bulgaria

(Case C-762/18)

(2019/C 54/16)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Rayonen sad Haskovo

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: QH

Defendant: Varhoven kasatsionen sad of the Republic of Bulgaria

Questions referred

| 1. | Must Article 7(1) of Directive 2003/88/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time be interpreted as precluding national legislation and/or case-law, according to which a worker who has been unfairly dismissed and subsequently reinstated by a court decision, is not entitled to paid annual leave for the period from the date of dismissal until the date of his reinstatement? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must Article 7(1) of Directive 2003/88/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time be interpreted as precluding national legislation and/or case-law, according to which a worker who has been unfairly dismissed and subsequently reinstated by a court decision, is not entitled to paid annual leave for the period from the date of dismissal until the date of his reinstatement?

| 2. | In the event that the first question is answered in the affirmative, must Article 7(2) of Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time be interpreted as precluding national legislation and/or case-law, according to which in the event that the employment relationship is terminated once again the worker in question is not entitled to financial compensation for unused paid annual leave for the period from the date of his previous dismissal until the date of his reinstatement |
| --- | --- |

2.

In the event that the first question is answered in the affirmative, must Article 7(2) of Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time be interpreted as precluding national legislation and/or case-law, according to which in the event that the employment relationship is terminated once again the worker in question is not entitled to financial compensation for unused paid annual leave for the period from the date of his previous dismissal until the date of his reinstatement

---

(1)  OJ 2003 L 299, p. 9.

---
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.                  

###### Nuclear Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket No. 50-440-LR; ASLBP No. 24-982-01-LR-BD01]

                    Pursuant to the Commission's regulations,                     *see, e.g.,*10 CFR 2.104, 2.105, 2.300, 2.309, 2.313, 2.318, 2.321, notice is hereby given that an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (Board) is being established to preside over the following proceeding:                

## Energy Harbor Nuclear Corp. (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1)

                    This proceeding involves an application seeking a twenty-year license renewal of Facility Operating License NPF-58 to authorize Energy Harbor Nuclear Corp. to operate Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1 until November 7, 2046. In response to a notice published in the                     **Federal Register**                     announcing the opportunity to request a hearing,                     *see*88 FR 67373 (Sept. 29, 2023), a hearing request was filed on November 28, 2023, on behalf of Ohio Nuclear-Free Network and Beyond Nuclear.                

The Board is comprised of the following Administrative Judges: 

Michael M. Gibson, Chair, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001

Nicholas G. Trikouros, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001

Dr. Gary S. Arnold, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001 

                    All correspondence, documents, and other materials shall be filed in accordance with the NRC E-Filing rule.                     *See*10 CFR 2.302.                

Rockville, Maryland.

Dated: December 5, 2023.

Edward R. Hawkens,

Chief Administrative Judge, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel.

# Footnotes

1.                             This Board Establishment Notice amends the December 4, 2023 Board Establishment Notice to correct the spelling of Judge Nicholas G. Trikouros' name.                    
        Back to Citation      

[FR Doc. 2023-27041 Filed 12-8-23; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
**Exhibit 32**

**CERTIFICATIONS OF CEO AND CFOPURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the Quarterly Report onForm 10-Q of Dendrite International, Inc. (the “Company”) for the quarterlyperiod ended September 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), John E. Bailye, as ChiefExecutive Officer of the Company, and Jeffrey J. Bairstow, as Chief Financial Officer, each hereby certifies,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of his orher knowledge:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirementsof section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934; and

(2) The information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company.

 
| /s/ John E. Bailye      |                                                    |   |
|-------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Name:                   | John E. Bailye                                          |   |   |
| Title:                  | Chairman of the Board and   Chief Executive Officer     |   |   |
| Date:                   | November 2, 2006                                        |   |   |
|                    |                                                    |   |   |
|                    |                                                    |   |   |
| /s/ Jeffrey J. Bairstow |                                                    |   |
| Name:                   | Jeffrey J. Bairstow                                     |   |   |
| Title:                  | Executive Vice  President and   Chief Financial Officer |   |   |
| Date:                   | November 2, 2006                                        |   |   |

 

----
#### Harold Vance MORRISON, Appellant, v. STATE of Alaska, Appellee.

No. 1796.

Supreme Court of Alaska.

June 17, 1974.

Harold Vance Morrison, in pro. per.

*428Joseph D. Balfe, Dist. Atty., Anchorage, for appellee.

Before RABINOWITZ, Chief Justice, and CONNOR, ERWIN, BOOCHEVER and FITZGERALD, Justices.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Appellant Morrison has appealed from a lower court order refusing relief on his application for post-conviction relief. Alaska R.Crim.Proc. 35(b). He urges that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel. Our view of the record shows that Morrison’s trial counsel possessed and utilized the customary skill and knowledge of attorneys fairly skilled in the criminal law. Risher v. State, Opinion No. 1053, 523 P.2d 421 (Alaska 1974). We have considered Morrison’s other claims of error and have determined that they are without merit.

Affirmed.
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 32(b)


                            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 DUSA Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2006, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Richard C. Christopher,
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.

Date:    May 10, 2006                /s/ Richard C. Christopher
                                     --------------------------
                                     Richard C. Christopher
                                     Vice President, Finance and Chief Financial
                                     Officer (principal financial officer)



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
required by Section 906, has been provided to the Company and will be retained
by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.
DA 15 - 0039 

### IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 20 13 MT 316 

### IN THE MATTER OF: Z. F., Respondent and Appellant. APPEAL FROM: Di stri ct Court of the Eighth Judicial District, In and For the County

of Cascade, Cause No. DI 15 - 0022 Honorabl e Di

rk M. Sandefur, Presi ding Judge COUNSEL OF RECORD:

For Appellant: Michael J. Moore; Missoula, MT For Appellee : Tim Fox; Helena ,MT; Ei leen Jo yce; Butt e, MT Jordan Rhodes Kilby; Missoula, MT Submitted on Briefs: [Submissio nDate] Deci ded: Filed:

__________________________________________ Cl erk 12/16/2016

Case Number: DA 15-0582
32 P.3d 105

Aug. 30, 2001

23034

#### State v. Hauanio, Jr.

Dismissed
You now know about the Emerald Ash Borer (EAB) beetle: how it hides under bark and destroys ash trees. You’ve discovered how important it is to stop 

it, so now you can share this news with others, too! Use this EAB Investigator to alert your family, friends, and neighbors. First, try to stump them with the 

EAB “investigation questions.” Then, share what you’ve learned through your own Stop the Beetle: Now! exploration: EAB larvae can be hidden under the 

bark, so you should never move fi rewood. You never know what could be lurking inside! 

EAB Investigator

How can you stop EAB from spreading? 

The EAB is only 

1⁄2 inch long. What is 

the smallest coin 

an EAB can 

fit on? 

Where does 

EAB lay its 

eggs?

What spreads 

EAB?

Ash trees

What’s metallic green and flies?

Guitars, most baseball 

 bats, and some 

 furniture are made 

 of what kind of 

 wood? 

to eat? does EAB love What species of tree How does the EAB 

 larvae kill a tree?

✁

People 

moving 

firewood

Don’t move 

firewood!

The Emerald 

Ash Borer Beetle 

(EAB)

A penny

Ash wood

 larvae kill a tree?

 EAB larvae kill a 

 tree by disrupting 

the systems that 

transport food 

 and water. 

of ash trees

On the bark 

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

www.HungryPests.com

Folding Instructions 

1. Cut along the dotted line. 

2. Place the EAB Investigator image-side down. Fold 2 opposite corners 

together to form a triangle. Crease and unfold. Now fold the other 

2 corners together; crease and unfold. You’ll see the “center point.”

3. Fold each corner to the center point. 

4. Turn the folded paper over and fold each corner into the center. 

5. Fold the square in half. Unfold it and fold it in half the other way. 

6. Using both hands, place your thumbs and index fingers under 

the bark flaps. 

How to Play

• Have a player pick a number between 1 and 5. 

Open/close the EAB Investigator that many times.

• Now have the player choose a number on a bark 

flap (noted by EAB eggs), from 1 to 4.

• Ask the question under the chosen flap.

• Invite the player to answer, then lift the flap to 

see if correct. 

• Be sure to show the player the EAB larvae hidden 

under the bark!
#### Ronald VICKERY, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Robert KAISER et al., Defendants and Respondents.

No. 14432.

Supreme Court of Utah.

Nov. 2, 1976.

Brian M. Barnard, Salt Lake City, for plaintiff and appellant.

Elliott J. Williams of Worsley, Snow & Christensen, Salt Lake City, for defendants and respondents.

ELLETT, Justice:

The plaintiff appeals from a judgment awarding him $60 damages in a forcible entry case. (The award actually was $20 which, pursuant to Section 78-36-10, U.C. A. 1953, was trebled.)

The plaintiff was a tenant of defendants Kaiser. He failed to pay rent, whereupon the Kaisers placed a lock upon the door of plaintiff’s apartment. Plaintiff then sued for damages and restoration of the apartment, together with punitive damages.

Section 78-36-8 of the Utah Code provides for a shortening of time to answer in cases of forcible entry and unlawful detainer; and pursuant thereto, the plaintiff caused the court to order that the time for defendants to answer the complaint be shortened to three days after service of summons upon them. Thus, this action is clearly one brought under the forcible entry statute.

A judge of the trial court granted a motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability only. Thereafter, on December 18, 1975, the case was tried to a jury. On December 30, 1975, the plaintiff filed a motion for a new trial, which mo? tion was denied on January 14, 1976. A notice of appeal was filed five days later.

The statute on forcible entry and unlawful detainer was enacted to enable parties to have a speedy determination of the right to possession of property without having to resort to violence. The statute *503provides for means of a speedy determination of the issues in several particulars, among which are (a) the time to answer may be shortened to three days; (b) an appeal must be taken within ten days from the judgment rendered.1

The appeal m this matter was not taken within ten days after judgment, nor was a motion for a new trial made within that time.2 Thus, this court did not acquire jurisdiction to determine the matters. The appeal is therefore dismissed with costs to the respondents.

HENRIOD, C. J., MAUGHAN and CROCKETT, JJ., and THORNLEY K. SWAN, District Judge, concur.

1

. Section 78-36-11, U.C.A.1953; *Coombs v. Johnson,*26 Utah 2d 8, 484 P.2d 155; *Madsen v. Chournos,*102 Utah 247, 129 P.2d 986 (1942).

2

. Rules 59(b) and 73(a), Utah Rules Civil Procedure.