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



Exhibit 32.1 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 PSF Group Holdings, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the fiscal 1st Quarter 2005 ending June 26, 2004,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, John M. Meyer, 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, to the best of my knowledge and belief:  (1)
    
    the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(b) 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/ John M. MeyerJohn M. MeyerChief Executive OfficerAugust 10, 2004
 A signed original 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. 21
#### Dennis Ewing WATSON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

Nos. 35251-35254.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 23, 1963.

No attorney on appeal for appellant.

Frank Briscoe, Dist. Atty., Samuel H. Robertson, Jr., and Paul Filer, Asst. Dist. Attys., Houston, and Leon B. Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

McDonald, judge.

By agreement of counsel for the state and for the appellant, and the appellant in his own proper person, and by approval of the court, these four cases were tried jointly.

Appellant waived trial by jury in each of the four respective cases and entered a plea of guilty before the court in each case to the offense of possession of a forged instrument in writing. The punishment in each case was fixed by the court at five years in the penitentiary. No effort was made to cumulate the sentences.

Appellant, in person, waived confrontation by the witnesses and agreed and stipulated as to the evidence in each case and that such evidence was true.

Such evidence shows that at the time appellant was arrested on June 11, 1961, in Harris County, Texas, he had in his possession four checks in the respective sums of $63.31, $73.90, $76.23, and $76.02, drawn on the Spring Branch State Bank, made payable to Lewis H. Hyle, and shown to be signed by “B. M. Barker,” but that Mr. Barker did not sign the checks nor did he give anyone his consent and permission to sign his name thereto. These four checks were all introduced into evidence and shown *936in the record of each of the four cases as a state’s exhibit.

Tested in the light of Noble v. State, Tex. Cr.App., 336 S.W.2d 170, and King v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 341 S.W.2d 654, the evidence is sufficient to satisfy Art. 12, Vernon’s Ann. C.C.P., requiring the staté to introduce evidence into the record showing the guilt of the defendant who waives a jury and pleads guilty to a felony less than capital.

The records contain no formal nor informal bills of exception and no brief has been filed in these four cases in appellant’s behalf.

Finding no reversible error, the judgment in each of these cases is affirmed.
Exhibit 32.1

                            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 Brenda Hall (the "Company")
on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Brenda Hall, Chief
Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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 result of
                  operations of the Company.


/s/ Brenda Hall
-------------------------------
Brenda Hall
Chief Executive Officer and
Chief Financial Officer
August 17, 2004
Exhibit 10.34

MAXIM PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.
2000 NONSTATUTORY STOCK OPTION PLAN

Adopted August 29, 2000
Amended November 17, 2000
Termination Date: August 28, 2010

1.PURPOSES.



2.DEFINITIONS.



1

---



2

---



3.ADMINISTRATION.



3

---



4.SHARES SUBJECT TO THE PLAN.



5.ELIGIBILITY.



6.OPTION PROVISIONS.

Each
Option shall be in such form and shall contain such terms and conditions as the Board shall deem appropriate. The provisions of separate Options need not be identical, but each
Option shall

4

---

include (through incorporation of provisions hereof by reference in the Option or otherwise) the substance of each of the following provisions:



In
the case of any deferred payment arrangement, interest shall be compounded at least annually and shall be charged at the minimum rate of interest necessary to avoid the treatment
as interest, under
any applicable provisions of the Code, of any amounts other than amounts stated to be interest under the deferred payment arrangement.



5

---



6

---



7.COVENANTS OF THE COMPANY.



8.USE OF PROCEEDS FROM STOCK.

Proceeds
from the sale of Common Stock pursuant to Options shall constitute general funds of the Company.

9.MISCELLANEOUS.



7

---



10.ADJUSTMENTS UPON CHANGES IN STOCK.



8

---



11.AMENDMENT OF THE PLAN AND OPTIONS.



9

---



12.TERMINATION OR SUSPENSION OF THE PLAN.



13.EFFECTIVE DATE OF PLAN.

The
Plan shall become effective as determined by the Board.

14.CHOICE OF LAW.

The
law of the State of California shall govern all questions concerning the construction, validity and interpretation of this Plan, without regard to such state's conflict of laws
rules.

10

---

QuickLinks
<PAGE>
                              POWER OF ATTORNEY 

   KNOWN ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that the undersigned hereby constitutes 
and appoints each of Renee N. Tucei, Eric K. Kawamura, Joram C. Salig and 
Laurence Winoker or any of them, each acting alone, his true and lawful 
attorney-in-fact and agent, with full power of substitution, for him and in 
his name, place and stead, in any and all capacities, in connection with the 
FIRST NATIONWIDE (PARENT) HOLDINGS INC. (the "Corporation") Annual Report on 
Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1996 under the Securities Exchange 
Act of 1934, as amended, including, without limiting the generality of the 
foregoing, to sign the Form 10-K in the name and on behalf of the Corporation 
or on behalf of the undersigned as a director or officer of the Corporation, 
and any amendments to the Form 10-K and any instrument, contract, document or 
other writing, of or in connection with the Form 10-K or amendments thereto, 
and to file the same, with all exhibits thereto, and other documents in 
connection therewith, including this power of attorney, with the Securities 
and Exchange Commission, the Office of Thrift Supervision or other 
appropriate regulatory authority and any applicable securities exchange or 
securities self-regulatory body, granting unto said attorneys-in-fact and 
agents, each acting alone, full power and authority to do and perform each 
and every act and thing requisite and necessary to be done in and about the 
premises, as fully to all intents and purposes as he might or could do in 
person, hereby ratifying and confirming all that said attorneys-in-fact and 
agents, each acting alone, or his substitute or substitutes, may lawfully do 
or cause to be done by virtue hereof. 

   IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has signed these presents this 27th 
day of March 1997. 

                                          /s/ Ronald O. Perelman 
                                              --------------------------
                                              RONALD O. PERELMAN
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 26 (Wednesday, February 7, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 8437]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-02436]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of 
Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the cooperative agreement applications, the disclosure 
of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal 
privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious 
Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; NIAID SBIR Phase II Clinical Trial 
Implementation Cooperative Agreement (U44 Clinical Trial Required); 
NIAID Clinical Trial Planning Grants (R34 Clinical Trial Not 
Allowed); NIAID Clinical Trial Implementation Cooperative Agreement.
    Date: February 29, 2024.
    Time: 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate cooperative agreement 
applications.
    Place: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, 
National Institutes of Health, 5601 Fishers Lane, Room 3E70A, 
Rockville, MD 20892 (Video Assisted Meeting).
    Contact Person: Soheyla Saadi, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, 
Scientific Review Program, Division of Extramural Activities, 
National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National 
Institutes of Health, 5601 Fishers Lane, Room 3E70A, Rockville, MD 
20852, (240) 669-5178, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#611200000508120e09210f080008054f0f08094f060e17"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="14677575707d677b7c547a7d757d703a7a7d7c3a737b62">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, 
Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, 
Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes 
of Health, HHS)

    Dated: February 1, 2024.
Lauren A. Fleck,
Program Analyst,Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2024-02436 Filed 2-6-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS AMENDED AND RESTATED SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION
EXTRACTED FROM THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF APPLIED ANALYTICAL INDUSTRIES, INC.
RESTATED TO REFLECT THE ADOPTION IN 1997 OF STATEMENTS OF FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING
STANDARDS ("SFAS") NO. 128, "EARNINGS PER COMMON SHARE". THIS RESTATED SCHEDULE
IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                          42,225
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   10,106
<ALLOWANCES>                                        73
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                68,038
<PP&E>                                          30,477
<DEPRECIATION>                                  11,261
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 104,478
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           32,283
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            16
<OTHER-SE>                                      63,979
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   104,478
<SALES>                                         42,162
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                42,162
<CGS>                                           17,621
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   17,621
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                25,185
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 402
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (1,046)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,102
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (3,148)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (3,148)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.26)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.26)


</TABLE>
#### Kenneth RAMSEY, Appellant, v. Eloise RAMSEY, Appellee.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

June 22, 1956.

*562J. Wood Vance, Jr., Glasgow, for appellant.

Richardson & Barrickman, Philip H. Wilson, Glasgow, for appellee.

MILLIKEN, Chief Justice.

A Barren County jury denied appellant, Kenneth Ramsey, recovery against appel-lee, Eloise Ramsey, his wife, for injuries sustained while riding as an alleged guest of his wife in a 1954 Roadmaster Buick registered in the wife’s name. The car was driven by 'Charles Lewis, a high school boy, when it ran off the road with the alleged resultant injury to the husband.

The action is predicated on the theory that -Lewis was the agent of the wife, and she testified that he was. It is argued that her admission of the agency is conclusive on the question,-but we do not think so. We have held that in determining the conclusiveness of a judicial admission by a party to an action the court should view the admitted fact in the light of all the conditions and circumstances proven in the case. Sutherland v. Davis, 286 Ky. 743, 151 S.W.2d 1021. Under this rule, and considering the possibility of collusion in this type of case, we do not think her admission was conclusive on the question of agency. See comment in Brown v. Gosser, Ky., 262 S.W.2d 480, at page 484.

The fact that the wife held paper title to the automobile is not the controlling factor in this case. It is apparent that the husband made payments on the car and placed it in his wife’s name because his driver’s license had been revoked. He conceded that he could use the automobile any time he wanted to for either business or pleasure, and on this occasion Charles Lewis did the driving while the wife remained at her work in her husband’s restaurant. There is no doubt but that the husband exercised sufficient control over the use of the automobile to make it his own so far as his transportation needs were concerned. On the occasion of his injury, he had been driven by Lewis to Bowling Green where he had looked after -some of his business interests. They were returning home when the accident occurred. His concession that he could use the car whenever he wanted to was a declaration of fact highlighted -by the further fact that he paid part, if not all, of the.payments on the purchase price. Facts have a way of puncturing theories, and, in this instance, they also punctured the husband’s case. The fact that nine members of the jury had the good sense to penetrate to the heart of the problem and find against the husband’s claim does not obviate the further fact that the appellee was entitled to a directed verdict. In the light of that conclusion it is not necessary for us to discuss the many alleged errors urged upon us as a basis for reversal of the judgment.

The judgment is affirmed.
##### 



Exhibit 23 INDEPENDENT AUDITORS CONSENT The Board of Directors
MeriStar Hospitality Corporation: We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement (No.
333-60463) on Form S-8 (MeriStar Hospitality Corporation Incentive Plan), the
registration statement (No. 333-60465) on Form S-8 (MeriStar Hospitality
Corporation Non-employee Directors Incentive Plan), the registration statement
(No. 333-66229) on Form S-3 and the registration statement (No. 333-37888) on
Form S-8 (MeriStar Hospitality Corporation Employee Stock Purchase Plan) of our
report dated February 12, 2004, except as to note 17, which is as of March 8,
2004, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of MeriStar Hospitality
Corporation and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2003 and 2002 and the related
consolidated statements of operations, stockholders equity, and cash flows for
each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2003, the
related financial statement schedule of real estate and accumulated
depreciation, our report dated February 12, 2004, except as to note 17, which
is as of March 8, 2004, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of
MeriStar Hospitality Operating Partnership, L.P. and subsidiaries as of
December 31, 2003 and 2002, and the related consolidated statements of
operations, partners capital, and cash flows for each of the years in the
three-year period ended December 31, 2003, the related financial statement
schedule of real estate and accumulated depreciation, and our report dated
February 12, 2004, on the related supplementary consolidating information,
which reports appear in the December 31, 2003 annual report on Form 10-K of
MeriStar Hospitality Corporation. Our reports on the consolidated financial statements and the related financial
statement schedule of MeriStar Hospitality Corporation and MeriStar Hospitality
Operating Partnership, L.P. refer to the adoption of Statement of Financial
Accounting Standards (SFAS) No. 144, Accounting for the Impairment or Disposal
of Long-Lived Assets in 2002 and SFAS No. 145, Rescission of FASB Statements No. 4, 44,
and 64, Amendment of FASB Statement No.13, and Technical Correctionsin 2003. /s/ KPMG LLP
McLean, VA
March 12, 2004
#### James Choate RAWLINGS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 29097.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 26, 1957.

*800James W. Witherspoon, John D. Aikin, Wayne E. Thomas and Earnest L. Langley, Hereford (Wayne E. Thomas, Hereford, of counsel), for appellant.

J. Edward Line, County Atty., Hereford, and Leon B. Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

WOODLEY, Judge.

This is an appeal from a misdemeanor ■conviction for driving a motor vehicle upon a public road while intoxicated, with punishment assessed at 30 days in jail and a ■fine of $500.

The question of whether appellant was intoxicated when two Texas Highway Patrolmen observed him driving an automobile on a public highway and arrested him was closely contested.

The arrest occurred about 6:30 P.M. and the arresting officers and a deputy sheriff, who first saw appellant between 7:15 and 8:45 P.M., expressed the opinion that he was intoxicated.

Appellant admitted having consumed “two jiggers of alcohol” between 4:30 and 5 :30 P.M., hut denied that he was intoxicated when he was stopped by the officers. He supported his testimony with that of a number of witnesses who observed him some between 8:30 and 10 P.M. and another who was with him from 4:30 to 5 :30 P.M. These witnesses expressed the opinion that he was not intoxicated when they saw him.

The motion for new trial alleged and the evidence offered on the hearing of the motion established the following undisputed facts.

The jury first divided evenly on the question of guilt.

While so divided, the juror Yeager stated in substance: “Based upon my personal experience, a man who is under the influence of alcohol will be sober in two or two and one-half hours.”

One juror stated that he or she knew personally the deputy sheriff who testified for the state and that he was honest and could certainly be believed.

A juror stated “The men who are highway patrolmen for the State of Texas are of the highest character, and we must rely upon them.”

After receiving this and other information from their fellow jurors’ personal experience and knowledge as to matters which were not in evidence, the jury agreed upon a verdict of guilty and assessed the punishment mentioned.

This undisputed evidence established receipt of other testimony by the jury after retiring to deliberate upon the case which, under the provisions of Art. 753(7), Vernon’s Ann.C.C.P., requires that a new trial be granted.

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 23.3


                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT
                          -----------------------------

The Board of Directors
MeriStar Hospitality Corporation:


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement (No.
333-60463) on Form S-8 (MeriStar Hospitality Corporation Incentive Plan), the
registration statement (No. 333-60465) on Form S-8 (MeriStar Hospitality
Corporation Non-employee Director's Incentive Plan), the registration statement
(No. 333-66229) on Form S-3 and the registration statement (No. 333-37888) on
Form S-8 (MeriStar Hospitality Corporation Employee Stock Purchase Plan) of our
report dated January 28, 2002, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets
of MeriStar Hospitality Corporation and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2001 and
2000 and the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders'
equity, and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended
December 31, 2001, and the related financial statement schedule of real estate
and accumulated depreciation, and our reports dated March 20,2002, with respect
to the consolidated balance sheets of MeriStar Hospitality Operating
Partnership, L.P. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2001 and 2000, and the
related consolidated statements of operations, partners' capital, and cash flows
for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2001 and the
related financial statement schedule of real estate and accumulated
depreciation, and the related supplementary consolidating information, which
reports appear in the December 31, 2001 annual report on Form 10-K/A of MeriStar
Hospitality Corporation.

KPMG LLP

Washington, D.C.
May 7, 2002