alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 32.2

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 on Form 10-Q of Network Engines, Inc. (the "Company") for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, Douglas G. Bryant, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby
certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to the undersigned's knowledge:



|Dated: May 10, 2005 |  | /s/DOUGLAS G. BRYANTDouglas G. Bryant Chief Financial
Officer
|------------------- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------

---



QuickLinks
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 Annual Report of Repligen Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-K
for the period ending March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned officers of the Company hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to my knowledge, that:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) as applicable 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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                                    
|--------------------------------------------------------------------
|June 8, 2007                                                        
|                                                                    
|/s/ Walter C. Herlihy                                               
|Walter C. Herlihy                                                   
|Chief Executive Officer and President (Principal executive officer) 
|                                                                    
|/s/ Daniel W. Muehl                                                 
|Daniel W. Muehl                                                     
|Chief Financial Officer (Principal accounting and financial officer)
* Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions

that have no precedential value and merely decide particular

cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes

needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal

profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 95-30635 

Conference Calendar

__________________

MILTON L. SHUBBIE,

 Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

LOUISIANA BOARD OF PARDONS

& PAROLE,

 Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. CA-95-0321

- - - - - - - - - -

(October 17, 1995)

Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, and REAVLEY and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Milton L. Shubbie filed a federal petition for writ of

habeas corpus, 28 U.S.C. § 2254, which the district court

dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter

jurisdiction because he was no longer in custody. To the extent

that Shubbie alleged a civil rights violation, the district court

dismissed the complaint as barred by the applicable statute of

limitations. 
No. 95-30635

-2-

Shubbie has failed to raise or brief the statute of

limitations issue and, therefore, it is considered abandoned. 

Evans v. City of Marlin, Tex., 986 F.2d 104, 106 n.1 (5th Cir.

1993). The appeal of his civil rights complaint is without

arguable merit and thus frivolous. Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215,

219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). Because the appeal is frivolous, it is

DISMISSED. 5th Cir. R. 42.2.

Generally, a state petitioner must obtain a certificate of

probable cause (CPC) to appeal the dismissal of a § 2254

petition. Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). In Louisiana v. Merriman, No.

92-4222 (5th Cir. July 23, 1995), this court ordered that "the

Clerk is to accept no more appeals for or on behalf of [Milton L.

Shubbie] that challenge the length or basis of [his] state

custody. This is a sanction for appellant[]'s abuse of this

court's procedures." Therefore, to the extent that Shubbie is

challenging the basis of his state custody, he may not appeal the

district court's dismissal of the petition. The motion for CPC

is DENIED. 

We bar Shubbie from filing any civil appeal in this court,

or any initial pleading in any court which is subject to this

court's jurisdiction, without the advance written permission of a

judge of the forum court or of this court. The clerk of this

court and the clerks of all federal district courts in this

circuit are ordered to return, unfiled, any attempted submission

inconsistent with this bar.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v.

JASON C. YOUKER,

Defendant

- Appellant. No. 22

- 30089

D.C. No. 2:14

- cr

- 00152

- RMP

- 1

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington Rosanna Malouf Peterson, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 14, 2023 * *

Before: FERNANDEZ, FRIEDLAND, and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

Jason C. Youker appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his

motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). We have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, see United

States v. Keller , 2 F.4th 1278, 1281 (9th Cir. 2021), we affirm.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

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

# FILED

FEB 24 2023

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 22

- 30089

The district court concluded that Youker had not shown extraordinary and

compelling reasons for compassionate release because he did not have any medical

conditions that put him at increased risk from COVID

- 19 , and he had declined

vaccination. On appeal

, Youker does not challenge this conclusion

, nor is there a

basis to do so given the evidence in the record. See United States v. Robertson

,

895 F.3d 1206, 1213 (9th Cir. 2018) ( a district court abuses its discretion only if its

decision is illogical, implausible, or not supported by the record).

To the extent Youker argues that the court should have treated his

sentencing argume nts as extraordinary and compelling rea s ons , the record reflects

that the district court considered and reasonably rejected each of those arguments.

It acknowledged that the First Step Act had lowered the ap plicable mandatory

minimum, but correctly observed that the Guidelines range, and not the mu ch

lower mandatory minimum, had dictated his sentence. It further explained that the

18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors did not support release when Youker had not yet

served even half of his sentence. In light of Youker’s criminal history and offense

conduct, the district court did not abuse its discretion in reaching this conclusion,

which is alone enough to affirm. See United States v. Wright , 46 F.4th 938, 948

(9th Cir. 2022).

AFFIRMED.
Agenda-Pio Pico Energy Center (PPEC) Call November 2, 2011 

1. Representative monitors for Background Concentrations: 

a. PM2.5

b. NO2

2. Meteorology Data 

a. Filling in missing data 

b.1 minute ASOS data and AERMINUTE 

c. Surface roughness-project site and met station 

3. NO2 Analysis 

a. Justification for ozone and NO2 concentrations used in 1-hour analysis 

including filling in of missing data 

b. Justification for using PVMRM Tier 3 non regulatory-default option 

c. Justification for using NO2/NOx ratios in modeling analysis 

d. Complete trail of results including spreadsheets showing how final NO2 1-hour value for 

comparison with standard was obtained 

3. PM2.5

a. Complete trail of results including spreadsheets showing how final PM2.5 values for comparison 

with standards were obtained 

b. Class II increment analysis 

4. Class I areas within 300 km-Increment analysis for NO2 annual and new PM2.5.
June 16, 2015

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

KOJUAN J MILES, Appellant

NO. 14-14-00154-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

________________________________

This cause was heard on the transcript of the record of the court below. 

Having considered the record, this Court holds that there was no error in the 

judgment. The Court orders the judgment AFFIRMED.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
# Službeni list L 66/2018

| | ISSN 1977-0847 |
| --- | --- |
| Službeni list
  Europske unije | L 66 |
| | |
| Hrvatsko izdanje | Zakonodavstvo | Godište 61.8. ožujka 2018. |

ISSN 1977-0847

Službeni list

Europske unije

L 66

Hrvatsko izdanje

Zakonodavstvo

Godište 61.8. ožujka 2018.

---

| Sadržaj | | Ispravci | Stranica |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | * | Ispravak Uredbe (EU) 2018/302 Europskog parlamenta i Vijeća od 28. veljače 2018. o rješavanju pitanja neopravdanoga geografskog blokiranja i drugih oblika diskriminacije na unutarnjem tržištu na temelju državljanstva, mjesta boravišta ili mjesta poslovnog nastana klijenata te o izmjeni uredbi (EZ) br. 2006/2004 i (EU) 2017/2394 i Direktive 2009/22/EZ ( SL L 60 I, 2.3.2018. ) | 1 |

Sadržaj

Ispravci

Stranica

*

Ispravak Uredbe (EU) 2018/302 Europskog parlamenta i Vijeća od 28. veljače 2018. o rješavanju pitanja neopravdanoga geografskog blokiranja i drugih oblika diskriminacije na unutarnjem tržištu na temelju državljanstva, mjesta boravišta ili mjesta poslovnog nastana klijenata te o izmjeni uredbi (EZ) br. 2006/2004 i (EU) 2017/2394 i Direktive 2009/22/EZ ( SL L 60 I, 2.3.2018. )

( SL L 60 I, 2.3.2018. )

1

| HR | Akti čiji su naslovi tiskani običnim slovima su oni koji se odnose na svakodnevno upravljanje poljoprivrednim pitanjima, a općenito vrijede ograničeno razdoblje.
  Naslovi svih drugih akata tiskani su masnim slovima, a prethodi im zvjezdica. |
| --- | --- |

HR

Akti čiji su naslovi tiskani običnim slovima su oni koji se odnose na svakodnevno upravljanje poljoprivrednim pitanjima, a općenito vrijede ograničeno razdoblje.

Naslovi svih drugih akata tiskani su masnim slovima, a prethodi im zvjezdica.

---

Ispravci

| 8.3.2018 | HR | Službeni list Europske unije | L 66/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.3.2018

HR

Službeni list Europske unije

L 66/1

---

Ispravak Uredbe (EU) 2018/302 Europskog parlamenta i Vijeća od 28. veljače 2018. o rješavanju pitanja neopravdanoga geografskog blokiranja i drugih oblika diskriminacije na unutarnjem tržištu na temelju državljanstva, mjesta boravišta ili mjesta poslovnog nastana klijenata te o izmjeni uredbi (EZ) br. 2006/2004 i (EU) 2017/2394 i Direktive 2009/22/EZ

(
  Službeni list Europske unije L 60 I od 2. ožujka 2018.
  )

Na str. 14., u završnoj formulaciji:

umjesto:

„
  Za Europski parlament

Predsjednica

L. PAVLOVA

Za Vijeće

Predsjednik

A. TAJANI
  ”;

treba stajati:

„
  Za Europski parlament

Predsjednik

A. TAJANI

Za Vijeće

Predsjednica

L. PAVLOVA
  ”.

---
Electronically FiledIntermediate Court of Appeals3064931-AUG-201108:42 AM
#### INDIANA HARBOR BELT RAILROAD COMPANY v. Henry KOTARA, etc.

No. 6256.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

June 30, 1937.

Before SPARKS, Circuit Judge.

Sidney C. Murray, Marvin A. Jersild, and Plarold E. Christensen, all of Chicago,. III., for appellant.

Edmund C. Maurer, of Chicago, 111.,, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Now this day come the parties by their counsel and present and file a stipulation that this appeal be dismissed without, costs, which said stipulation is in the words- and figures following, to wit: “It is hereby stipulated and agreed by and between, the parties to the above entitled cause, by-*1015their respective attorneys, that this appeal may be dismissed without costs, the controversy to which it relates having been settled.” On consideration whereof, it is now here ordered and adjudged by this court that this appeal be, and the same is hereby, dismissed, without costs, pursuant to the foregoing stipulation.
##### 



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 Annual Report of Interphase Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-K for the
year ended December 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Report), I, Gregory B. Kalush, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
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. /s/ Gregory B. Kalush Gregory B. Kalush
Chief Executive Officer
March 18, 2005
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF TRUE HEALTH, INC. AS OF JUNE 30, 2000 AND FOR THE THREE
MONTHS THEN ENDED, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                           1,214
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      9,355
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                10,569
<PP&E>                                           2,135
<DEPRECIATION>                                  (1,315)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  11,389
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           90,601
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       606,098
<OTHER-SE>                                    (685,310)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    11,389
<SALES>                                         12,563
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                12,563
<CGS>                                            2,765
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    2,765
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                23,246
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  97
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (13,545)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (13,545)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (13,545)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (0.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.00)


</TABLE>
* 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 November 9, 2005 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-40201 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus CESAR LEONEL PINEDA-RODRIGUEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 5:04-CR-1200-ALL

-------------------- Before DAVIS, SMITH, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Cesar Leonel Pineda-Rodriguez appeals from his guilty-pleaconviction for illegal reentry of a deported alien. PinedaRodriguez argues that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) is unconstitutional on its face and as applied in his case because it does not require the fact of a prior felony or aggravated felony conviction to be charged in the indictment and proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Pineda-Rodriguez acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224 (1998), but asserts that the decision has been cast into doubt by Apprendi v.No. 05-40201 -2- New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000). He seeks to preserve his argument for further review. Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres
. See Apprendi , 530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit , 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000). This court must follow Almendarez-Torres “unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule it.” Dabeit , 231 F.3d at 984 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                  JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                             33,303
<SECURITIES>                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                      18,951
<ALLOWANCES>                            0
<INVENTORY>                             0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                   52,254
<PP&E>                              2,100
<DEPRECIATION>                          0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                     54,534
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>             327,348
<BONDS>                                 0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                   0
<PREFERRED>                             0
<COMMON>                           10,226
<OTHER-SE>                     (1,055,720)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>       54,354
<SALES>                                 0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                        0
<CGS>                             416,409
<TOTAL-COSTS>                      36,183
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                        0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                 37,303
<INCOME-PRETAX>                  (452,592)
<INCOME-TAX>                            0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                     0
<DISCONTINUED>                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                         0
<CHANGES>                               0
<NET-INCOME>                     (452,592)
<EPS-BASIC>                         (0.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                       (0.04)


</TABLE>
#### Jack WASHINGTON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 27375.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 9, 1955.

T. M. Reid, Abilene, for appellant.

Wesley Dice, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

MORRISON, Presiding Judge.

The offense is possession of whiskey in a dry area for the purpose of sale; the punishment, 45 days in jail and a fine of $150.

Our original opinion herein is withdrawn, and the following substituted in lieu thereof.

In view of our disposition of this cause, a recitation of the facts is not deemed necessary other than to observe that the arresting officer stated that he saw the appellant come out of a yard with a sack under his arm and walk to an automobile occupied by Floyd Bogan and that he later learned that the sack contained whiskey.

Appellant’s motion for new trial alleging jury misconduct was supported by the affidavits of two members of the jury panel.

All the jurors testified at the hearing. Five of the jurors testified that during their deliberations one of their number had stated Bogan was a known bootlegger and had a reputation for. offenses of that kind. There. was no evidence to support such statement.. Two of the jurors admitted having made the statement, and some of them said that it was mentioned several times.

Juror Jackson testified that he originally wanted to give the appellant the minimum fine but that after he heard the discussion about .Bogan he agreed to the punishment which was assessed (which is in excess of the minimum).

We have concluded that the testimony of juror Jackson, which is not contradicted, reflects such misconduct as to call for a reversal of this conviction. Price v. State, 150 Tex.Cr.R. 161, 199 S.W.2d 168, and Jackson v. State, 157 Tex.Cr.R. 323, 248 S.W.2d 748.

Pafford v. State, 138 Tex.Cr.R. 299, 135 S.W.2d 990, and Jordan v. State, 158 Tex.Cr.R. 543, 258 S.W.2d 85, are authority for the holding that the unsworn testimony about Bogan violated appellant’s constitu*722tional rights to be:confronted by, the witnesses against him.

The appellant’s- motion for rehearing is granted, the judgment of affirmance! is set aside, and the judgment is now reversed and the cause remanded.
UNITED STATES
 SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
 Washington, D.C. 20549
  _____________________________
  FORM 8-K
  CURRENT REPORT
  Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the
  Securities Exchange Act of 1934
 
 
 
 Date of Report (Date of earliest event reported)
 April 26, 2011
 
 
 PHILLIPS-VAN HEUSEN CORPORATION
  (Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)
  
 Delaware
001-07572
13-1166910(State or other jurisdiction of incorporation)
(Commission File Number)
(IRS Employer Identification No.)200 Madison Avenue, New York, New York
10016(Address of principal executive offices)
(Zip Code)
 
  Registrant’s telephone number, including area code  (212)-381-3500
  Not Applicable
 (Former name or former address, if changed since last report.)
 
  Check the appropriate box below if the Form 8-K filing is intended to simultaneously satisfy the filing obligation of the registrant under any of the following provisions:
   ̈  Written communications pursuant to Rule 425 under the Securities Act (17 CFR 230.425)
  ̈  Soliciting material pursuant to Rule 14a-12 under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14a-12)
  ̈  Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 14d-2(b) under the Exchange Act
 (17 CFR 240.14d-2(b))
  ̈  Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 13e-4(c) under the Exchange Act
 (17 CFR 240.13e-4(c))
   
 
   ITEM 7.01                      REGULATION FD DISCLOSURE
  On April 26, 2011, Phillips-Van Heusen Corporation (the “Company”) issued a press release to announce that the Company expects its earnings per share for the first quarter of 2011 to be at least at the high end of its previous guidance.  A copy of this press release is attached as Exhibit 99.1 to this report.
  The information in this Form 8-K and the Exhibit attached hereto shall not be deemed “filed” for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 or otherwise subject to the liabilities of that section, nor shall it be deemed incorporated by reference in any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.
   
  ITEM 9.01                      FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND EXHIBITS
  (d)  Exhibits.
  Exhibit
Description99.1
Press Release, dated April 26, 2011.
  
   
   
   
   
   SIGNATURES
   Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the Registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned hereunto duly authorized.
  PHILLIPS-VAN HEUSEN CORPORATIONBy:/s/ Bruce GoldsteinBruce GoldsteinSenior Vice President and Controller
  
   Date: April 26, 2011