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 Report of Nexicon,  Inc.  (the  "Company") on Form
10-KSB  for the year ended  December  31,  2005 as filed with the Untied  States
Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof (the  "Report"),  the
undersigned,  in the  capacities  and  on  the  dates  indicated  below,  hereby
certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his 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 operation of the Company.


Date  August 30, 2006                   By:    /s/ Richard Urrea
                                               ----------------------
                                        Name:  Richard Urrea
                                        Title: President and Chief Executive
                                               Officer


A signed  original of this written  statement  required by Section 906, or other
document  authentications,  acknowledging,  or otherwise  adopting the signature
that  appears  in typed  form  within the  electronic  version  of this  written
statement  required by Section 906, has been  provided by Nexicon,  Inc. will be
retained  by  Nexicon,  Inc.  and  furnished  to  the  Securities  and  Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit 12
 ADVANTA CORP. AND SUBSIDIARIES
COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
 Three Months Ended
    
    
    Six Months EndedJune 30,
    
    
    June 30,($ in thousands)
    
    2009
    
    
    2008
    
    
    2009
    
    
    2008Net income (loss)
    
    $
    (330,069
    )
    
    $
    4,015
    
    
    $
    (405,974
    )
    
    $
    22,377Income tax expense
    
    
    78,556
    
    
    
    3,461
    
    
    
    37,688
    
    
    
    14,789Earnings (loss) before income taxes
    
    
    (251,513
    )
    
    
    7,476
    
    
    
    (368,286
    )
    
    
    37,166Fixed charges:Interest on debt, deposits and other
borrowings
    
    
    26,034
    
    
    
    27,720
    
    
    
    54,529
    
    
    
    53,547Interest on subordinated debt payable to
preferred securities trust
    
    
    2,282
    
    
    
    2,317
    
    
    
    4,599
    
    
    
    4,634One-third of all rentals
    
    
    451
    
    
    
    469
    
    
    
    918
    
    
    
    936Total fixed charges
    
    
    28,767
    
    
    
    30,506
    
    
    
    60,046
    
    
    
    59,117Earnings (loss) before income taxes and fixed
charges
    
    $
    (222,746
    )
    
    $
    37,982
    
    
    $
    (308,240
    )
    
    $
    96,283Ratio of earnings to fixed charges(1)
    
    
    (7.74)x
    (2)
    
    
    1.25x
    
    
    
    (5.13)x
    (2)
    
    
    1.63x
 (1)
    
    For purposes of computing these ratios, earnings represent income before income
taxes plus fixed charges. Fixed charges consist of interest expense and one-third
(the portion deemed representative of the interest factor) of rental expense on
operating leases. Fixed charges do not include interest expense related to
unrecognized tax benefits, which we classify as income tax expense.(2)
    
    The ratios calculated for the three and six months ended June 30, 2009 are less than
1.00. In order to achieve a ratio of 1.00, earnings before income taxes and fixed
charges would need to increase by $252 million for the three months ended June 30, 2009
and $368 million for the six months ended June 30, 2009.
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5668 

To suspend temporarily the rate of duty on isomeric mixtures of substituted 

hydroxy phenyl triazines. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 9, 2012 

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

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the rate of duty on isomeric mixtures 

of substituted hydroxy phenyl triazines. 

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

3 SECTION 1. ISOMERIC MIXTURE OF SUBSTITUTED HY4 DROXY PHENYL TRIAZINES. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

6 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

7 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

8 new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.01.00 Isomeric mixtures of substituted hydroxy phenyl 

triazines (provided for in 

subheading 3812.30.90) .... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2015 ’’. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5668 IH

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

2 subsection (a) applies to articles entered, or withdrawn 

3 from warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day 

4 after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
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 Annual Report of Elite Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended March 31, 2007 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Mark I, Gittelman, Chief
Financial Officer and Treasurer 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:

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

      (2)   The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
            material respects, the consolidated financial condition of the
            Company as of the dates presented and the consolidated result of
            operations of the Company for the periods presented.


Date: June 28, 2007                                  /s/ Mark I. Gittelman
                                                     ---------------------------
                                                     Mark I. Gittelman
                                                     Chief Financial Officer of
                                                     Elite Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

This certification has been furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Elite Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and will be retained by Elite
Pharmaceuticals Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
its staff upon request.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

October 27, 2021

No. 04-21-00200-CV

Robert C. SINGER, III,

Appellant

v.

April Marie SINGER, Individually and as Trustee of the Singer Financial Management Trust,

Appellee

From the 438th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2019-CI-03145

Honorable Cynthia Marie Chapa, Judge Presiding

ORDER

Sitting: Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice 

Irene Rios, Justice 

Beth Watkins, Justice

This is an accelerated appeal. On September 29, 2021, we issued an opinion and 

judgment in this case. On October 26, 2021, appellant filed a motion to expedite the issuance of 

the mandate. The motion states that appellant has conferred with appellee’s counsel and appellee 

is not opposed to this relief.

 Appellant’s motion to expedite the issuance of the mandate is GRANTED. The clerk of 

this court is instructed to issue the mandate immediately. See TEX. R. APP. P. 18.6 (allowing the 

appellate court to expedite the issuance of the mandate in an accelerated appeal). 

_________________________________

Beth Watkins, Justice
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 27th day of October, 2021.

___________________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court
* District Judge of the Southern District of Texas, sitting

by designation.

** Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________ No. 96-10079

_____________________ ALAN NIEDERLITZ; PEGGY NIEDERLITZ, Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v. PRESTONWOOD GOLF CLUB CORP., Doing Business as Prestonwood Country Club, Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas

(3:94-CV-2395)

_________________________________________________________________ October 11, 1996 Before KING and HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judges, and LAKE * , District Judge. PER CURIAM: ** The district court entered judgment against Prestonwood Golf Club Corp., defendant-appellant, following a jury verdict infavor of Alan Niederlitz and Peggy Niederlitz, plaintiffsappellees, in their suit against Prestonwood for violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq. .2

Prestonwood appeals, arguing that the jury instructions were flawed and that the evidence was insufficient to support the jury’s finding of liability under the FCRA. We are not persuaded that the charge as a whole created substantial and ineradicable doubt as to whether the jury was properly guided in its deliberations. The district court did not err in failing to grant judgment as a matter of law for Prestonwood following the return of the verdict. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
#### Ex parte DALTON.

No. 24722.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Feb. 15, 1950.

Oxford & Ramsour, Edinburg, Royce A. Oxford', Edinburg, for appellant.

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

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

Scott Dalton instituted habeas corpus proceedings in the District Court to secure his release from an order of the Justice of Peace, in an extradition proceeding.

The evidence shows that • appellant had moved to Texas from the State of Ohio, after a divorce proceeding- in that state in which he was adjudged to pay for the support of his .minor child the sum of $10 per week, until it'reached-a designated age.

A complaint was made to the magistrate in Hidalgo County, accompanied by a warrant from the State of Ohio, calling for relator’s arrest and return to that state to answer a felony charge for failurp to, support his minor child in accordance w.ith the divorce judgment. The magistrate issued his warrant in keeping with Article 999, Vernon’s Ann.C.C.P., and fixed bond in the sum of $2,000 to require the presence of the appellant for a period of ninety days, as provided by Article 1001, C.C.P. Failing to give the bond, the appellant’s mother instituted proceedings in the District Court seeking his release and attacking the authority of the Justice of Peace to issue the warrant. Among the 'grounds alleged was that the complaint was not accompanied by a properly certified transcript, of any complaint or indictment against him in the State of Ohio. A hearing was had and a copy of the papers in the case is found in the statement of facts,-with the stipulation that they constitute all of the papers by virtue of which appellant was held.

The warrant of arrest from Ashland County, Ohio, says that there has been filed in that court an affidavit “ * * * of which the following is a copy: * * This is followed by what' appears to be the substance of an affidavit. No name is signed to it, no date given, and it was^ not sworn to. We think this is not in compliance with the requirements of our statute. See 19 Texas Jur., p. 497, Sec. 10, and authorities there discussed. See also Ex parte Cragolla, 97 Tex.Cr.R. 10, 260 S.W. 189. Neither the affidavit filed before the Justice of Peace, by the deputy sheriff of Hidalgo County, nor the warrant pf arrest from Ohio is accompanied by a certified copy' of the complaint' or indictment in the State of Ohio which is alleged to be the basis of the warrant. ,'; ■

There are other questions raised in the appeal which we do not discuss because of the invalidity of the complajnt filed before the Justice, of the Peace in Hidalgo County. ■ .

The judgment of the trial court is. reversed and relator is ordered discharged.
<PAGE>   1


                         INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS' REPORT




The Board of Directors
NovaStar Mortgage, Inc.


We have examined management's assertion about NovaStar Mortgage, Inc.'s (the
Company) compliance with the minimum servicing standards set forth in the
Mortgage Bankers Association of America's Uniform Single Attestation Program for
Mortgage Bankers for the period from January 1, 2000 to December 31, 2000
included in the accompanying management assertion. Management is responsible for
the Company's compliance with those minimum servicing standards. Our
responsibility is to express an opinion on management's assertion about the
Company's compliance based on our examination.

Our examination was made in accordance with standards established by the
American Institute of Certified Public Accountants and, accordingly, including
examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company's compliance with the
minimum servicing standards and performing such other procedures as we
considered necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our examination
provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a
legal determination on the Company's compliance with the minimum servicing
standards.

In our opinion, management's assertion that NovaStar Mortgage, Inc. has complied
in all material respects with the aforementioned minimum servicing standards for
the period from January 1, 2000 to December 31, 2000 is fairly stated, in all
material respects.


KPMG LLP

February 9, 2001
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CertificationPursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title18, United States Code)**

 

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002(subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title18, United States Code), the undersigned officer of *SOURCECORP*, Incorporated, a Delaware corporation (the “Company”),does hereby certify that, to my knowledge:

 

The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30,2005 (the “Form 10-Q”) of the Company fully complies with the requirementsof Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934and the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.

 

 
| Date: August 10, 2005 | /s/ Ed H. Bowman, Jr.            |   |
|----------------------------|---------------------------------------|--------|
|                       | Ed H. Bowman, Jr.                |
|                       | President and Chief Executive Officer |

 

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350,Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code).

 

----
#### HAWKINS v. STATE.

No. 22746.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Feb. 2, 1944.

Rehearing Denied March 22, 1944.

Alex P. Pope, of Tyler, for appellant.

Ernest S. Goens, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

KRUEGER, Judge.

The offense is an attempt to commit arson. The punishment assessed is confinement in the state penitentiary for a period of two years.

The record is before us without a statement of facts or bills of exception. Appellant entered a plea of guilty to the offense charged and waived a jury upon the trial. The indictment and all other matters of procedure appear to be in regular form.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM 
FTD INC. DECEMBER 31, 1996 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                          28,749
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   37,844
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,628
<INVENTORY>                                     19,414
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                93,758
<PP&E>                                          51,693
<DEPRECIATION>                                  20,152
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 213,466
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           94,254
<BONDS>                                         93,430
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      25,059
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   213,466
<SALES>                                         11,055
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                41,640
<CGS>                                            8,400
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   40,210
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,255
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,513)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (340)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,154)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,513)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
1

MEMORANDUM DATE: April 13, 2011 TO: Melanie King, EPA OAQPS/SPPD/ESG FROM: Tany a Parise , EC/R, Inc. SUBJECT: Summary

of the April 5, 2011 Teleconference with Exterran Regarding the Proposed Amendments to the NSPS for Stationary Engines

INTRODUCTION A teleconference was held between EPA and Exterran to discuss issues related to proposed amendments to the new source performance standards (NSPS) for stationary compression ignition (CI) and spark ignition (SI) engines, in 40 CFR part 60, subpart s IIII and JJJJ , respectively (see 75 FR 32612). Exterran wanted to specifically discuss what EPA’s position is on the definitions of reconstruction and the date of manufacture. ATTENDEES Melanie King, EPA Mike Wasson , Exterran Michael Horowitz, EPA Bill Bowes , Exterran Tany a Parise, EC/R Inc. James Harrison, Exterran Jeff Holmstead , Bracewell & Giuliani Kyle Jantzen, Exterran Tim Wilkins , Bracewell & Giuliani S UMMARY OF TELECONFERENCE The purpose of the teleconference was to discuss the comments submitted by Exterran on the proposed amendments to the NSPS for stationary engines. The main issues discussed were the proposed additions of the definitions of “reconstruct” and “date of manuf acture.” More details on Exterran’s specific concerns can be found in Exterran’s comments on the proposed amendments, see EPA
- HQ
- OAR
- 2010
- 02 95
- 0046. 

# E C 

# / R Incorporated Providing Environmental Technical Support Since 1989
Order entered April 28, 2020

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-19-00892-CV

LOIS YVONNE HUNTRESS, Appellant

V.

HICKORY TRAIL HOSPITAL, L.P. AND JELIL ONANUGA, M.D.,

Appellees

On Appeal from the 298th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-17-14354

ORDER

Appellant’s motion for extension of time to file reply brief is GRANTED, 

and appellant’s reply brief received April 23, 2020, is ORDERED filed as of the 

date of this order. We further GRANT appellees leave to file a sur-reply brief; any 

sur-reply brief must be filed by May 5, 2020.

/s/ LANA MYERS 

PRESIDING JUSTICE
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3365 

To exempt certain long-term care hospitals operating in a single-hospital 

MSA from the Medicare threshold payment adjustment policy for longterm care hospitals, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

OCTOBER 29, 2013 

Mr. WALBERG (for himself, Mr. GRAVES of Missouri, Mr. TIBERI, and Mr. 

MESSER) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To exempt certain long-term care hospitals operating in a 

single-hospital MSA from the Medicare threshold payment adjustment policy for long-term care hospitals, 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. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Defending Rural Ac5 cess to Long Term Acute Care Act of 2013’’. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3365 IH

1 SEC. 2. EXEMPTION FROM THRESHOLD PAYMENT ADJUST2 MENT POLICY FOR CERTAIN LONG-TERM 

3 CARE HOSPITALS OPERATING IN A SINGLE4 HOSPITAL MSA. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of Health and 

6 Human Services shall not apply sections 412.534 or 

7 412.536 of title 42, Code of Federal Regulations, to any 

8 long-term care hospital operating in a single-hospital MSA 

9 (as defined in subsection (b)). 

10 (b) LONG-TERM CARE HOSPITAL OPERATING IN A

11 SINGLE-HOSPITAL MSA DEFINED.—In this section, the 

12 term ‘‘long-term care hospital operating in a single-hos13 pital MSA’’ means an entity that meets the following cri14 teria on the date of the enactment of this Act: 

15 (1) The entity is a long-term care hospital as 

16 defined in section 1861(ccc) of the Social Security 

17 Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x(ccc)), but is not a long-term 

18 care hospital described in section 

19 1886(d)(1)(B)(iv)(II) of the Social Security Act (42 

20 U.S.C. 1395ww(d)(1)(B)(iv)(II)). 

21 (2) The entity is located in a Metropolitan Sta22 tistical Area (as defined by the Office of Manage23 ment and Budget in OMB Bulletin 13–01 published 

24 February 28, 2013) that has only one subsection (d) 

25 hospital (as defined in section 1886(d)(2)(D) of the 

26 Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395ww(d)(2)(D)). 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 3365 IH

1 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—Subsection (a) applies to 

2 long-term care hospitals for cost reporting periods begin3 ning on or after October 1, 2013. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

September 10, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
133942 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

v SC: 133942 COA: 272195 Wayne CC: 98-002820-02 ARTHUR SMART, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal the March 30, 2007 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, a nd it is DENIED, because the defendant has failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).

s0830 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

September 10, 2007

Clerk