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

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVEOFFICERPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

The undersigned, S. Bradford Antle, the ChiefExecutive Officer of SI International, Inc. (the “Company”), has executed thiscertification in connection with the filing with the Securities and ExchangeCommission of the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period endedMarch 31, 2007 (the “Report”).  Theundersigned hereby certifies that:

(1)           theReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)           theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| May 9, 2007   |   | SI INTERNATIONAL, INC.                |
|------------------------------|--------|---------------------------------------|
|                         |   |                                  |
|                         |   |                                  |
|                         |   | /s/ S. Bradford Antle                 |
|                    |   | S. Bradford Antle                     |
|                    |   | President and Chief Executive Officer |

 

----

** **

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIALOFFICERPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

The undersigned, Thomas E. Dunn, the Chief FinancialOfficer of SI International, Inc. (the “Company”), has executed thiscertification in connection with the filing with the Securities and ExchangeCommission of the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period endedMarch 31, 2007 (the “Report”).  Theundersigned hereby certifies that:

(1)           theReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)           theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| May 9, 2007   |   | SI INTERNATIONAL, INC.                |
|------------------------------|--------|---------------------------------------|
|                         |   |                                  |
|                         |   |                                  |
|                         |   | /s/ Thomas E. Dunn                    |
|                    |   | Thomas E. Dunn                        |
|                    |   | Executive Vice President,             |
|                    |   | Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer |

 

----
* Pursuant to 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5, th e Court has determined that this opinion should not be

published and is not precedent except under the limit ed circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-20300

(Summary Calendar)

In The Matter Of: YOAV HASSON

Debtor

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

YOAV HASSON,

Appellant,

versus

MARVIN W. LERNER,

Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Southern District of Texas

(97-CV-3986)

August 26, 1998

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam *

In this appeal from rulings of the bankruptcy court, which were affirmed by the district court,

Debtor-Appellant Yoav Hasson complains th at the bankruptcy court lacked jurisdiction over an

adversary proceed ing bet ween him and Appellee Marvin W. Lerner, M.D. Hasson alternatively

argues that, even if the bankruptcy court had jurisdiction, it erred in entering a default judgment

against him, and that the bankruptcy court also erred in refusing to grant Hasson’s motion for relief

from that default judgment. Dischargeability is also an issue in this appeal.2

Our review of the record and the facts revealed thereby, together with our consideration of

the arguments of able counsel set forth in t heir respect ive appellate briefs, satisfies us that the

bankruptcy court committed no reversible error in any of its rulings applicable to this appeal. More

specifically, we discern no problem in the bankruptcy court’s exercise of jurisdiction or in its grant

of the default judgment sought by Dr. Lerner; neither do we percei ve erro r in the court’s denying

Hasson a new trial or reconsideration of any of its other rulings. And, inasmuch as the facts are not

in serious dispute and the issues of law neither unique nor res nova in this circuit, we conclude

— as

did the district court before us — that the contested rulings of the bankruptcy court should be, and

therefore are, in all respects,

AFFIRMED.
II

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 1666

To authorize the Federal district court for the Central Division of Utah

to hold court in Provo and St. George.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

APRIL 15, 1996

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

to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To authorize the Federal district court for the Central

Division of Utah to hold court in Provo and St. George.

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

3 SECTION 1. HOLDING OF DISTRICT COURT IN PROVO AND

4 ST. GEORGE, UTAH.

5 Section 125(2) of title 28, United States Code, is

6 amended by inserting ‘‘, Provo, and St. George’’ after

7 ‘‘Salt Lake City’’.

Æ
<PAGE>   1
 
   
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.8
    
 
   
                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS
    
 
   
We consent to the reference to our firm under the caption "Experts" in the
Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 33-12723) of UroHealth Systems, Inc. for
the registration of its common stock and the incorporation by reference therein
of our report dated August 23, 1993, relating to the consolidated statement of
operations, stockholders' equity, and cash flows for Richard-Allan Medical
Industries for the fiscal year ended June 30, 1993.
    
 
   
                                          /s/  BDO SEIDMAN, LLP
    
 
                                          --------------------------------------
   
                                               BDO SEIDMAN, LLP
    
   
Kalamazoo, Michigan
    
   
November 7, 1996
Exhibit 31.2
 CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
              /s/  Richard W. PehlkeRichard W. PehlkeChief Financial Officer
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-50214

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JESUS MEDINA VASQUEZ, also known as Jesus Rolando-Morales, also known

as Felix Rasso Vasquez, also known as Jesus Medina-Vasquez,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 1:09-CR-488-1

Before REAVLEY, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

*

Jesus Medina Vasquez appeals his 96-month sentence imposed following

his guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry after removal, in violation of 8 U.S.C.

§ 1326. He argues that the presumption of reasonableness does not apply to his

within-guidelines sentence because the illegal reentry guideline, U.S.S.G.

§ 2L1.2, is not supported by empirical data. Vasquez also argues that the

sentence is greater than necessary to meet the sentencing goals outlined in 18

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

November 15, 2010

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: 10-50214 Document: 00511293006 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/15/2010
No. 10-50214

U.S.C. § 3553(a). He contends that the sentence fails to account for the

remoteness of his most serious offenses, fails to account for his lost opportunity

to serve his state and federal sentences concurrently, and overstates the

seriousness of his illegal reentry offense.

As Vasquez concedes, his argument that the presumption of

reasonableness does not apply because § 2L1.2 is not empirically-based is

foreclosed by United States v. Duarte, 569 F.3d 528, 529-31 (5th Cir.), cert.

denied, 130 S. Ct. 378 (2009), and United States v. Campos-Maldonado, 531 F.3d

337, 338-39 (5th Cir. 2008).

Vasquez’s substantive reasonableness argument is likewise unavailing.

Vasquez’s arguments fail to overcome the presumption of reasonableness that

attaches to his within-guidelines sentence. See Duarte, 569 F.3d at 529-31.

Vasquez’s argument that the mitigating factors presented for the district court’s

consideration at sentencing should have been balanced differently is insufficient

to disturb the presumption. See United States v. Gomez-Herrera, 523 F.3d 554,

565-66 (5th Cir. 2008).

AFFIRMED.

2

Case: 10-50214 Document: 00511293006 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/15/2010
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

1281 

CA 14-02237 

PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., CENTRA, LINDLEY, VALENTINO, AND WHALEN, JJ. 

 

DIPIZIO CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC., 

PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

ERIE CANAL HARBOR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, 

DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT. 

(APPEAL NO. 2.) 

 

BARCLAY DAMON, LLP, BUFFALO (MICHAEL E. FERDMAN OF COUNSEL), FOR

PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT. 

THE REDDY LAW FIRM, BUFFALO (PRATHIMA REDDY OF COUNSEL), AND PHILLIPS

LYTLE LLP, FOR DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Timothy

J. Walker, A.J.), entered May 30, 2014. The order granted plaintiff’s

motion for leave to reargue its prior motion for summary judgment and,

upon reargument, the court adhered its prior decision. 

It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal is unanimously dismissed

without costs.

Same memorandum as in DiPizio Constr. Co., Inc. v Erie Canal

Harbor Dev. Corp. ([appeal No. 3] ___ AD3d ___ [Dec. 23, 2015]).

Entered: December 23, 2015 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
**REGULATORY EVALUATION**

**Directorate Identifier:**

__201 1

________ - NM -

____ 093

______ - AD **Executive Order 12866:** Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:** Is the AD significan t? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **Regulatory Flexibility Act:** Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:** This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska, where aviation might be the only mode of transportation? YES ( ) explain NO (X)
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 190 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 190

 To amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to exempt employees who 
   perform certain court reporting duties from the compensatory time 
   requirements applicable to certain public agencies, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 10, 1995

Mr. Pressler (for himself and Mrs. Kassebaum) introduced the following 
 bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Labor and 
                            Human Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to exempt employees who 
   perform certain court reporting duties from the compensatory time 
   requirements applicable to certain public agencies, and for other 
                               purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``The Court Reporter Fair Labor 
Amendments of 1995''.

SEC. 2. LIMITATION ON COMPENSATORY TIME FOR COURT REPORTERS.

    Section 7(o) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 
207(o)) is amended--
            (1) by redesignating paragraph (6) as paragraph (7); and
            (2) by inserting after paragraph (5) the following new 
        paragraph:
    ``(6) A public agency may not be considered to be in violation of 
subsection (a) with respect to an employee who performs court reporting 
transcript preparation duties if such public agency and such employee 
have an understanding that the time spent performing such duties 
outside of normal working hours or regular working days is not 
considered as hours worked for the purposes of subsection (a).''.

SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE OF AMENDMENTS.

    The amendments made by section 2 shall take effect as if included 
in the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to which such 
amendments relate, except that such amendments shall not apply to an 
action--
            (1) that was brought in a court involving the application 
        of section 7(a) of such Act to an employee who performed court 
        reporting transcript preparation duties; and
            (2) in which a final judgment has been entered on or before 
        the date of enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
```

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 17 (Thursday, January 25, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 5083]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-01456]

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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

License No. 09/09-0471]

 Pivotal Capital Fund, LP; Surrender of License of Small Business 
Investment Company

    Pursuant to the authority granted to the United States Small 
Business Administration under Section 309 of the Small Business 
Investment Act of 1958, as amended, and 13 CFR 107.1900 of the Code of 
Federal Regulations to function as a small business investment company 
under the Small Business Investment Company license number 09/09-0471 
issued to Pivotal Capital Fund, LP, said license is hereby declared 
null and void.

Bailey Devries,
Associate Administrator, Office of Investment and Innovation, United 
States Small Business Administration.
[FR Doc. 2024-01456 Filed 1-24-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
```
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONOF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICERPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

** **

Theundersigned, Ray J. Oleson, the Chief Executive Officer of SI International,Inc. (the “Company”), has executed this certification in connection with thefiling with the Securities and Exchange Commission of the Company’s QuarterlyReport on Form 10-Q/A for the period ended September 27, 2003 (the“Report”).  The undersigned herebycertifies that:

 

(1)                                  theReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

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

 
|                    |   |   |                                        |
|-------------------------|--------|--------|---------------------------------------------|
| Date: December  1, 2003 |   |   | /s/ Ray J. Oleson                           |
|                    |   |   | Name:  Ray J.  Oleson                  |
|                    |   |   | Title: Chairman and Chief Executive Officer |

 

1

----

 

**CERTIFICATIONOF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICERPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

** **

The undersigned, Thomas E. Dunn, the Chief FinancialOfficer of SI International, Inc. (the “Company”), has executed thiscertification in connection with the filing with the Securities and ExchangeCommission of the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A for the periodended September 27, 2003 (the “Report”). The undersigned hereby certifies that:

 

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

 

(2)                                  the information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 

 
| Date: December 1, 2003 |   |   | /s/ Thomas E. Dunn                           |
|------------------------|--------|--------|----------------------------------------------|
|                   |   | Name:  | Thomas E. Dunn                               |
|                   |   | Title: | EVP, Chief Financial Officer & Treasurer |

 

2

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 29, 1995
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-29-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-29-1995
<CASH>                                           6,123
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   53,404
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,151
<INVENTORY>                                     53,447
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               119,448
<PP&E>                                         105,356
<DEPRECIATION>                                  60,743
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 225,018
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           48,024
<BONDS>                                         63,719
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        12,071
<OTHER-SE>                                      94,415
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   225,018
<SALES>                                        284,812
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               284,812
<CGS>                                          186,224
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   75,269
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,229
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   386
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,281
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 20,090
<INCOME-TAX>                                     7,340
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             12,750
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    12,750
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.01
        

</TABLE>
II

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 1983

To amend the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act

to provide for Native Hawaiian organizations, and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JULY 23, 1996

Mr. INOUYE (for himself, Mr. MCCAIN, and Mr. AKAKA) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs

A BILL

To amend the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act to provide for Native Hawaiian organizations, 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. AMENDMENTS TO THE NATIVE AMERICAN

4 GRAVES PROTECTION AND REPATRIATION

5 ACT.

6 (a) WRITTEN CONSENT REQUIRED IF NATIVE AMER7 ICAN REMAINS ARE EXCAVATED OR REMOVED FOR PUR8 POSES OF STUDY.—Section 3(c) of the Native American
2

•S 1983 IS

1 Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (25 U.S.C.

2 3002(c)) is amended—

3 (1) in paragraph (3), by striking ‘‘and’’ at the

4 end of the paragraph;

5 (2) in paragraph (4), by striking the period and

6 inserting ‘‘; and’’; and

7 (3) by adding at the end the following new

8 paragraph:

9 ‘‘(5) in the case of any intentional excavation or

10 removal of Native American human remains for pur11 poses of study, such remains are excavated or re12 moved after written consent is obtained from—

13 ‘‘(A) lineal descendants, if known or read14 ily ascertainable; or

15 ‘‘(B) the appropriate Indian tribe or Na16 tive Hawaiian organization.’’.

17 (b) REQUIREMENTS FOR INADVERTENT DISCOV18 ERIES.—Section 3(d) of the Native American Graves Pro19 tection and Repatriation Act (25 U.S.C. 3002(d)) is

20 amended—

21 (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ‘‘with respect

22 to tribal lands, if known or readily ascertainable’’

23 and inserting ‘‘. With respect to tribal lands, such

24 notification shall be provided to the appropriate In25 dian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization,’’; and
3

•S 1983 IS

1 (2) in paragraph (2), by adding at the end the

2 following: ‘‘Any person or entity that disposes of or

3 controls any such cultural item shall adhere to the

4 applicable requirements of subsection (c).’’.

Æ
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

TRISTIAN MICHAEL LUKEHART,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 50 WAL 2024

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 1st day of July, 2024, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.

Justice McCaffery did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Wendell Ray MULLIKEN, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 01-30442.

D.C. No. CR-94-00182-MJP.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*472Submitted Sept. 20, 2002.*

Decided Jan. 28, 2003.

Before SKOPIL, BOOCHEVER and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Wendell Mulliken (“Mulliken”) appeals from the judgment of the district court revoking his supervised release and sentencing him to 15 months of imprisonment followed by 21 months of supervised release. He contends that the district court erred by determining that the offense which triggered the revocation of his supervised release was a Grade B rather than a Grade C violation under U.S.S.G. § 7B1.1. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

We reject the government’s contention that this appeal is moot. Although Mulliken has completed his term of imprisonment, he is currently on supervised release. *See United States v. Verdin,*243 F.3d 1174, 1178 (9th Cir.2001). On the merits, we reject Mulliken’s argument that his underlying offense should have been scored as a Grade C violation. That argument is foreclosed by our decision in *United States v. Jolibois,*294 F.3d 1110, 1113 (9th Cir.2002). We therefore affirm the judgment of the district court.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.