alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 32**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted), each of the undersigned officers of MaximPharmaceuticals, Inc. (the “**Company**”),hereby certifies that to the best of his knowledge:

 

**1.****                                     **TheCompany’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30,2004, and to which this Certification is attached as Exhibit 32 (the “**Periodic Report**”) fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, and

 

**2.****                                     **Theinformation contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

**IN WITNESS WHEREOF,**eachof the undersigned has set his hands hereto as of the 6th day ofAugust, 2004.

 
|   | /s/ Larry G. Stambaugh                       |
|--------|----------------------------------------------|
|   | Larry G. Stambaugh, Chief Executive  Officer |
|   |                                         |
|   | /s/ Anthony E. Altig                         |
|   | Anthony E. Altig, Chief Financial Officer    |

 

A signed original of this written statement required bySection 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by theCompany and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission (**“SEC”**) or its staff upon request.

 

This certification “accompanies” the Form 10-Q to which it relates, isnot deemed filed with the SEC and is not to be incorporated by reference intoany filing of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after thedate of the Form 10-Q), irrespective of any general incorporation languagecontained in such filing).

 

1

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
UNAUDITED   CONDENSED   CONSOLIDATED   FINANCIAL   STATEMENTS  INCLUDED  IN  THE
REGISTRANT'S  FORM 10-Q FOR THE PERIOD  ENDED JUNE 30, 1997 AND IS  QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FORM 10-Q.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0001012270
<NAME>                        COLLAGENEX PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. Dollars
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 APR-1-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         14,673
<SECURITIES>                                   12,603
<RECEIVABLES>                                  163
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               27,551
<PP&E>                                         118
<DEPRECIATION>                                 34
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 27,646
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          1,902
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       85
<OTHER-SE>                                     25,659
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   27,646
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               300
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  2,764
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,082)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,082)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,082)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (0.24)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.24)
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.1
                                                                    ------------

                      CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
                        OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


         The undersigned, Robert A.. Levinson, Chief Executive Officer of Levcor
International, Inc. (the "Company"), hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:

         (1)      the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year
                  ending December 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities and
                  Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Annual 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 Annual Report fairly
                  presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
                  and results of operations of the Company.


By: /s/ ROBERT A. LEVINSON
    ----------------------------------
    Name:  Robert A. Levinson
    Title: Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer


March 22, 2004

                                      -59-
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
CONSOLIDATED  FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF ICG COMMUNICATIONS,  INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000

<S>                                         <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                     9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                              JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                          216,714
<SECURITIES>                                     17,536
<RECEIVABLES>                                   251,504
<ALLOWANCES>                                     57,864
<INVENTORY>                                      19,839
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                447,729
<PP&E>                                        2,650,813
<DEPRECIATION>                                (457,363)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                2,789,927
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           598,500
<BONDS>                                       4,129,699
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                         1,222,896
<PREFERRED>                                       0<F1>
<COMMON>                                            520
<OTHER-SE>                                  (1,243,285)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  2,789,927
<SALES>                                           0<F1>
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                477,778
<CGS>                                             0<F1>
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   304,202
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                429,719
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 31,688
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              195,406
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (431,461)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         10
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (482,899)
<DISCONTINUED>                                    0<F1>
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                   0<F1>
<CHANGES>                                         0<F1>
<NET-INCOME>                                  (673,178)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (13.58)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0<F1>



</TABLE>
# C_2022336EN.01003801.xml

| 2.9.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 336/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.9.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 336/38

---

P9_TA(2022)0003

Nomination of a member of the Court of Auditors — Marek Opiola

European Parliament decision of 20 January 2022 on the nomination of Marek Opiola as a Member of the Court of Auditors (C9-0406/2021 — 2021/0803(NLE))

(Consultation)

(2022/C 336/07)

The European Parliament,

| — | having regard to Article 286(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C9-0406/2021), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Article 286(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C9-0406/2021),

| — | having regard to Rule 129 of its Rules of Procedure, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Rule 129 of its Rules of Procedure,

| — | having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgetary Control (A9-0004/2022), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgetary Control (A9-0004/2022),

| A. | whereas, by letter of 5 November 2021, the Council consulted Parliament on the nomination of Marek Opiola as a Member of the Court of Auditors; |
| --- | --- |

A.

whereas, by letter of 5 November 2021, the Council consulted Parliament on the nomination of Marek Opiola as a Member of the Court of Auditors;

| B. | whereas Parliament’s Committee on Budgetary Control then proceeded to evaluate the credentials of the nominee, in particular in view of the requirements laid down in Article 286(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

B.

whereas Parliament’s Committee on Budgetary Control then proceeded to evaluate the credentials of the nominee, in particular in view of the requirements laid down in Article 286(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union;

| C. | whereas the committee subsequently held a hearing with the nominee on 10 January 2022, at which the nominee made an opening statement and then answered questions put by the members of the committee; |
| --- | --- |

C.

whereas the committee subsequently held a hearing with the nominee on 10 January 2022, at which the nominee made an opening statement and then answered questions put by the members of the committee;

| 1. | Delivers an unfavourable opinion on the Council’s nomination of Marek Opiola as a Member of the Court of Auditors and asks the Council to withdraw its nomination and submit a new one to Parliament; |
| --- | --- |

1.

| 2. | Instructs its President to forward this decision to the Council and, for information, the Court of Auditors, the other institutions of the European Union and the audit institutions of the Member States. |
| --- | --- |

2.

---
```

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 51 (Friday, March 15, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 16565]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-06036]

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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 8239]

Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition 
Determinations: ``Le Corbusier: An Atlas of Modern Landscapes''

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: 
Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 
(79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 
1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 
Stat. 2681, et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, et seq.), Delegation of 
Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, Delegation of Authority No. 236-3 
of August 28, 2000 (and, as appropriate, Delegation of Authority No. 
257 of April 15, 2003), I hereby determine that the objects to be 
included in the exhibition ``Le Corbusier: An Atlas of Modern 
Landscapes,'' imported from abroad for temporary exhibition within the 
United States, are of cultural significance. The objects are imported 
pursuant to loan agreements with the foreign owners or custodians. I 
also determine that the exhibition or display of the exhibit objects at 
The Museum of Modern Art, New York, NY, from on or about June 9, 2013, 
until on or about September 23, 2013, and at possible additional 
exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, is in the national 
interest. I have ordered that Public Notice of these Determinations be 
published in the Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, including a 
list of the exhibit objects, contact Julie Simpson, Attorney-Adviser, 
Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-
632-6467). The mailing address is U.S. Department of State, SA-5, L/PD, 
Fifth Floor (Suite 5H03), Washington, DC 20522-0505.

    Dated: March 11, 2013.
J. Adam Ereli,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Educational and 
Cultural Affairs, Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2013-06036 Filed 3-14-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
```
115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2758 

AN ACT 

To amend title 36, United States Code, to provide for the 

display of the National League of Families POW/MIA 

flag at the World War I Memorials. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

†S 2758 ES

1 SECTION 1. DISPLAY OF NATIONAL LEAGUE OF FAMILIES 

2 POW/MIA FLAG AT THE WORLD WAR I MEMO3 RIALS. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subsection (d)(3) of section 902 

5 of title 36, United States Code, is amended by striking 

6 ‘‘The World War II Memorial,’’ and inserting ‘‘The World 

7 War I Memorials, the World War II Memorial,’’. 

8 (b) DAYS FOR DISPLAY.—Subsection (c)(2)(A) of 

9 such section is amended by inserting ‘‘the World War I 

10 Memorials,’’ before ‘‘the World War II Memorial,’’. 

Passed the Senate April 25, 2018. 

Attest: 

Secretary. 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2758 

AN ACT 

To amend title 36, United States Code, to provide 

rials. lies POW/MIA flag at the World War I Memofor the display of the National League of Fami-
#### BURKLEY v. STATE.

No. 16442.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Dec. 20, 1933.

See, also, 66 S.W.(2d) 311.

Frank D. Ivey, of Dallas, for appellant

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

CHRISTIAN, Judge.

The offense is murder; the punishment death.

It was charged in the indictment, in substance, that appellant, with malice aforethought, hilled Katherine Prince by shooting her with a pistol.

Appellant entered á plea of guilty.

Appellant is a negro. He and his brother, Bluit Burkley, worked on a farm near the scene of the murder. On the night of the homicide, deceased, who was a white girl nineteen years of age, left her father’s home in company with a young man named Mace Carver. While driving on the highway, deceased and her companion were overtaken by appellant and his brother Bluit. Forcing the eouple to accompany them, appellant and his brother drove to a secluded spot and stopped the automobile. Appellant made Carver get out of the car and go with him to a thicket. After firing two shots into Carver’s body, which inflicted serious wounds, appellant returned to the automobile and took deceased into a field, where he reguested her to have sexual intercourse with him. According to appellant’s confession, deceased advised him that she was sick. Further, according to the confession, appellant verified deceased’s statement by placing his hand.on her. At this juncture Bluit Burkley shot deceased several times. Upon being arrested, appellant directed the officers to the spot where deceased’s body was found. The watch of Carver and a ring deceased was wearing were discovered in the house occupied by appellant and his brother. Also a pistol which appeared to have been recently fired was discovered in this house.

Testifying in his own behalf appellant admitted that he shot Carver, but declared that he had no intention of killing him when he took him into the woods. He said that his nervousness caused him to fire the shots. He admitted that he reguested deceased to have sexual intercourse with him. He declared, however, that he did not shoot deceased, and did not encourage his brother to shoot her.

No bills of exception are found in the record. The evidence is deemed sufficient to support the judgment of conviction.

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.
#### Roberts, Appellant, *v.*Philadelphia Rapid Transit Company.

*Practice, Supreme Court*— Assignments *of error*— Error *in charge —Failure to except.*

An assignment of error complaining of the charge of the Court will not be considered where no special or general exception was taken thereto.

Argued Feb. 25, 1916.

Appeal, No. 381, Jan. T., 1914, by plaintiffs, from judgment of C. P. No. 2, Philadelphia Co., June T., 1907, No. 3492, on verdict for defendant in case of Hugh Roberts and Louisa E. Roberts, Executors of the last will of Charles H. Roberts, Deceased, v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Company.

Before Brown, C. J., Mestrezat, Potter, Moscitzisker and Walling, JJ.

Affirmed.

Trespass to recover damages for personal injuries. Before Staples, P. J., specially presiding.

From the record it appeared that Charles H. Roberts was injured while riding on one of defendant’s street cars. The jury rendered a verdict for the defendant and plaintiffs appealed to the Supreme Court, assigning as error the charge of the lower court. No exceptions, either special or general, were taken to the charge*.

Verdict for defendant and judgment thereon. Plaintiffs appealed.

*Error assigned*was the charge of the court.

*John Lamon*and *Eugh Roberts,*for appellants.

*Sydney Young,*for appellee.

March 20, 1916 :

Per Curiam,

The only assignments of error which are in compliance *127with our rules relate to the charge of the court, and the only complaint of counsel for appellant in their brief argument is of it, but, as no special or general exception was taken to it, the assignments cannot be considered: Foley v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Co., 240 Pa. 169.

Judgment affirmed.
#### SCOTT v. STATE.

No. 18360.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

May 27, 1936.

*141M. E. Gates, of Huntsville, and Burch Downman, of Houston, for appellant.

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

LATTIMORE, Judge.

Conviction for permitting a gaming device to remain upon premises of appellant; punishment, thirty days in the county jail.

The statement of facts found in the record is not approved by the county judge or authenticated in any way so that same can be considered. The information charged that appellant permitted a gaming device, to wit, a device commonly known as a marble machine, to remain in his possession and on his premises to be used for gaming purposes.

There are no bills of exception or complaints of procedure, save a motion in arrest of judgment, based on the proposition that if appellant is guilty of any offense it is a felony and not a misdemeanor. Article 630, P.C. provides that if any person shall knowingly permit any table or device or equipment to remain in his possession or on premises under his control, or of which he is owner and to be used for gaming purposes, he shall be imprisoned in jail not less than thirty days nor more than one year. Article 630, P.C. was a part of chapter 49, Acts Regular Session of 30th Legislature, which also contained articles 625 and 626, P.C., making a felon of him who keeps any premise, etc., or rents to another any premises, etc., for the purpose of being used as a place to bet, wager, etc., or as a place to keep or exhibit for the purpose of gaming any table, bank, alley, machine, wheel, or device whatsoever; or as a place where people resort to gamble, bet, or wager on anything whatever. Since said article 630, supra, seems aimed at him who permits gaming tables, etc., to remain on his premises, or on premises of which he is owner, but which may not be actually in use as such gaming devices, tables, etc., we have upheld misdemeanor convictions in cases of prosecutions under said article charging that the accused permitted these tables, devices, etc., to remain on his premises. See Abraham v. State, 118 Tex.Cr.R. 136, 39 S.W.(2d) 42; France v. State (Tex.Cr.App.) 39 S.W.(2d) 43. It seems clear to us that said article 630 would, and could, have no application to any state of facts from which it appeared that the paraphernalia, devices, tables, etc., mentioned or included in said article, were being made use of at such place for playing or exhibiting any games for which such devices, tables, etc., were usable as gambling tables and devices, and upon which money or other thing of value was being bet, wagered, or staked. There is before us in the case at bar no statement of facts, but we wish to make it clear, in affirming this case, that we have in mind only that we find no necessary conflict in these statutes, and are merely upholding a misdemeanor conviction in a case whose facts, if before us, might show guilt of a felony, in which case we might hold otherwise.

Finding no error in the record, the judgment will be affirmed.
#### PHELPS v. STATE.

No. 18353.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Oct. 14, 1936.

Walter T. Keith and George N. Lusch, both of Houston, for appellant.

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

CHRISTIAN, Judge.

The offense is aggravated assault; the punishment, a fine of $500.

This is a conviction for that form of aggravated assault denounced by article 1149, P.C., which in substance makes the driver or operator of a motor vehicle on a public highway guilty of aggravated assault if he shall “wilfully, or with negligence, as is defined in this title in the chapter on negligent homicide, collide with or cause injury less than death to any other person.”

The complaint and information charge the assault to have been made on Arlene Bistrow. She did not testify. Mrs. Bis-trow testified that immediately after the accident she picked up “her little girl” and took her to the hospital. She testified further that “her little girl’s leg was broken.” No witness testified that the injured party’s name was Arlene Bistrow, as alleged in the complaint and information. Throughout the testimony the child who was injured in the accident was merely referred to as the little girl. The failure to prove that the assault was made on Arlene Bis-trow, as alleged, necessitates a reversal of the judgment. See Stewart v. State, 31 Tex.Cr.R. 153, 19 S.W. 908.

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

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.