alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICERS

Pursuant to
the requirement set forth in Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the Exchange Act), and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code (18 U.S.C. § 1350), David T. Hung, M.D.,
Chief Executive Officer of Medivation, Inc. (the Company), and C. Patrick Machado, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies that, to the best of his or her knowledge:

(1) The Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2009 to which this Certification is attached as Exhibit 32.1
(the Periodic Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Exchange Act; and

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

In Witness Whereof, the undersigned have set his hand hereto as of the 4thday of November, 2009.



|                        |  |                                       |  |                        |  |        |  |                                                  
|----------------------- |  | ------------------------------------- |  | ---------------------- |  | ------ |  | -------------------------------------------------
|/s/ David T. Hung, M.D. |  |                                       |  | /s/ C. Patrick Machado
|Name:                   |  | David T. Hung, M.D.                   |  |                        |  | Name:  |  | C. Patrick Machado                               
|Title:                  |  | President and Chief Executive Officer |  |                        |  | Title: |  | Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

This certification accompanies the Form 10-Q to which it relates, is not deemed filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of Medivation, Inc. under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date
of the Form 10-Q), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.
#### WEBB v. STATE.

No. 15805.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Feb. 8, 1933.

Rehearing Denied March 22, 1933.

*115R. L. Buford, of Yan Alstyne, for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

CALHOUN, Judge.

The offense, unlawful transportation of intoxicating liquor; the punishment, one year in the penitentiary.

The record is- before us without a statement of facts. In a supplemental transcript filed in this court, there appears what purports to be appellant’s bills of exception Nos. 1 and 2. What purports to he hill of exception No. 1 complains of the admission of certain testimony over the objection of the appellant. Said hill of exception is marked “Refused” on the grounds that the appellant never objected to the introduction of the evidence, and the appellant went on the stand and testified voluntarily on his direct examination to the same facts.

What purports to be bill of exception No. 2 purports to be an exception to the court’s charge. This hill is also marked “Refused” because incorrect, and no such facts as asserted by the bill are shown by the record.

There are no exceptions to either of said statements of the trial judge appended to said purported bills. Where there are qualifications or explanations of the trial court appended to refused bills to the efteet that no such proceedings as therein referred to were had, or that no objection or bills of exception were taken, and no exceptions to such qualifications ar,e taken or resefved in any way, the appellate court will- be governed by the explanations or qualifications in its consideration of the matters referred to in the bill. See Donohue v. State, 90 Tex. Cr. R. 541, 236 S. W. 86; Wilson v. State, 87 Tex. Cr. R. 625, 224 S. W. 772.

The trial court having stated upon said bills that no such exceptions were taken and no such bills reserved, and since the contrary is not made to appear by any bystander’s bill, or other character of attack, we cannot consider same.

The judgment, 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.

On Motion for Rehearing.

HAWKINS, Judge.

In an unsworn motion for rehearing, appellant avers that he requested of the court a statement of facts, and was assured that one would be furnished him; that appellant was not able financially to procure a statement of facts. No effort has been made to show that appellant availed himself of the provisions of subdivision 6, art. 760, C. C. P. (1925).

The motion for rehearing is overruled.
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-11144 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus
NOE RODRIGUEZ BRAVO, a/k/a Sealed Defendant 2, Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:97-CV-771-H
June 17, 1998 Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Bravo appeals the district court’s judgment denying his motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Bravo contends that he was denied assistance of counsel on appeal and that the district court erred in failing to hold an evidentiary hearing. Bravo pleaded guilty to count 1 of an indictment charging2

him with conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine. As part of his plea agreement, Bravo agreed to a two-level increase in sentence for his role in the offense. Bravo’s counsel was permitted to withdraw after judgment was entered. Bravo then filed a pro se notice of appeal. In the order permitting counsel to withdraw, Bravo was instructed to notify the court if he was seeking to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis or was seeking court-appointed counsel on appeal. Thus, Bravo was clearly advised that it was his responsibility to seek substitute counsel, and he failed to do so. Subsequently, Bravo’s appeal was dismissed because he failed to pay the docketing fee. In sum, Bravo has not shown any actual or constructive denial of assistance of appellate counsel. See United States v. Bravo , No. 3-97-CV-0771-H (N.D. Tex. Oct. 3, 1997) (unpublished). The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1272 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1272

To provide for the conversion of a temporary judgeship for the district 
                  of Hawaii to a permanent judgeship.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 3, 2009

 Ms. Hirono (for herself and Mr. Abercrombie) introduced the following 
       bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To provide for the conversion of a temporary judgeship for the district 
                  of Hawaii to a permanent judgeship.

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

SECTION 1. CONVERSION OF TEMPORARY JUDGESHIP TO PERMANENT JUDGESHIP FOR 
              THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII.

    (a) In General.--The existing judgeship for the district of Hawaii 
authorized by section 203(c) of the Judicial Improvements Act of 1990 
(28 U.S.C. 133 note; Public Law 101-650; 104 Stat. 5089) shall, as of 
the date of enactment of this Act, be authorized under section 133 of 
title 28, United States Code, and the incumbent in that office shall 
hold the office under section 133 of title 28, United States Code, as 
amended by this Act.
    (b) Tables.--In order that the table contained in section 133(a) of 
title 28, United States Code, will reflect the change in the total 
number of permanent district judgeships authorized as a result of 
subsection (a) of this section, the item relating to Hawaii is amended 
to read as follows:

        ``Hawaii...............................................    4''.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                          23,506
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  973,910
<ALLOWANCES>                                    20,022
<INVENTORY>                                    897,615
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,940,922
<PP&E>                                       3,274,876
<DEPRECIATION>                                 569,994
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,542,660
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,291,224
<BONDS>                                      1,466,554
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,823,938
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,542,660
<SALES>                                      9,251,647
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             9,269,334
<CGS>                                        8,936,804
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                9,057,774
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 8,788
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              83,491
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                126,616
<INCOME-TAX>                                    46,848
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             79,768
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    79,768
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
II 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1808 

To extend temporarily the Federal Perkins Loan program, and for other 

purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 14, 2017 

Ms. BALDWIN (for herself, Mr. PORTMAN, Mr. CASEY, Ms. COLLINS, Mr. 

JOHNSON, Mr. DURBIN, Mr. REED, Mrs. SHAHEEN, and Mrs. FEINSTEIN) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 

A BILL 

To extend temporarily the Federal Perkins Loan program, 

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 ‘‘Federal Perkins Loan 

5 Program Extension Act of 2017’’. 

6 SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF FEDERAL PERKINS LOAN PROGRAM. 

7 (a) AUTHORITY TO MAKE LOANS.— 


dlhill on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1808 IS

1 (1) IN GENERAL.—Section 461(b) of the High2 er Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1087aa(b)) is 

3 amended— 

4 (A) by striking ‘‘September 30, 2017’’ 

5 each place it appears and inserting ‘‘September 

6 30, 2019’’; and 

7 (B) in paragraph (1)(C)— 

8 (i) by striking ‘‘September 30, 2016’’ 

9 and inserting ‘‘September 30, 2018’’; and 

10 (ii) by striking ‘‘October 1, 2015’’ and 

11 inserting ‘‘October 1, 2017’’. 

12 (2) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—Notwith13 standing the amendments made under paragraph (1) 

14 of this subsection, an eligible graduate borrower who 

15 received a disbursement of a loan under part E of 

16 title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 

17 U.S.C. 1087aa et seq.) after June 30, 2018, and be18 fore October 1, 2018, for the 2018–2019 award 

19 year, may receive a subsequent disbursement of such 

20 loan by June 30, 2019, for which the borrower re21 ceived an initial disbursement after June 30, 2018, 

22 and before October 1, 2018. 

23 (b) DISTRIBUTION OF ASSETS FROM STUDENT LOAN

24 FUNDS.—Section 466 of the Higher Education Act of 

25 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1087ff) is amended— 


dlhill on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 1808 IS

1 (1) by striking ‘‘October 1, 2017’’ each place it 

2 appears and inserting ‘‘October 1, 2019’’; and 

3 (2) by striking ‘‘September 30, 2017’’ each 

4 place it appears and inserting ‘‘September 30, 

5 2019’’. 

6 (c) ADDITIONAL EXTENSIONS NOT PERMITTED.— 

7 Section 422 of the General Education Provisions Act (20 

8 U.S.C. 1226a) shall not apply to further extend the dura9 tion of the authority under paragraph (1) of section 

10 461(b) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 

11 1087aa(b)), as amended by subsection (a)(1) of this sec12 tion, beyond September 30, 2019, on the basis of the ex13 tension under such subsection. 

Æ 


dlhill on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS
II 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 202 

To amend the Social Security Act relating to the use of determinations 

made by the Commissioner. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 24, 2017 

Mr. CRAPO (for himself, Mr. PAUL, Mr. MORAN, Mr. HELLER, Mr. HATCH, 

Mr. INHOFE, Mr. DAINES, and Mr. ROBERTS) introduced the following 

bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend the Social Security Act relating to the use of 

determinations made by the Commissioner. 

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 ‘‘Social Security Bene5 ficiary 2nd Amendment Rights Protection Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. USE OF DETERMINATIONS MADE BY THE COMMIS7 SIONER. 

8 (a) TITLE II.—Section 205(j) of the Social Security 

9 Act (42 U.S.C. 405(j)) is amended by adding at the end 

10 the following: 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 202 IS

1 ‘‘(11) No determination by the Commissioner of So2 cial Security with respect to an individual, including a de3 termination that benefits under this title to which such 

4 individual is entitled shall be paid to a representative 

5 payee, shall be considered to be a determination that the 

6 individual has been adjudicated as a mental defective for 

7 purposes of subsections (d)(4) and (g)(4) of section 922 

8 of title 18, United States Code.’’. 

9 (b) TITLE XVI.—Section 1631(a)(2) of such Act (42 

10 U.S.C. 1383(a)(2)) is amended by adding at the end the 

11 following: 

12 ‘‘(J) No determination by the Commissioner of Social 

13 Security with respect to an individual, including a deter14 mination that benefits under this title to which such indi15 vidual is entitled shall be paid to a representative payee, 

16 shall be considered to be a determination that the indi17 vidual has been adjudicated as a mental defective for pur18 poses of subsections (d)(4) and (g)(4) of section 922 of 

19 title 18, United States Code.’’. 

Æ 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Nathaniel Jenkins, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Jay Gold, J.), rendered November 29, 1989, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of burglary in the third degree and petit larceny and sentencing defendant, as a predicate felony offender, to concurrent terms of imprisonment of 2 to 4 years and six months, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant was allegedly observed by a police officer breaking into a commercial van and removing property from inside. Defendant testified that he had been shooting up heroin in a nearby dumpster, where he found the stolen property, and denied breaking into or entering the van. The court did not err by denying defendant’s application to submit trespass to the jury as a lesser included offense of burglary in the third degree, since although it is impossible to commit burglary without at the same time committing trespass *(People v Henderson,*41 NY2d 233), no reasonable view of the evidence would support a conclusion that defendant committed the lesser offense but not the greater *(People v Glover,*57 NY2d 61). As to defendant’s various *Rosario*claims, we observe that police memo book entries which are unrelated to the present case are not discoverable *(see,*CPL 240.45 [1]; *People v Rosario,*9 NY2d 286, *cert denied*368 US 866), nor are witnesses’ addresses and phone numbers *(see, People v Poole,*48 NY2d 144), or a prosecutor’s notes with respect to his strategy at arraignment or bail, which are attorney work product.

The court permitted readback of the arresting officer’s direct testimony, but not cross-examination, in response to the jury’s request for testimony concerning "from when he entered his own car up until he made the arrest of Jenkins.” *316While a request for readback is presumed to include cross-examination which impeaches the testimony which is read back *(see, People v Sepulveda,*44 AD2d 846), the subject cross-examination was not encompassed by the jury note since cross-examination focused on events which occurred prior to the officer’s entry of his own car.

At most, a juror’s alleged statement manifested everyday perceptions and experience *(People v Martin,*149 AD2d 534, *lv denied*74 NY2d 814) and does not suggest that any impropriety occurred during jury deliberations.

Finally, we have examined defendant’s contentions concerning the prosecutor’s comments on summation and the juror’s alleged statement as to discussion during deliberations and find no basis on which to reverse. Concur—Carro, J. P., Asch, Kassal and Smith, JJ.
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**Certification of Principal Financial Officer**

**Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.1350 (Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)**

 

I, Michael A. Ernst,Chief Financial Officer, of Prentiss Properties Trust (the “Registrant”), do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge, basedupon a review of the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2004 of the Registrant, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”): 

 

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (15 U.S.C. Section 78m(a) or Section78o(d)); and 

 

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

 

/s/ Michael A. Ernst

Michael A. Ernst 

Chief Financial Officer

May 7, 2004 

 

STATE OF TEXAS§ 

COUNTY OF DALLAS§ 

 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 7th day of May, 2004. 

 

/s/ Lana Mann

Lana Mann 

May 7, 2004 

 

Notary Public 

My Commission Expires: 5/26/2005 

Official Seal 

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, **or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwiseadopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906**, has been provided to the Issuer and will be retained by the Issuer and furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission or its staff upon request. 

 

1
STEAM ELECTRIC CBI REPLACEMENT PAGE

EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0819

DCN: SE02900

THE FOLLOWING HAS BEEN REMOVED BECAUSE IT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION (CBI) PER 40 CFR PART 2, SUBPART B.
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 RadiSys Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-K
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Scott C. Grout, 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/ Scott C. Grout                    
|Scott C. Grout Chief Executive
Officer
|                                      
|March 6, 2009
II 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1810 

To amend the Fair Credit Reporting Act to provide access to free credit 

freezes for all consumers. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 14, 2017 

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

to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend the Fair Credit Reporting Act to provide access 

to free credit freezes for all consumers. 

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 ‘‘Free Credit Freeze 

5 Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. PROVIDES ACCESS TO FREE CREDIT FREEZES FOR 

7 ALL CONSUMERS. 

8 Section 605A of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 

9 U.S.C. 1681c–1) is amended by adding at the end the fol10 lowing: 


SSpencer on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1810 IS

1 ‘‘(i) CREDIT FREEZE FEES.— 

2 ‘‘(1) DEFINITION.—In this subsection, the term 

3 ‘credit freeze’ means a restriction placed at the re4 quest of a consumer or a personal representative of 

5 the consumer, on the consumer report of the con6 sumer, that prohibits a consumer reporting agency 

7 described in section 603(p) from releasing the con8 sumer report for a purpose relating to the extension 

9 of credit without the express authorization of the 

10 consumer. A credit freeze shall not apply to the use 

11 of a consumer report by any of the following: 

12 ‘‘(A) A person, or the person’s subsidiary, 

13 affiliate, agent, subcontractor, or assignee with 

14 whom the consumer has, or prior to assignment 

15 had, an account, contract, or debtor-creditor re16 lationship for the purposes of reviewing the ac17 tive account or collecting the financial obliga18 tion owed on the account, contract, or debt. 

19 ‘‘(B) A person, or the person’s subsidiary, 

20 affiliate, agent, subcontractor, or assignee, to 

21 whom access has been granted pursuant to a 

22 request by the consumer for purposes of facili23 tating the extension of credit or other permis24 sible use. 


SSpencer on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 1810 IS

1 ‘‘(C) Any person acting pursuant to a 

2 court order, warrant, or subpoena. 

3 ‘‘(D) A Federal, State, or local govern4 ment, or an agent or assignee thereof. 

5 ‘‘(E) Any person for the sole purpose of 

6 providing a credit monitoring or identity theft 

7 protection service to which the consumer has 

8 subscribed. 

9 ‘‘(F) Any person for the purpose of pro10 viding a consumer with a copy of the consumer 

11 report, or credit score of the consumer upon the 

12 consumer’s request. 

13 ‘‘(G) Any person or entity for insurance 

14 purposes, including use in setting or adjusting 

15 a rate, adjusting a claim, or underwriting. 

16 ‘‘(H) Any person acting pursuant to an au17 thorization from a consumer to use their con18 sumer report for employment purposes. 

19 ‘‘(2) PROHIBITION ON FEES.—A consumer re20 porting agency described in section 603(p) may not 

21 charge a consumer a fee to place, temporarily lift, or 

22 fully remove a credit freeze.’’. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with BILLS