alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 99.1**

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICERPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES- OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

        I, Robert L. Howard-Anderson,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of Occam Networks, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2003 fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of OccamNetworks, Inc.

|   | By:    | /s/ ROBERT L. HOWARD-ANDERSON             |   |
|--------|--------|-------------------------------------------|--------|
|   |   |                                           |   |
|   | Name:  | **Robert L. Howard-Anderson**             |   |
|   | Title: | **President and Chief Executive Officer** |   |

        I, Howard M. Bailey, certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of Occam Networks, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2003 fully complies with the requirements of Section13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Occam Networks, Inc.

|   | By:    | /s/ HOWARD M. BAILEY        |   |
|--------|--------|-----------------------------|--------|
|   |   |                             |   |
|   | Name:  | **Howard M. Bailey**        |   |
|   | Title: | **Chief Financial Officer** |   |
# Eiropas Savienības C 181/2010

| | ISSN 1725-5201
  doi:10.3000/17255201.C_2010.181.lav |
| --- | --- |
| Eiropas Savienības
  Oficiālais Vēstnesis | C 181 |
| | |
| Izdevums latviešu valodā | Informācija un paziņojumi | 53. sējums2010. gada 6. jūlijs |

ISSN 1725-5201

doi:10.3000/17255201.C_2010.181.lav

Eiropas Savienības

Oficiālais Vēstnesis

C 181

Izdevums latviešu valodā

Informācija un paziņojumi

53. sējums2010. gada 6. jūlijs

---

| Paziņojums Nr. | Saturs | Lappuse |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | |
| 2010/C 181/01 | Erratum Konsolidēts Eiropas Atomenerģijas kopienas dibināšanas līgums (OV C 84, 30.3.2010.) | 1 |

Paziņojums Nr.

Saturs

Lappuse

2010/C 181/01

Erratum Konsolidēts Eiropas Atomenerģijas kopienas dibināšanas līgums (OV C 84, 30.3.2010.)

1

| LV | |
| --- | --- |

LV

---

6.7.2010

| 6.7.2010 | LV | Eiropas Savienības Oficiālais Vēstnesis | C 181/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

LV

Eiropas Savienības Oficiālais Vēstnesis

C 181/1

---

ERRATUM

Konsolidēts Eiropas Atomenerģijas kopienas dibināšanas līgums

(

  “Eiropas Savienības Oficiālais Vēstnesis” C 84, 2010. gada 30. marts

  )

(2010/C 181/ 01)

4. lappuse, satura rādītājs, VI sadaļa:

Teksts:

| “VI SADAĻA | Nobeiguma noteikumi |
| --- | --- |

“VI SADAĻA

jālasa:

jālasa:

| “VI SADAĻA | Noteikumi, kas attiecas uz sākumposmu (atcelta) |
| --- | --- |

“VI SADAĻA

NOBEIGUMA NOTEIKUMI

14. lappuse, 17. panta 1. punkta a) apakšpunkts, pēc b) apakšpunkta iv) daļas:

Pēdējo daļu (Lai ievērotu šādas prasības, ...) pabīdīt pa kreisi, lai tā būtu tai pašā līmenī kā pirmā daļa, tādejādi precīzi norādot, ka tā ir atsevišķa daļa un nevis daļa no b) apakšpunkta iv) punkta.

Pēdējo daļu (Lai ievērotu šādas prasības, ...) pabīdīt pa kreisi, lai tā būtu tai pašā līmenī kā pirmā daļa, tādejādi precīzi norādot, ka tā ir atsevišķa daļa un nevis daļa no b) apakšpunkta iv) punkta.

56. lappuse, VI sadaļa:

Teksts:

Teksts:

“VI SADAĻA

209. līdz 223. pants

(atcelts)

NOBEIGUMA NOTEIKUMI”,

jālasa:

jālasa:

“VI SADAĻA

NOTEIKUMI, KAS ATTIECAS UZ SAKUMPOSMU

(atcelta)

209. līdz 223. pants

(atcelts)

NOBEIGUMA NOTEIKUMI”.

---
[No. 35248.

Department One.

February 4, 1960.]

#### *In the Matter of the Welfare of*Johnette Goudie, *a Minor.**1*

*Zundel, Merges, Brain & Isaac (Thomas J. Isaac,*of counsel), for relator.

*Harry A. Follman*and *Walter J. Deierlein, Jr.,*for respondent.

1

Reported in 348 P. (2d) 976.

Per Curiam.

This is a review by certiorari of an order of the juvenile court for Skagit county entered on May 11, 1959, permanently depriving the relator father of the custody of his minor daughter.

We find substantial evidence in the record to support such determination. The order entered by the juvenile court is therefore affirmed.
#### Ruth A. FRAZIER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Anthony J. PRINCIPI, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 01-35886.

D.C. No. CV-00-00212-JKS.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*124Submitted July 22, 2002 *.

Decided July 30, 2002.

Before BROWNING, KOZINSKI, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Ruth Frazier appeals pro se the district court’s summary judgment in favor of the defendants in her action alleging sexual harassment, retaliation, and discriminatory failure to hire based on race and sex under Title VII, and age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. § 621. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s summary judgment, *Wallis v. J.R. Simplot Co.,*26 F.3d 885, 888 (9th Cir.1994), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Frazier’s sexual harassment claim because she failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether she was subjected to verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature. *See Ellison v. Brady,*924 F.2d 872, 875-6 (9th Cir.1991).

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Frazier’s retaliation claim because Frazier failed to exhaust her administrative remedies with respect to that claim. *See Ong v. Cleland,*642 F.2d 316, 318 (9th Cir.1981).

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Frazier’s discriminatory failure to hire claims because Frazier failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether she was qualified for the position for which she applied. *See McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green,*411 U.S. 792, 802, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973).

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Frazier’s disparate impact claim because she failed to present any evidence that the defendant’s hiring practices had a significantly discriminatory impact upon a protected class. *See Conn, v. Teal,*457 U.S. 440, 446, 102 S.Ct. 2525, 73 L.Ed.2d 130 (1982).

Frazier’s remaining contentions on appeal are deemed waived because she did not raise them before the district court. *See Dodd v. Hood River Cty.,*59 F.3d 852, 863 (9th Cir.1995).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the *125courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
* 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 October 5, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-41801 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus ANDREW JAY WILLETT, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 2:05-CR-193-ALL

-------------------- Before JONES, Chief Judge, and SMITH and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Andrew Jay Willett raises arguments that are foreclosed by United States v. Slaughter , 238 F.3d 580, 582-84 (5th Cir. 2000), which held that Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466 (2000), did not render 21 U.S.C. § 841 unconstitutional on its face. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
ALABAMA COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

May 17, 2024

CR-2022-1368

Cameron Jamer Cook v. State of Alabama (Appeal from Jefferson Circuit Court: 

CC-19-393, CC-19-395, CC-19-396, CC-19-397, CC-19-398, CC-19-399, and CC-21-

41) 

NOTICE 

You are hereby notified that on May 17, 2024, the following action was taken 

in the above-reference cause by the Court of Criminal Appeals:

Application for Rehearing Overruled.

D. Scott Mitchell, Clerk
EXHIBIT 32.2
 
 CERTIFICATION
 Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350
 (Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)
 
 In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Sen Yu International Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”) for the year ended June 30, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Tongyu Zhang, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §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: September 28, 2011
 
 By:  /s/ Tongyu Zhang
 Name: Tongyu Zhang
 Title: Interim Chief Financial Officer
 
 
 
 This certification accompanies each Report pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the company for purposes of §18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
 
 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.
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: In re FD Frontier Drilling (Cyprus) Ltd., Frontier Drilling AS (f/k/a 

Frontier Drilling ASA), Frontier Drilling USA, Inc., and Noble 

Drilling (U.S.) L.L.C.

Appellate case number: 01-14-00081-CV

Trial court case number: 2011-00127

Trial court: 334th District Court of Harris County

On January 27, 2014, relators, FD Frontier Drilling (Cyprus) Ltd., Frontier 

Drilling AS (f/k/a Frontier Drilling ASA), Frontier Drilling USA, Inc., and Noble 

Drilling (U.S.) L.L.C., filed a petition for a writ of mandamus and an emergency motion 

for stay of trial proceedings, requesting that the Court “stay[] the proceeding below, 

including merits based discovery, pending this Court’s decisions on Relators’ Petition for 

Writ of Mandamus and prior appeal (Cause No. 01-12-01160-CV).” Relators’ motion for 

stay is granted. Accordingly, we ORDER that all proceedings in the trial court and all 

discovery in the underlying trial court proceedings are stayed. See TEX. R. APP. P.

52.10(b). This stay is effective until relators’ petition for writ of mandamus is finally 

decided or the Court otherwise orders the stay lifted. Any party may file a motion for 

reconsideration of the stay. See id. 52.10(c).

Further, the Court requests that the real parties in interest respond to the petition 

for writ of mandamus. It is ordered that the response of any interested party shall be due 

within 14 days of the date of this order.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Sherry Radack

X Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: January 28, 2014
-84 -82 -80 -78 -76 -74

 36

 38

 40

 42

▲ ★

▲

▲ ▲

★ ▲

▲

▲

▲

 500

 1000

 1500

 100

18 12 06 00

08/02

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 02 Aug 06

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 38.86 N 77.06 W Meters AGL

★

■

■

■ ■

★ ■

■

■

■

● ★

● ● ●

★ ● ● ●

●
II

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 340

To direct the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a study concerning equity

regarding entrance, tourism, and recreational fees for the use of Federal

lands and facilities, and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

FEBRUARY 2 (legislative day, JANUARY 30), 1995

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

to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

A BILL

To direct the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a study

concerning equity regarding entrance, tourism, and recreational fees for the use of Federal lands and facilities,

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. FEDERAL FACILITIES FEE EQUITY.

4 (a) POLICY.—It is the policy of Congress that en5 trance, tourism, and recreational use fees for the use of

6 Federal lands and facilities not discriminate against any

7 State or any region of the country.
2

•S 340 IS

1 (b) FEE STUDY.—Not later than May 1, 1996, the

2 Secretary of the Interior, in cooperation with the heads

3 of other affected agencies, shall prepare and submit to

4 Congress a report that—

5 (1) identifies all Federal lands and facilities

6 that provide tourism or recreational use; and

7 (2) analyzes by State and region any fees

8 charged for entrance to or for tourism or rec9 reational use of Federal lands and facilities in a

10 State or region, individually and collectively.

11 (c) RECOMMENDATIONS.—Not later than May 1,

12 1997, the Secretary of the Interior, in cooperation with

13 the heads of other affected agencies, shall prepare and

14 submit to Congress any recommendations that the Sec15 retary may have for implementing the policy stated in sub16 section (a).

Æ
|   | 1.     | The Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2011 (the “Form 10-Q”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and |
|--------|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        |
|   | 2.     | Information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.                                                                                         |

|   | Dated: May 10, 2011 | By:                                   | /s/ DAVID T. TABER      |   |
|--------|---------------------|---------------------------------------|-------------------------|--------|
|   |                | David T. Taber                        |                    |
|   |                | President and Chief Executive Officer |                    |
|   |                |                                  |                    |   |
|   | Dated: May 10, 2011 | By:                                   | /s/ MITCHELL A. DERENZO |   |
|   |                | Mitchell A. Derenzo                   |                    |
|   |                | Executive Vice President and          |                    |
|   |                | Chief Financial Officer               |                    |

----
<PAGE>

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


          We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the
Registration Statements on Form S-8 (File No. 2-99511 effective July 18, 1985;
File No. 33-32070 effective December 5, 1989; File No. 33-34621 effective May
20, 1990; File No. 33-35368 effective July 1, 1990; File No. 33-35990 effective
July 24, 1990; File No. 33-45351 effective January 28, 1992) of Minntech
Corporation of our report dated May 23, 1997 appearing on page 31 of this Form
10-K.


                              PRICE WATERHOUSE LLP

Minneapolis, Minnesota
June 30, 1997
Dismiss and Opinion Filed September 28, 2020

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-20-00722-CR

KEPHREN THOMAS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Criminal Court No. 8

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. MA20-20487-J

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Myers, Nowell, and Evans

Opinion by Justice Myers

Kephren Thomas is attempting to appeal the trial court’s “failing to reduce 

appellant’s bail” and “placing bond conditions on appellant that were not justified.”

Generally, this Court has jurisdiction to consider appeals by criminal 

defendants only after a judgment of conviction. Wright v. State, 969 S.W.2d 588, 

589 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1998, no pet.) (appellate courts may consider appeals by 

criminal defendants only after conviction or entry of appealable order); Rabbani v. 

State, 494 S.W.3d 778, 780 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2016, pet. ref’d). We 

do not have jurisdiction to hear interlocutory appeals from pretrial orders regarding 
–2–

the denial of bond sought by motion. Ragston v. State, 424 S.W.3d 49, 52 (Tex. 

Crim. App. 2014).

Appellant has been charged with assault causing bodily injury. The clerk’s 

record, filed on August 14, 2020, does not contain a written order signed by the trial 

court denying bond or imposing any restrictions. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.2(a)(1)

(notice of appeal must be filed after trial court enters appealable order); State v. 

Shaw, 4 S.W.3d 875, 878 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1999, no pet.) (docket sheet does not 

constitute a written order). But even assuming such an order existed, we lack 

jurisdiction to review interlocutory orders holding a defendant’s bond insufficient or 

denying him bail. See Ragston, 424 S.W.3d at 52 (holding courts of appeals lack 

jurisdiction to review interlocutory orders regarding excessive bail or the denial of 

bail); see also Lenard v. State, No. 05-14-00767-CR, 2014 WL 4536538, at *1 (Tex. 

App.—Dallas Sept. 12, 2014, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) 

(holding court lacked jurisdiction over interlocutory order holding defendant’s bond 

insufficient and raising bond).

We dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.

Do Not Publish

TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b)

200722F.U05

/Lana Myers/

LANA MYERS

JUSTICE
–3–

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

KEPHREN THOMAS, Appellant

No. 05-20-00722-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Criminal 

Court No. 8, Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. MA20-20487-

J.

Opinion delivered by Justice Myers. 

Justices Nowell and Evans 

participating.

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS this appeal. 

Judgment entered this 28th day of September, 2020.
- 492 - N ebraska S upreme C ourt A dva nc e S heets 302 N ebraska R eports STATE v . SAVAGE Cite as 302 Neb. 492



### S tate of 

### N ebraska 

### , appellee 

### , v



### . C ourt n ey 

### J. S avage 

### , appella n t



### . ___ N.W.2d ___ Filed March 15, 2019. No. S-17-1166.

suppleme n tal opi n io n 

### Appeal from the District Court for Lancaster County: S usa n 

### I

. S tro n g 

### , Judge. Supplemental opinion: Former opinion modi

fied. Motion for rehearing overruled. Darik J. Von Loh, of Hernandez Frantz, Von Loh, appellant. Douglas J. Peterson, Attorney General, and Austin N. Relph for appellee.
H eavi c a n 

### , C.J., M iller


### - L erma n 

### , C assel 

### , S ta c y 

### , F u n ke 

### , P

apik 

### , and F reude n berg 

### , JJ.

P er 

### C uriam



### . This case is before us on a motion for rehearing filed by the appellant, Courtney J. Savage, concerning our opinion in State v. Savage , 301 Neb. 873, 920 N.W.2d 692 (2018). We overrule the motion, but we modify the opinion as follows: In the subsection “(a) Authentication,” after the fourth sentence of the fourth paragraph, we insert the following language: As for Savage’s contention that the State did not properly authenticate messages sent to him by others, we again disagree. The State was required only to introduce testi

mony sufficient to establish that the evidence was what Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/ 05/03/2019 02:07 AM CDT- 493 - N ebraska S upreme C ourt A dva nc e S heets 302 N ebraska R eports STATE v . SAVAGE Cite as 302 Neb. 492


### the State claimed it to be. The State did not claim that messages sent by others were anything more than mes

sages sent to Savage’s cell phone. See State v. Elseman , 287 Neb. 134, 841 N.W.2d 225 (2014). Savage , 301 Neb. at 885, 920 N.W.2d at 703. In subsection “(b) Hearsay,” following the second to the last paragraph, we insert the following paragraph: We also reject Savage’s argument that text messages sent to his cell phone by unidentified individuals contained inadmissible hearsay. Hearsay is “a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the mat

ter asserted.” Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-801(3) (Reissue 2016). Messages sent to Savage’s cell phone were not offered for the truth of the matters asserted. They were offered to prove that the statements were made. Savage , 301 Neb. at 887, 920 N.W.2d at 704. The remainder of the opinion shall remain unmodified. F ormer opi n io n modified



### . M otio n for reheari n g overruled



### .
Order entered March 5, 2021

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 20

- 01040

- CV

BYRON ANTHONY PLEASANT , Appellant

V.

AYANNA RAE BLACK , Appellee

On Appeal from the 382nd Judicial District Court

Rockwall County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1

- 20

- 0980

O RDER

Before the Court is appellant’s March 4, 2021 unopposed second motion for

an extension of time to file his brief on the merits. We GRANT the motion and

extend the time to March 19, 2021 . We caution appellant that further extension

requests will be disfavored.

/s/ BONNIE LEE GOLDSTEIN JUSTICE
Exhibit
32





In connection with
the Annual Report of CEL-SCI Corporation (the
“Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ending September
30, 2016 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
“Report”), Geert Kersten, the Chief Executive and
Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certifies, 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 his
knowledge:





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





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





December 14,
2016
By:
/s/ Geert R.
KerstenGeert Kersten,
Chief Executive and Principal
Financial and
Accounting Officer