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

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTEDPURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the Quarterly Report of EPMedSystems, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30,2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), eachof the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, herebycertifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of 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 operation of the Company |

|                       |   |                                               |
|----------------------------|--------|----------------------------------------------------|
| Date:    November 10, 2005 |   | /s/ David A. Jenkins                               |
|                       |   | David A.    Jenkins                                |
|                       |   | Chairman,    President and Chief Executive Officer |
|                       |   | (Principal    Executive Officer)              |
EXHIBIT 12
 Retail Ventures, Inc.
Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
 Year Ended1/29/11
    
    
    1/30/10
    
    
    1/31/09
    
    
    2/2/08
    
    
    2/3/07EarningsIncome (loss) before income taxes, noncontrolling
interest, equity earnings and discontinued
operations
    
    $
    111,793
    
    
    $
    (53,555
    )
    
    $
    126,066
    
    
    $
    334,249
    
    
    $
    (70,627
    )Fixed charges (as below)
    
    
    53,291
    
    
    
    53,803
    
    
    
    51,790
    
    
    
    48,215
    
    
    
    38,931Total earnings (loss)
    
    $
    165,084
    
    
    $
    248
    
    
    $
    177,856
    
    
    $
    382,464
    
    
    $
    (31,696
    )Fixed ChargesInterest expense
    
    $
    13,506
    
    
    $
    13,632
    
    
    $
    13,603
    
    
    $
    13,896
    
    
    $
    8,487Estimated interest element in minimum rent
expense (3)
    
    
    39,785
    
    
    
    40,171
    
    
    
    38,187
    
    
    
    34,319
    
    
    
    30,444Total fixed charges
    
    $
    53,291
    
    
    $
    53,803
    
    
    $
    51,790
    
    
    $
    48,215
    
    
    $
    38,931Ratio of earnings (loss) to fixed charges
    
    
    3.10
    
    
    
    0.00
    (1)
    
    
    3.43
    
    
    
    7.93
    
    
    
    (0.81
    )(2)
 (1)
    
    For the year ended January 30, 2010 the earnings to cover fixed charges were
deficient by $53,555.(2)
    
    For the year ended February 3, 2007 the earnings to cover fixed charges were
deficient by $70,627.(3)
    
    Interest component is estimated to be one-third of minimum rent expense.
#### BOOKER v. STATE.

No. 20112.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 25, 1939.

Shelburne H. Glover, of Jefferson, for appellant.

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

CHRISTIAN, Judge.

The offense is assault with intent to murder; the punishment, confinement in the penitentiary for two years.

*376The transcript shows that appellant was sentenced but fails to show a judgment of conviction. In the absence of such judgment this court is without jurisdiction.

The appeal is dismissed.

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.
[No. 35247.

Department Two.

January 12, 1961.]

#### The State of Washington, *on the Relation of Mabel*Fisher, *Appellant,*v. Donald Bowman, *as Justice of the Peace for Burton Precinct, King County, Respondent.*
      *1*

*Charles H. Law,*for appellant.

Reported in 358 P. (2d) 316.

Rosellini, J.

— The appellant pleaded guilty, in justice court, to charges of driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, reckless driving, driving without an. operator’s license, and resisting arrest. No appeal was taken from the judgment and sentence entered on that plea, but the appellant thereafter sought a writ of prohibition in the superior court. When it was pointed out by the prosecutor that a writ of prohibition will not issue to restrain the action of a court where its judgment or order was entered prior to receiving notice of the writ, the court treated the petition as one asking for a writ of certiorari and issued the writ.

A hearing was held, at the conclusion of which, the court entered an order quashing the writ and dismissing the proceeding. The record before us does not reveal the ground upon which this order was entered.

Error is assigned to the quashing of the writ, the appellant contending that the justice court lacked jurisdiction because her crime was not committed within the Burton precinct (citing RCW 3.20.120) and that she had no remedy *536to test this question by appeal. The theory on which the latter contention is based is that, by pleading guilty, she waived her right to appeal. No authority is cited to this effect, and we do not find it to be the law.

On the contrary, the rule is that a plea of guilty does not preclude an appeal where collateral questions, such as the validity of the statute, the sufficiency of the information, *the jurisdiction of the court,*or the circumstances under which the plea was made, are raised. *State v. Rose,*42 Wn. (2d) 509, 256 P. (2d) 493, and cases cited therein. No reason appears why the question now raised by the appellant could not be adequately disposed of on appeal. The writ was therefore properly quashed.

The judgment is affirmed.

Weaver, C. J., Hill, Finley, and Foster, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF IMC MORTGAGE COMPANY FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30,
2000 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>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                          23,660
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    6,087
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 125,189
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     41,754
<COMMON>                                           342
<OTHER-SE>                                    (470,398)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   125,189
<SALES>                                          3,941
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 5,359
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                77,578
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              20,484
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (88,489)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       700
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (89,189)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (89,189)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (2.65)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (2.65)


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 10.4


                                 March 25, 1999


                                      VIA FACSIMILE (847-277-6996, 847-277-5978)
                                                                  & REGULAR MAIL
Mr. Jeff Batka
Mr. W. Jerome McDermott
Asset Based Financing
General Electric Capital Corporation
540 W Northwest Hwy
Barrington, Illinois  60010

         Re:      GE Approval of Y2K Date Change

Dear Jerry and Jeff:

         The  purpose  of this  letter  is to obtain  the  approval  of  General
Electric Capital Corporation ("GE") to amend Section 13.16(B) of the Amended and
Restated Motor Vehicle Installment Contract Loan and Security Agreement. Section
13.16(B)  currently  provides that Ugly Duckling shall be year 2000 compliant by
no later than March 31, 1999.  Ugly  Duckling has  requested an extension of the
March 31,  1999 date to June 30,  1999.  I  understand  you have  agreed to this
extension. The purpose of this letter is to confirm the agreement between GE and
Ugly  Duckling to amend  Section  13.16(B) of the Amended and Restated  Loan and
Security  Agreement to extend the year 2000  compliance  date from March 31st to
June 30th, 1999. Please  acknowledge your agreement to this amendment by signing
this  letter  and  returning  it to me at  your  convenience.  If you  have  any
questions or instructions  regarding this matter, please contact me at any time.
Your cooperation is appreciated.

                                   Sincerely,

                                   /S/ JON D. EHLINGER
                                   -------------------

                                   Jon D. Ehlinger
                                   General Counsel
                                   Ugly Duckling Car Sales

JDE:ag
















UDH.GE:CWJM4.DOC


<PAGE>


Mr. Jeff Batka
Mr. W. Jerome McDermott
March 25, 1999
Page Two



Cc:      Don Addink
         Mike Kasten

GE's approval to extend Ugly Duckling  "shall be year 2000 compliant by no later
than  March  31,  1999"  to June  30,  1999 is  contingent  upon  Ugly  Duckling
delivering to GE within five days after each month and starting  March 31, 1999,
progress  updates  (memos,  gnat  charts,   contingency  strategy,  etc.)  which
highlight significant deadline misses and the impact of such misses.

Accepted and approved this 23 day of March, 1999.

General Electric Capital Corporation

By:      /s/ JEFF BATKA
         ---------------
Name:    Jeff Batka
Its:     Account Executive
Exhibit 10.9


Date: 5 August 2006


Our ref: D/P/HIMJ/00534/06(A)


Atlantic Components Limited

B24-27, 1st Floor, Block B

Proficient Industrial Centre

6 Wang Kwun Road

Kowloon Bay, Kowloon


Dear Sirs,


Banking Facilities: Atlantic Components Limited (“Borrower”)


          We,
DBS Bank (Hong Kong) Limited (“Bank”), refer to our letter dated 27 June 2006 together with the ‘‘Terms and
Conditions Governing
Banking Facilities and Services” attached therein setting out the facilities made available to you
(collectively called “the
Existing Facility Letter”). 


          We
are pleased to confirm that all the terms and conditions under the Existing
Facility Letter shall remain
unchanged except the following variations until further notice:


PRICING
AND CONDITIONS:


Only the pricing and conditions which are subject to revision are
listed below, other terms and conditions corresponding to the respective
Facilities mentioned under the above heading of the Existing Facility Letter remain
unchanged:-






	
 

	
 

	
 

	
 

	
 


	
Letter of Credit (“L/C”)

	
 

	
L/C Opening Commission

	
 

	
 


	
 

	
 

	
1st USD50,000.

	
 

	
1/4%


	
 

	
 

	
Balance

	
 

	
1/16%


	
 

	
 

	
 

	
 

	
 


	
Account Payable Financing

	
 

	
Account Payable Financing Commission


	
 

	
 

	
1st USD50,000.

	
 

	
1/4%


	
 

	
 

	
Balance

	
 

	
1/16%





          If you have
any queries, please contact Mr Terence Fung, whose telephone number is 2218-8901.


          We are
pleased to be of service to you.


	
 

	
 


	
Signed for and on behalf of

	
 


	
DBS Bank (Hong Kong)
Limited 

	
 


	
by:

	
 


	
 


	


	
 


	


	
 


	
Authorised Signature

	
 





FN/mh


	
 

	
 

	
 

	
 


	
 

	
DBS Bank (Hong Kong) Limited

	
 

	
Tel 852 221 8 8598


	
 

	
Enterprise Banking

	
 

	
Fax 852 2285 3628


	
 

	
16th Floor, The Center

	
 

	
www.dbs.com


	
 

	
99 Queen’s Road Central 

	
 

	
 


	
 

	
Central, Hong Kong
Exhibit 31.2
**Certification of Chief Financial Officer**
I, C. Robert Campbell, certify that:
 1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q ofTIMCO Aviation Services, Inc.;  2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does notcontain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state amaterial fact necessary to make the statements made, in light ofthe circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, andother financial information included in this report, fairlypresent in all material respects the financial condition, resultsof operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, theperiods presented in this report;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I areresponsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controlsand procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:
 a) designed such disclosure controls andprocedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensurethat material information relating to the registrant,including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to usby others within those entities, particularly during theperiod in which this report is being prepared;  b) Intentionally omitted.  c) Evaluated the effectiveness of theregistrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, asof the end of the period covered by this report based onsuch evaluation; and  d) Disclosed in this report any change in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting thatoccurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarterthat has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and
 5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I havedisclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal controlover financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent function):
 a) all significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation of internal controlover financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record,process, summarize and report financial information; and  b) any fraud, whether or not material, thatinvolves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.
   Date: May 13, 2004    /s/ C. Robert Campbell  C. Robert Campbell Chief Financial Officer
29
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-6557

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

BENNY LYNN ISOM,

Defendant - Appellant.

No. 23-6112

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

BENNY LYNN ISOM,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at 

Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, Chief District Judge. (1:03-cr-00241-TDS-1; 1:03-cr00242-TDS-1)

Submitted: June 26, 2023 Decided: July 5, 2023

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6112 Doc: 9 Filed: 07/05/2023 Pg: 1 of 4
2

Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Benny Lynn Isom, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6112 Doc: 9 Filed: 07/05/2023 Pg: 2 of 4
3

PER CURIAM:

Benny Lynn Isom appeals from the district court’s orders denying his motions for a 

sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i), and reconsideration. We affirm.

District courts may reduce a term of imprisonment if “extraordinary and compelling 

reasons warrant such a reduction,” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i), and we review a court’s 

ruling on the motion for abuse of discretion, United States v. Kibble, 992 F.3d 326, 329 

(4th Cir. 2021). When deciding whether to reduce a defendant’s sentence based on 

“extraordinary and compelling” circumstances, a court generally proceeds in three steps.

United States v. High, 997 F.3d 181, 185-86 (4th Cir. 2021). First, the court decides 

whether “extraordinary and compelling” circumstances in fact support a sentence 

reduction. Id. at 186. Second, the court considers whether granting a sentence reduction 

is “consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the United States Sentencing 

Commission.” Id. (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)). But there is as of now no 

applicable policy statement governing compassionate release motions filed by defendants. 

Courts are thus “empowered to consider any extraordinary and compelling reason for 

release that a defendant might raise.” United States v. McCoy, 981 F.3d 271, 284 

(4th Cir. 2020) (cleaned up). If the defendant passes the first two steps, the court then 

considers at the third step whether the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, “to the extent that they 

are applicable,” favor early release. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). Courts have “broad 

discretion” in analyzing those factors. United States v. Bethea, 54 F.4th 826, 834 

(4th Cir. 2022) (internal quotation marks omitted).

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6112 Doc: 9 Filed: 07/05/2023 Pg: 3 of 4
4

We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that, 

even if Isom showed extraordinary and compelling reasons for his release, the § 3553(a) 

sentencing factors did not warrant any reduction. Accordingly, we affirm the district 

court’s orders. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

AFFIRMED

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6112 Doc: 9 Filed: 07/05/2023 Pg: 4 of 4
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Medivation, Inc. (the Company) hereby certifies, to such officers knowledge, that:

(1) the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2007 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
Section 15(d), as applicable, 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.

Dated: August 13, 2007



|       |  |                                      
|------ |  | -------------------------------------
|       |  | /s/ David T. Hung, M.D.              
|Name:  |  | David T. Hung, M.D.                  
|Title: |  | President and Chief Executive Officer

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350,
and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any
general incorporation language in such filing.
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT M AR SHA B R

ANDON, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt, v. LOS ANGELES C OUNTY SHERIFF DEPAR TM ENT; M OR

ALES, De puty , individua l a

nd offic ia l c a

p a c ity , De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 14-56815 D.C . No. 2:13-c v-07613-PSG-E M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia Philip S. Gutierre z , Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d

Nove m b e r 18, 2015 ** B e fore : TASHIM A , OW ENS, a nd FR IEDLAND, C irc uit Judge s. M arsha B ra ndon a ppe a ls pro se from the distric t c o urt’ s judgm e nt dism issing he r 42 U.S.C . § 1983 a c tion a lle ging va rious c o nstitutiona

l c la im s. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e re vie w for an a buse of disc re tion 

# FIL ED N OV 27 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).a

dism i ssa l for fa ilure to se rve a sum m ons a nd c om pla int in a tim e ly m anne r. Oy ama v . She e han (

In reShe e h an ), 253 F.3d 507, 511 (9th C ir. 2001). W e va c a te and re m and. The distric t c ourt dismisse d B randon’ s a c tion without pre judic e be c a

use B randon fa ile d to show good c a use a s to why she did not provide the U.S. M arsha ls Se rvic e with suffic ie nt inform a tion to se rve “ De puty M ora le s.” Howe ve r, the re c ord indic a te s tha t B randon provide d the U.S. M arsha l s Se rvic e with De puty

M ora le s’ la s t na

m e , his pla c e of e m

ploy m e n t, a nd the date , tim e , a

nd loc ation of thea lle ge d inc ide nt. Se e Pue tt v . Blandford , 912 F.2d 270, 275 (9th C ir. 1990) (a

prisone r “ proc e e ding in form a pa upe ris is e ntitle d

to re ly on the U.S. M arsha l for se rvic e ” and a s long a s he or she “ provide [s] the ne c e ssa ry inform a tion to he lp e ffe c t

uate se rvic e ,” a

prisone r “ s hould not be pe na liz e d by having his or her a c tion dism

isse d for fa ilure to e ffe c t se rvic e whe re the U.S. M a rsha l . . . ha s fa ile d to pe rform

[its] dutie s” ). The re c ord doe s not indic a te why the U.S. M arsha l or the She riff’ s De pa

rtm e nt wa s una

ble to e ffe c t

uate se rvic e . Ac c ordingly , we va c a te and re m and for furthe r proc e e dings, inc l uding, if ne c e ssa ry , a de te rm ination of theU.S. M arsha l’ s or She riff’ s De pa rtm e nt’ s e fforts to ide ntify or loc a t e De puty

M ora le s.

1 4 - 5 6 8 1 5 2W e do not c onside r argum e nts a n d a l le gations ra ise d for the first tim e on a ppe a l. Se e Padge tt v . W

right , 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th C ir. 2009) (pe r c uriam ). V ACAT E D and RE M ANDE D .

1 4 - 5 6 8 1 5 3
<PAGE>
                                                            EXHIBIT 23.1
                                       
                 CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on 
Form S-8 (File Nos. 333-14839 and 333-21911) of our report dated April 8, 
1997 on our audits of the consolidated financial statements of National 
Quality Care, Inc. and subsidiary as of December 31, 1996 and 1995, and for 
the years then ended, which is included in this Annual Report on Form 10-KSB.



/s/ SINGER LEWAK GREENBAUM & GOLDSTEIN LLP

SINGER LEWAK GREENBAUM & GOLDSTEIN LLP


Los Angeles, California
April 15, 1997