alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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 Medifast,  Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-KSB for the year ended  December  31, 2004 as filed with the  Securities  and
Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I Bradley T. MacDonald,
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, to
the best of my knowledge, that:

(1)   The Report fully complies with the  requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
      of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(2)   The information  contained in the report fairly presents,  in all material
      respects,  the financial  condition  and results of the  operations of the
      Company.


By: /s/ Bradley T. MacDonald
    ---------------------------
        Bradley T. MacDonald
        Chief Executive Officer
        Chief Financial Officer

        March 14, 2005
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4840 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4840

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 567 East Franklin Street in Oviedo, Florida, as the ``Sergeant First 
           Class Alwyn Crendall Cashe Post Office Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 18, 2018

    Mrs. Murphy of Florida introduced the following bill; which was 
      referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 567 East Franklin Street in Oviedo, Florida, as the ``Sergeant First 
           Class Alwyn Crendall Cashe Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. SERGEANT FIRST CLASS ALWYN CRENDALL CASHE POST OFFICE 
              BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 567 East Franklin Street in Oviedo, Florida, shall be known 
and designated as the ``Sergeant First Class Alwyn Crendall Cashe Post 
Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Sergeant 
First Class Alwyn Crendall Cashe Post Office Building''.
                                 <all>
```
# C_2012355EN.01002001.xml

| 17.11.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 355/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.11.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 355/20

---

Judgment of the General Court of 27 September 2012 — Tuzzi fashion v OHIM — El Corte Inglés (Emidio Tucci)

(Case T-535/08) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark Emidio Tucci - Earlier national word mark and international registration TUZZI - Earlier company name Tuzzi fashion GmbH - Relative grounds for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) - Obligation to state reasons - Article 73 and Article 62(2) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 75 and Article 64(2) of Regulation No 207/2009) - Examination of the facts by the adjudicatory body of its own motion - Article 74 of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 76 of Regulation No 207/2009) - Article 79 of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 83 of Regulation No 207/2009)

2012/C 355/40

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Tuzzi fashion GmbH (Fulda, Germany) (represented by: R. Kunze and G. Würtenberger, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: El Corte Inglés, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented initially by J.L. Rivas Zurdo, E. López Camba and E. Seijo Veiguela and, subsequently, by J.L. Rivas Zurdo and E. Seijo Veiguela, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 September 2008 (Case R 1561/2007-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Tuzzi fashion GmbH and El Corte Inglés, SA.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Tuzzi fashion GmbH to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Tuzzi fashion GmbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 55, 7.3.2009.

1

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-7140

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ALDOPHE ROLAND ZOA,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, Senior District 

Judge. (8:06-cr-00235-PJM-4; 8:10-cv-02823-PJM)

Submitted: January 31, 2012 Decided: February 2, 2012

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Aldophe Roland Zoa, Appellant Pro Se. James Andrew Crowell, IV,

Chan Park, Assistant United States Attorneys, Greenbelt, 

Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Aldophe Roland Zoa∗ seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 

Supp. 2011) motion. The order is not appealable unless a 

circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). 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) 

(2006). When the district court denies relief on the merits, 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 right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Zoa

has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a 

certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We 

 ∗ Zoa’s informal brief reflects that the correct spelling of 

his first name is “Adolphe.”
3

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16

- 41347

JEFFREY JONES,

Plaintiff

- Appellant

v.
OFFICER ALEX SHIVERS, Individual and Official Capacity; CORPORAL NICK EMMONS, I ndividual and Official Capacity,

Defendants

- Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 4:14

- CV

- 354

Before REAVLEY, SOUTHWICK, and HAYNES , Circuit Judges

. PER CURIAM: * This is a qualified immunity case. While executing an arrest warrant,

t he defendant, Officer Alex Shivers, was posted at the rear of the suspect’ s house. T he plaintiff, Jeffrey Jones (a firefighter, bounty hunter, and licensed peace officer) , believed himself to be assisting in the operation and thought that he was supposed to “watch the rear

. ” While Shivers held his position , Jones came up from behind. Dressed in plain clothes, Jones entered the back

* 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 September 6, 2017 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 16-41347 Document: 00514144643 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/06/2017No . 16

- 41347

2 yar d by stumbling over a fence, rising with a weapon in hand. The w e apon was a T a ser, but Shivers did not know that. And Shivers did not know that Jones was a friend; he perceived an armed man who had just crossed over a back yard fence to interfere with the execution of a warran t. Reacting to Jones’ unanticipated arrival, Shivers took a spill of his own, falling behind a doghouse. Upon rising, Shivers shot Jones twice

. There is a factu al dispute over whether Jones was aiming the Taser at Shivers, but not over whether the weapon was unholstered and in his hand. A police officer does not have to permit a suspect to aim his weapon before answering the threat. See Salazar

- Limon v. City of Houston , 826 F.3d 272, 279 n.6 (5th Cir. 2016), as revised (June 16, 2016). There is a factual dispute over whether the officer in charge at the scene had told Shivers about Jones being there or instructed Jones to assist by moving to the rear of the hom e, but there is no genuine dispute as to whether Shivers was expecting Jones to help him guard the backyard. He was not. While facts are viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmovant, we must consider “only the facts that were knowable to” Shivers

. White v. Pauly , 137 S.Ct. 548, 550 (2017). Finally, on
these particular facts, Shivers’ failure to issue a verbal warning prior to shooting is no bar to the grant of qualified immunity. Id. at 551

– 52. Ultimately , this case involves a highly unusual fact pattern

— multiple miscommunications and mistakes of fact that led to a friendly

- fire incident

. Under the circumstance, whether or not the shooting represented a Fourth Amendment violation, Shivers is entitled to qualified immunity. AFFIRMED. Case: 16-41347 Document: 00514144643 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/06/2017
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-20100

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

HECTOR ESPARZA ALVAREZ, also known as Hector Esparza, also known as

Hecleto Perales Esparza, also known as Hector Alvarez Esparza, also known as

Hector Esparza-Alvarez, also known as Alverez Hector Esparza, also known as

Lionel Sauceda, also known as Hector Alverez Esparza,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:09-CR-602-1

Before BENAVIDES, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Hector Esparza

Alvarez has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d

229 (5th Cir. 2011). Esparza Alvarez has filed a response, in which he requests

appointment of counsel, and a supplemental response, which we have

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

October 21, 2011

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

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.

Case: 10-20100 Document: 00511640278 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/21/2011
No. 10-20100

considered. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the

record reflected therein, as well as Esparza Alvarez’s response. We concur with

counsel’s assessmentthatthe appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate

review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED,

counselis excused from further responsibilities herein, Esparza Alvarez’s motion

to supplement his response is GRANTED, his motions for appointment of

counsel and for judicial notice are DENIED, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 

See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

2

Case: 10-20100 Document: 00511640278 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/21/2011
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER



PURSUANT TO



18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Zvi Alon, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge, the Annual Report on Form 10-K of NetManage, the Periodic Report, for the period ended
December 31, 2004 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in such Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition of
the Company at the end of the period covered by the Periodic Report and results of operations of the Company for the period covered by the Periodic Report.



By:

/s/    ZVI ALONName:

Zvi AlonTitle:

Chief Executive OfficerDated:

March 22, 2005




I, Michael
Peckham, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge, the Annual Report on Form 10-K of NetManage, the Periodic Report, for the period ended December 31,
2004 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in such Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition of the Company
at the end of the period covered by the Periodic Report and results of operations of the Company for the period covered by the Periodic Report.



By:

/s/    MICHAEL R. PECKHAMName:

Michael R. PeckhamTitle:

Chief Financial OfficerDated:

March 22, 2005
I 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4858 

To clarify section 224 of the Communications Act of 1934 as not limiting 

the ability of a State to adopt a one touch make ready policy for 

pole attachments, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 19, 2018 

Ms. ESHOO (for herself and Mr. MCKINLEY) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To clarify section 224 of the Communications Act of 1934 

as not limiting the ability of a State to adopt a one 

touch make ready policy for pole attachments, 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. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Clearing Local Impedi5 ments Makes Broadband Open to New Competition and 

6 Enhancements’’ or the ‘‘CLIMB ONCE Act’’. 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4858 IH

1 SEC. 2. STATE ADOPTION OF ONE TOUCH MAKE READY 

2 POLICY FOR POLE ATTACHMENTS. 

3 (a) CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in section 224 of the 

4 Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 224) or the im5 plementing rules of the Federal Communications Commis6 sion shall be construed to limit the ability of a State to 

7 adopt a one touch make ready policy with respect to pole 

8 attachments. 

9 (b) DEVELOPMENT OF MODEL POLICY.—Not later 

10 than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, 

11 the Commission shall publish recommendations on best 

12 practices, including a model policy, relating to the imple13 mentation of a one touch make ready policy by a State. 

14 (c) DEFINITIONS.— In this section: 

15 (1) COMMISSION.—The term ‘‘Commission’’ 

16 means the Federal Communications Commission. 

17 (2) ONE TOUCH MAKE READY POLICY.—The 

18 term ‘‘one touch make ready policy’’ means, with re19 spect to the addition or modification of a pole at20 tachment, regulations relating to the activity under21 taken in order to prepare the pole, duct, conduit, or 

22 right-of-way for the addition of a new attachment in23 cluding the ability of an attacher to perform all 

24 make ready work in a single trip to the pole and a 

25 requirement of the designation by a pole owner or 

26 utility of a list of at least two approved contractors 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 4858 IH

1 for each pole, duct, conduit, or right-of-way to per2 form all such activity. 

3 (3) POLE ATTACHMENT; STATE; UTILITY.—The 

4 terms ‘‘pole attachment’’, ‘‘State’’, and ‘‘utility’’ 

5 have the meanings given those terms in section 

6 224(a) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 

7 U.S.C. 224(a)). 

Æ 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with BILLS
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4946 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4946

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 1075 North Tustin Street in Orange, California, as the ``Specialist 
                     Trevor A. Win'E Post Office''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 6, 2018

Mr. Correa (for himself, Mr. Cook, Mr. DeSaulnier, Mrs. Napolitano, Mr. 
  Schiff, Mr. LaMalfa, Mr. Cardenas, Mr. Swalwell of California, Mr. 
   Peters, Mr. Issa, Ms. Brownley of California, Mr. Lowenthal, Ms. 
 Roybal-Allard, Mr. Carbajal, Mr. Thompson of California, Mr. Huffman, 
Ms. Lofgren, Mr. Takano, Mr. McNerney, Mr. Vargas, Mrs. Mimi Walters of 
 California, Mr. Rohrabacher, Mr. Royce of California, Mr. McClintock, 
  Mr. Valadao, Mr. Calvert, Ms. Sanchez, Mrs. Torres, Mr. Gomez, Mr. 
Costa, Ms. Bass, Mr. Knight, Mrs. Davis of California, Mr. Panetta, Mr. 
   Khanna, Mr. Ted Lieu of California, Ms. Barragan, Ms. Judy Chu of 
 California, Ms. Matsui, Mr. Aguilar, Mr. Bera, Mr. Denham, Ms. Eshoo, 
 Mr. Garamendi, Mr. Hunter, Ms. Lee, Mr. Nunes, Mr. Ruiz, Mr. Sherman, 
    Ms. Speier, and Ms. Maxine Waters of California) introduced the 
 following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and 
                           Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 1075 North Tustin Street in Orange, California, as the ``Specialist 
                     Trevor A. Win'E Post Office''.

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

SECTION 1. SPECIALIST TREVOR A. WIN'E POST OFFICE.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 1075 North Tustin Street in Orange, California, shall be 
known and designated as the ``Specialist Trevor A. Win'E Post Office''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Specialist 
Trevor A. Win'E Post Office''.
                                 <all>
```
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 128 (Thursday, September 20, 2012)]
[House]
[Page H6232]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

           By Mr. POE of Texas:
       H.R. 6449.
       Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant 
     to the following:
       Amendment 4, clause 1, of the United States Constitution 
     states that ``the right of the people to be secure in their 
     persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable 
     searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants 
     shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or 
     affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be 
     searched, and the persons or things to be seized.''
```
# C_2011319EN.01001402.xml

| 29.10.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 319/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.10.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 319/14

---

Judgment of the General Court of 23 September 2011 — NEC Display Solutions Europe v OHIM — C More Entertainment (see more)

(Case T-501/08) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for a Community figurative mark ‘see more’ - Earlier national word marks CMORE - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

2011/C 319/26

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: NEC Display Solutions Europe GmbH (Munich, Germany) (represented by: P. Munzinger, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: W. Verburg, Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: C More Entertainment AB (Stockholm, Sweden) (represented by: R. Almaraz Palmero, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 August 2008 (Case R 1388/2007-4) relating to opposition proceedings between C More Entertainment AB and NEC Display Solutions Europe GmbH

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders NEC Display Solutions Europe GmbH to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders NEC Display Solutions Europe GmbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 19, 24.1.2009.

1

---