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 Annual Report on Form 10-K of Rotech Healthcare Inc. (the Company) for the year ended December 31, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), Philip L. Carter, as President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Janet L. Ziomek, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of each such officers 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 operations of the Company.



|                                                      
|------------------------------------------------------
|/s/    PHILIP L. CARTER                               
|Philip L. Carter President and Chief Executive Officer
|                                                      
|Date:  April 13, 2004                                 
|                                                      
|/s/    JANET L. ZIOMEK                                
|Janet L. Ziomek Chief Financial Officer               
|                                                      
|Date:  April 13, 2004                                 



This certification
accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley of 2002 and shall not, except to extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended.



A signed original of this written statement
required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 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.
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5380 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on mixed xylidines. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 7, 2012 

Mr. FITZPATRICK introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on mixed 

xylidines. 

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

3 SECTION 1. MIXED XYLIDINES. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.22.36 of the Har5 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

6 mixed xylidines) is amended by striking the date in the 

7 effective period column and inserting ‘‘12/31/2015’’. 

8 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

9 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5380 IH

1 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

2 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
EXHIBIT 99.2



ACCOUNTANTS' REVIEW REPORT





Board of Directors

The Standard Register Company

Dayton, Ohio



We have reviewed the accompanying consolidated condensed balance sheet of the Standard Register Company and subsidiaries as of June 30, 2002 and December 30, 2001, and the consolidated condensed income statement for both the thirteen and twenty-six week periods ending June 30, 2002 and July 1, 2001.  These financial statements are the responsibility of the Company's management.



We conducted our reviews in accordance with standards established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants.  A review of interim financial information consists principally of applying analytical procedures to financial data and making inquiries of persons responsible for financial and accounting matters. It is substantially less in scope than an audit conducted in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards, the objective of which is the expression of an opinion regarding the financial statements taken as a whole. Accordingly, we do not express such an opinion.



Based upon our reviews, we are not aware of any material modifications that should be made to the accompanying consolidated financial statements referred to above for them to be in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles.





/S/  BATTELLE & BATTELLE LLP





July 16, 2002
<PAGE>
                                  EXHIBIT 99(B)

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


         Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Nautica Enterprises, Inc.
(the "Company") hereby certifies that:

         (i) the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for
the quarterly period ended August 31, 2002 (the "Report") fully complies with
the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934; and

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




                                      By: s/ Wayne A. Marino
                                          -------------------------------------
                                            Wayne A. Marino
                                            Chief Financial Officer

Date:  October 11, 2002
     ----------------------------
EXHIBIT 12




                  SOUTHERN NATURAL GAS COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES


                        Computation of Ratios of Earnings
                   From Continuing Operations to Fixed Charges
                              Total Enterprise (a)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                       Six Months Ended June 30,                        Years Ended December 31,


                                            1997           1996            1996        1995         1994         1993        1992
                                            ----           ----            ----        ----         ----         ----        ----

                                                                                               (In Thousands)


Earnings from Continuing Operations:
<S>                                      <C>             <C>            <C>         <C>          <C>          <C>         <C>     
   Income (loss) before income taxes     $ 89,064        $71,712        $150,219    $134,124     $ 76,098     $127,617    $126,691
   Fixed charges (see computation below)   16,569         24,946          43,028      48,779       47,575       58,249      47,995
                                         --------        -------        --------    --------     --------     --------    --------
Total Earnings Available for Fixed 
   Charges                               $105,633        $96,658        $193,247    $182,903     $123,673     $185,866    $174,686
                                         ========        =======        ========    ========     ========     ========    ========


Fixed Charges:
   Interest expense before deducting
      interest capitalized               $ 15,792        $23,863        $ 41,147    $ 46,859     $ 45,900     $ 56,599    $ 46,298
   Rentals(b)                                 777          1,083           1,881       1,920        1,675        1,650       1,697
                                         --------        -------        --------    --------     --------     --------    --------
                                         $ 16,569        $24,946        $ 43,028    $ 48,779     $ 47,575     $ 58,249    $ 47,995
                                         ========        =======        ========    ========     ========     ========    ========


Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges            6.4            3.9             4.5         3.7          2.6          3.2         3.6
                                         ========        =======        ========    ========     ========     ========    ========
</TABLE>




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

(a)  Amounts  include the  Company's  portion of the  captions as they relate to
     persons accounted for by the equity method.
(b)   These  amounts  represent 1/3 of rentals  which  approximate  the interest
      factor  applicable to such rentals of the Company and its subsidiaries and
      continuing unconsolidated affiliates.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

November 19, 2009 

d1112 

Order 

 

November 19, 2009 

139006 

MARILYN J. KIEFER and GEORGE 

KIEFER, 

Plaintiffs-Appellants, 

v SC: 139006 

 COA: 280769 

Washtenaw CC: 05-001137-NH 

JOHN M. MARKLEY, M.D., and CENTER 

FOR PLASTIC AND RECONSTRUCTIVE 

SURGERY, P.C., 

Defendants-Appellees. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 28, 2009 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

 KELLY, C.J., and CAVANAGH and HATHAWAY, JJ., would reverse the judgment of 

the Court of Appeals, for the reasons stated in the Court of Appeals dissenting opinion, 

and remand this case to the Washtenaw Circuit Court for reinstatement of the complaint.
Exhibit 31.2

Certification of Chief Financial Officer

I, Michael D. Mulholland, certify that:

1. I have reviewed
this amendment to Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of CytoDyn Inc.; and

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report.

Date: July 27, 2017



/s/ Michael D. MulhollandMichael D. Mulholland Chief Financial
Officer
#### JONES v. STATE.

No. 25045.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Dec. 20, 1950.

E. A. Blair, Lubbock, for appellant.

George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

WOODLEY, Commissioner.

The conviction is for possession of whiskey in a dry area for the purpose of sale, the jury having assessed the punishment at a fine of $250.

Two inspectors for the Liquor Control Board, and a police officer of the City of Lubbock, in possession of a search warrant, searched a building consisting of a four-room apartment and a two-room apartment. The police officer testified that he knew that appellant lived in such house, he having been there previously and having seen appellant there several times. He testified that appellant lived in the four-room apartment, and that in the bedroom they found a picture of appellant, some women’s clothes, and a receipt issued to appellant. No liquor was found by the officers in the house but just outside of the house the officers found some seven half-pints of whiskey and three half-pints of gin.

Some of the ‘liquor was found inside of the screen door leading to the front bedroom of the four-room apartment. It was outside of the bedroom door which door they found locked, and inside of the screen door, which was unlatched.

A part of the liquor was found under a rug on the steps leading to the kitchen door of the four-room apartment, and the remainder was found a few feet from the steps under two tubs that were turned bottom up.

Appellant was not at the premises nor was she seen by the officers during the time they were there.

Two women were at the house, one of whom was sitting on the steps of a porch. Also a three-year old child was in the two-room apartment.

A man was in the house when the officers arrived, drinking beer from a can. He had disappeared before the officers concluded their search.

One of the women was temporarily detained. One of the officers testified “We were trying to figure out who it belonged to.”

We find nothing in the record to show what, if any, further evidence the officers found by which they finally arrived at the conclusion that the liquor belonged to appellant.

The evidence shows that there were several persons present at the time of the search who had the opportunity to place the liquor where it was found, and there is no evidence that appellant exercised any control over it. She was not present at the search, and it is not shown that she had been at the apartment at any recent time.

If the liquor found outside the locked door of the apartment belonged to appellant *162there is no explanation of why it was left outside of the house.

The circumstantial evidence shows no more than a strong' suspicion or probability that appellant was a participant in the commission of the offense of possession of whiskey for the purpose of sale in the area admitted to be dry.

The evidence is therefore insufficient to exclude every other reasonable hypothesis than that of appellant’s guilt as charged. See Murray v. State, 138 Tex.Cr.R. 53, 134 S.W.2d *286.*

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

Opinion approved by the Court.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

WACO DIVISION 

WSOU INVESTMENTS LLC 

 

v. Case No.: 6:20-cv-00479-ADA 

 

DELL TECHNOLOGIES INC. ET AL 

ORDER 

BE IT REMEMBERED on this day, there was presented to the Court the Motion for Admission 

Pro Hac Vice filed by Howard L. Bressler (“Applicant”), counsel for , and the Court, having reviewed 

the motion, enters the following order: 

IT IS ORDERED that the Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice is GRANTED, and Applicant 

may appear on behalf of in the above case. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Applicant, if he/she has not already done so, shall immediately 

tender the amount of $100.00, made payable to: Clerk, U.S. District Court, in compliance with Local 

Court Rule AT-1(f)(2). 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if the corresponding Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice was 

e-filed, the attorney who filed the Motion on behalf of the Applicant is directed to notify the Applicant 

of this order. 

IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that Applicant, pursuant to the Administrative Policies and 

Procedures for Electronic Filing in Civil and Criminal cases in the Western District of Texas, shall 

register as a filing user within 10 days of the date of this Order, if he/she has not previously done so on 

a prior case in this District. 

SIGNED this the 28th day of December, 2021. 

ALAN D ALBRIGHT 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 6:20-cv-00479-ADA Document 155 Filed 12/28/21 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 32.02

DEER VALLEY CORPORATION

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(b) OR RULE 15d-14(b) OF THE

SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with this quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2010 of Deer Valley Corporation (the Company), as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, John S. Lawler, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) or 15d-14(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:



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



| | 2. | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ John S. Lawler     
|John S. Lawler         
|Chief Financial Officer
|August 9, 2010
# C o u rt o f

A p p ea ls

o f t h e S t a te o f

G eo rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _
Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A 2 2 A0 6 9 6

. QUENTI N W ATKI NS v . DEBT F R EE REAL ESTAT E HOLDI N GS, LLC.

Aft er p u rch as i n g Qu en t i n W at k i n s ’ s co n d o m i n i u m at a ju d i ci al fo recl o s u re

s al e, Deb t Free Real E s t at e Ho l di n g s, LLC fi l ed an act i o n ag ai n s t W at k i n s in

m ag i s t r a t e co u rt s eek in g p o s s es s i o n o f t h e p ro pert y

. Fo ll o wi n g a h eari n g , t h e

m ag i s t rat e co u rt ru l ed i n fav o r of Deb t Free an d i s s u ed a wri t o f p o s s es s io n

. W at k i n s
ap p eal ed t h at ord er t o t h e s u p e r i o r co urt , seek i n g a d e n o v o rev i ew. Th e s u p eri o r

co u rt affi rm ed th e m ag i s trat e co u rt ’ s fi n d in g t h at Deb t Free w as en t i t l ed t o p o s s es s i o n

o f t h e p ro p ert y in q u es t i on

. W at k i n s t h en fi led t h i s ap p eal

. We
, h o w e v er, l ack o f ju ri s d i ct i o n

. An ap p eal fro m an o r d e r o f t h e s t at e o r s u p eri o r co u rt rev i ewi n g d e n o v o a d eci s i o n o f th e m ag i s t rat e co u rt m u s t b e in it i at ed b y fi l i n g a n ap p l i cat i o n fo r d i s cret i o n ary rev i ew. See OCGA § 5 -6 -3 5 (a) (1 1 ); S t r a ch a n v

. M e r i t o r Mo r t

g a g e Co r p

. Ea s t , 2 16 Ga. Ap p

. 8 2, 8 2 (4 5 3 SE2 d 1 1 9 ) ( 1 9 9 5). “ Co m p l i an ce wi t h t h e d i s cret i o n ary ap p eal s p ro ced ure i s ju ri s d ict i o n al .” H a i r Res t o r a ti o n S

p eci al i s t s , In c.

v. S ta t e , 3 6 0 Ga. Ap p

. 9 0 1
, 9 0 3 (8 6 2 SE2 d 5 6 4) (2 0 21 ) (ci t at i o n a n d p u n ct u at i o n

o m it t ed ). Acco rd i n gl y , W at k i n s ’ s fai l u re t o fo ll ow t he pro p er p ro ced u re d ep ri v es u s

o f ju ri s d ict i o n o v er t hi s ap p eal , wh i ch i s h ereb y DISM ISSED. January 10, 2022C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o

f G e o r g ia C le r k ’ s O f f i c e , A t la n t a ,

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r t i f y t h a t t h e a b o v e i s a tr u e e x t r a c t f r o m
t h e m i n u t e s o

f t h e C o u r t o

f A p p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

. W i tn e s s m y s i g n a t u r e a n d t h e s e a l o

f s a i d c o u r t h e r e t o a f f i x e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r l a s t a b o v e w r i t t e n

.

, C l e r k

. 01/10/2022
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Peter A. Bruni, Appellant.

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: At the time of his arraignment, defendant was furnished with a copy of the eavesdropping warrant and the accompanying application under which the interception was *891approved *(see,*CPL 700.70; *People v Schulz,*67 NY2d 144). Consequently, the People complied with the notice requirements of CPL 700.70.

Further, the People demonstrated that the sealing requirements of CPL article 700 were met *(cf., People v Nicoletti,*34 NY2d 249) and the minimization procedures that were established and followed were appropriate *(see, People v Floyd,*41 NY2d 245). We find that the sentence imposed was not harsh and excessive. (Appeal from judgment of Ontario County Court, Henry, Jr., J.—criminal possession of controlled substance, second degree.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Denman, Pine, Lawton and Davis, JJ.
## I N T H E C O U R T O F C R I M I N A L A P P E A L S O F T E X A S NO. WR-80,044-02

EX P ARTE KENDALE JAMES LEE, Applicant
ON AP P LICATION F OR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORP US CAUSE NO. 2013-CR-0038-Wl IN THE 175TH DISTRICT COURT

F ROM BEXAR COUNTY
Per curiam . O P I N I O N Applicant pled nolo contendere to possession of a c ontrolled substance with intent to deliver and was sentenced to ten y e ars’ imprisonment probated for eig ht y ears. His community supervision
was lat e r r e v o k e d and he was sentenced to eig ht y ears’ imprisonment. Applicant filed this application for a writ of habeas corpus in the county of conviction, and the d istrict clerk forwarded it to this Court. S

ee T E X . C O D E C R

I M . P R O C . art. 11.07. Applicant contends that he was denied his rig h t to an appeal because counsel f a iled to timely file a notice of appeal. B ased on the record, the trial court has found that c ounsel failed to properly ascertain whether Applicant had the rig ht to appeal and whether Applicant wished to appeal. The trial court recommends g

ranting an out-of-time appeal.2

W e ag ree. Relief is g ranted. Ex parte Axel , 7 57 S.W .2d 369 (Tex
. Crim. App. 1988); Jones

v. S tate , 98 S.W .3d 700 (Tex
. Crim. App. 2003). Applicant may file an out-of-time ap p e a l of his conviction in cause number 2013CR0038 from the 175th District Court of B ex a r County . W ithin ten day s from the date of this Court’s mandate, the trial court shall determine whether Applicant is indig ent. I f Applicant is indig ent and wants to be represented by counsel, the trial court shall appoint counsel to represent him on direct a ppeal. Should Applicant decide to appeal, he must file a written notice of appeal in the trial court within thirty day s from the date of this Court’s mandate. Cop i e s o f t

h i s o p i n i o n s h a l l be sent to the Tex as Department of Criminal J u stice–Correctional I nstitutions Division and the B oard of Pardons and Paroles.

Delivered: F ebruary 28, 2024 Do not publish