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

CERTIFICATION

I, Scipio M. Carnecchia, President and Chief Executive
Officer of Accelrys, Inc. (the Company) and I, Michael A. Piraino, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer 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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended December 31,
2009, (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 for the period covered by this Report.



/s/ Scipio M. CarnecchiaScipio M. CarnecchiaPresident and Chief Executive Officer/s/ Michael A. PirainoMichael A. PirainoSenior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer andPrincipal Accounting Officer)Date: February 9, 2010


A signed original
of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

This certification accompanies the Report to which it relates, is not deemed filed with the SEC and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing
of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange of 1934, as amended, whether made before or after the date of the Report and irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

PROVER SELLERS 

~VrORNEv GENERAL 

loJtt? in Vernon's &no 

%e1tenected tlmstateefTexe8; 

tlm Revimd Cl.vil 

atatuteII of I.8 hereby mmlded 

6 at cltibs and tcuar inBhal vithln tlmlr disEald counclla of 

et their rlrot metmactlcul exercise l c h dub - 

"seet100 2. The foctth8tMdhr tha exieting&tatutea 

the colmcPls of Ci?a.e6 and towna b9wxprated uwbr ths
##### 



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
  (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 result of operations of the Company.
 Date: November 9, 2005
    By:
    /s/ Joseph PivinskiName:
    Joseph PivinskiTitle:
    Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1343 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

<DOC>
115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1343

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                April 5 (legislative day, April 4), 2017

     Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, 
                       Housing, and Urban Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To direct the Securities and Exchange Commission to revise its rules so 
 as to increase the threshold amount for requiring issuers to provide 
      certain disclosures relating to compensatory benefit plans.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Encouraging Employee Ownership Act 
of 2017''.

SEC. 2. INCREASED THRESHOLD FOR DISCLOSURES RELATING TO COMPENSATORY 
              BENEFIT PLANS.

    Not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, 
the Securities and Exchange Commission shall revise section 230.701(e) 
of title 17, Code of Federal Regulations, so as to increase from 
$5,000,000 to $10,000,000 the aggregate sales price or amount of 
securities sold during any consecutive 12-month period in excess of 
which the issuer is required under such section to deliver an 
additional disclosure to investors. The Commission shall index for 
inflation such aggregate sales price or amount every 5 years to reflect 
the change in the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers 
published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, rounding to the nearest 
$1,000,000.

            Passed the House of Representatives April 4, 2017.

            Attest:

                                                 KAREN L. HAAS,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
| (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. |
|-----------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                            |   |                                                               |   |
|---------------------------------|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Dated: April      15, 2010 | By:    | /s/      Philmore      Anderson IV                                 |   |
|                            |   | Philmore      Anderson IV                                          |   |
|                            |   | Chief      Executive Officer                                       |   |
|                            |   | (principal      executive officer and principal financial officer) |   |

----
FEDERAL REGISTER: 53 FR 44144 (November 1, 1988)

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

AGENCY: Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM)

30 CFR Part 773

Requirements for Surface Coal Mining and Reclamation Permit Approval; Ownership and Control

ACTION: Correction 

In rule document 88-22541 beginning on page 38868 in the issue of Monday, October 3, 1988, make the following 

corrections:

1. On page 38870, in the second column, in the first complete paragraph, in the 12th line, "50 CFR 700.5" should 

read "30 CFR 700.5"

2. On page 38877, in the second column, in the sixth line, "whenever" should read "whomever".

3. On the same page, in the same column, in the first complete paragraph, in the fifth line, "annual" should read 

"annul".

4. On page 38879, in the third column, in the last paragraph, "GSMRE" should read "OSMRE".

5. On page 38880, in the first column, in the first complete paragraph, in the last line, "GSMRE" should read 

"OSMRE".

6. On page 38882, in the first column, in the first complete paragraph, in the seventh line, "is" should read "in".

7. On page 38883, in the second column, in the fourth complete paragraph, in the 13th line, "30 CFR 773.15(B)(i)" 

should read "30 CFR 773.15(b)(1)(i)".

§ 773.5 [Corrected]

8. On page 38890, in the first column, in § 773.5(a)(1), in the third line, "instrument" should read "instruments".

9. On the same page, in the same column, in § 773.5(b)(1), in the first line, "of director" should read "director or".

10. On the same page, in the second column, in § 773.5(b)(4), "is" should read "in".

BILLING CODE 1505-01-D
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-1792

MR. JOHN MALCOLM DICKSON, JR.,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF 

JUSTICE, Attorney General of the United States of America; 

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, For the Eastern District of 

Virginia,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Arenda L. Wright Allen, 

District Judge. (2:13-cv-00253-AWA-DEM)

Submitted: February 19, 2015 Decided: April 2, 2015

Before THACKER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and William L. 

OSTEEN, Jr., Chief United States District Judge for the Middle 

District of North Carolina, sitting by designation.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John M. Dickson, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. George Maralan Kelley, 

III, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for 

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

John Malcolm Dickson, Jr., appeals the district court’s 

order dismissing his civil complaint. We have reviewed the 

record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for 

the reasons stated by the district court. Dickson v. United 

States, No. 2:13-cv-00253-AWA-DEM (E.D. Va. June 10, 2014). 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
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jose Perez, Appellant.

[632 NYS2d 1023]

Judgment unanimously affirmed *(see, People v Saunders,*190 AD2d 1092, 1093, *lv denied*81 NY2d 1019). (Appeal from Judgment of Erie County Court, Rogowski, J. — Criminal Possession Controlled Substance, 2nd Degree.) Present — Denman, P. J., Pine, Wesley, Balio and Davis, JJ.
#### Ziemke (Herbert), Respondent, vs. Faber and others, Appellants.

*March 2*

June *2, 1936.*

' *Geo. W. Taylor*of Kenosha, for the appellants.

For the respondent there was a brief by *Gittings, Janecky & Buelow*of Racine, and oral argument by *Earl F. Buelow.*

The following opinion was filed March 31, 1936:

Fowler, J.

This is an automobile collision case. The same facts are involved as in the case of Emilie Ziemke against the same defendants, *ante,*p. 512, 266 N. W. 217. The two cases were tried together and the two judgments rest upon the same verdict. The plaintiff herein was the driver of one of the cars involved in the collision and the defendant Robert Faber was the driver of the other. The plaintiff herein recovered judgment on the findings of the jury as to Faber’s negligence. We ruled in the other case that there was no evidence to support the findings of the jury in that respect. That ruling requires dismissal of the plaintiff’s complaint. The opinion in that case is referred to in support of such dismissal.

The defendant Millie Faber was the owner of the automobile driven by the defendant Robert Faber. She counter*518claimed against the plaintiff for the damages received by her car in the collision. Those damages were assessed by the jury at $150. No fault is found with this assessment. She claims that judgment should have been entered in her favor for the damages so assessed.

The facts supporting her right of recovery if the plaintiff's negligence caused the collision are entirely without dispute. She owned the automobile driven by Robert Faber, who was her son. Robert was a minor twenty years of age. ITe was employed as a farm hand a few miles from his mother’s home. The collision occurred on July 4th. Robert was spending the day at the home of his mother. In the afternoon his mother permitted him to take the car to go to the farm where he was employed to do^ his chores. The collision occurred while he was on the way home after finishing them.

From the facts above stated, it is apparent that Mrs. Faber is entitled to recover the damages assessed if the plaintiff was negligent. The opinion in the companion case is referred to for a statement of the facts bearing upon the question of his negligence. It was stated in that opinion, and it is here decided, as matter of law, that the plaintiff was guilty of negligence that proximately caused the collision. It follows that Mrs. Faber is entitled to judgment upon her counterclaim.

*By, the Court.*— The judgment of the circuit court is reversed, with directions to enter judgment dismissing the plaintiff’s complaint, and to enter judgment upon the counterclaim of Millie Faber for the damages assessed by the jury.

A motion for a rehearing was denied, without costs, on June 2, 1936.
#### Maas, Respondent, vs. Lutz and others, Appellants.

*March 7*

June *6, 1939.*

*424*P. F. Leuch*of Milwaukee, for the appellants.

For the respondent there were briefs by *Holt & Coombs*of Waukesha, and *Walter H. Meyer*of Menomonee Falls, and oral argument by *A. N. Coombs.*

The following opinion was filed April 11, 1939:

Fairchild, J.

The trial court found and the evidence establishes that the Edward Lutz Sand & Gravel Company took possession of the gravel pit owned by Robert Maas, and that the Lutz Company, through its officer, Edward Lutz, agreed to pay therefor in accordance with the terms of a lease which had been given to Edwin Arpe. Maas testified that the Lutz Company negotiated for and was operating the pit and the evidence considered as controlling by the trial court is that the company had accepted responsibility under the lease.

There can be no question but that plaintiff believed he was dealing with the Lutz Company after Arpe gave up his lease, and that he was warranted in SO' believing because of the conduct of the Lutz Company officer. The contention that the Arpe Sand & Gravel Company was the tenant and that the liability for rent vests upon it did not survive the analysis *425of the testimony m the trial court. The Arpe Company was organized to serve the purpose of the Lutz Company and to enable it to operate the sand and gravel pit without protest from a combination of companies which had agreed on an apportionment of business in the territory where Lutz was operating. This arrangement was of no concern to the plaintiff, nor does the fact that the written lease was in the name of the Arpe Company interpose an obstacle to holding the Lutz Company under the informal agreement entered into by its officers and fully performed by Maas.

There was no written assignment from the Arpe Company to the Lutz Company, but the facts proved are sufficient to enable the plaintiff to maintain his action, since the Lutz Company was actually in possession of the pit and controlled the avails of the contract. Sec. 234.09, Stats., provides that every person in possession of land out of which rent is due shall be liable for the amount of rent due from the land in his possession, and that in any action for the recovery of such rent, the deed of demise, if there be any, showing the provisions of the lease, may be used in evidence by either party to prove the amount due from the defendant. Since it appears beyond cjuestion that the Lutz Company was in possession of the land and was fully cognizant of the terms of the lease fixing the rent due out of it, under the circumstances this statute gives the plaintiff the right to recover. *Wittman v. Milwaukee, Lake Shore & Western R. Co.*(1881) 51 Wis. 89, 8 N. W. 6; *DePere Co. v. Reynen*(1886), 65 Wis. 271, 281, 22 N. W. 761, 27 N. W. 155*; Brown v. Loewenbach*(1935), 217 Wis. 379, 385, 258 N. W. 379; *Meacham Investment Co. v. Rubin*(1938), 229 Wis. 415, 282 N. W. 575.

*By the Court.*— Judgment affirmed.

A motion for a rehearing was denied, with $25 costs, on June 6, 1939.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20-1693

NATHANIEL HAMPTON JONES,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

GRANTHAM & PROPERTIES,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. 

J. Michelle Childs, District Judge. (4:19-cv-00779-JMC)

Submitted: September 22, 2020 Decided: September 24, 2020

Before NIEMEYER, KEENAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Nathaniel Hampton Jones, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Nathaniel Hampton Jones appeals the district court’s order accepting the 

recommendation of the magistrate judge and remanding his civil action to the Florence 

County Court of Common Pleas. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. 

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Jones v. Grantham & 

Props., No. 4:19-cv-00779-JMC (D.S.C. June 12, 2020). 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
**EXHIBIT 23**

 

 

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLICACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

We consent to the incorporation by referencein Registration Statements No. 333-74616 and No. 333-146214 on Form S-8, of our report dated March 13, 2014 on our audits of theconsolidated financial statements of Sierra Bancorp and Subsidiary and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reportingappearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

 

 

/s/ Vavrinek, Trine, Day & Co., LLP

 

Rancho Cucamonga, California

July 22, 2014
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S CONSOLIDATED CONDENSED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED
JUNE 30, 1997 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-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                  JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                    JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                2,590
<SECURITIES>                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                        29,089
<ALLOWANCES>                          1,121
<INVENTORY>                           3,488
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                     18,505
<PP&E>                               14,137
<DEPRECIATION>                        2,932
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                       52,134
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                 6,646
<BONDS>                              14,959
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                     0
<PREFERRED>                               0
<COMMON>                                129
<OTHER-SE>                           30,711
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>         52,134
<SALES>                              11,757
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                     18,520
<CGS>                                 3,173
<TOTAL-COSTS>                        18,089
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                          0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                        100
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                      621
<INCOME-PRETAX>                         431
<INCOME-TAX>                              0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                     431
<DISCONTINUED>                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<CHANGES>                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                            431
<EPS-PRIMARY>                           .03
<EPS-DILUTED>                           .03
        


</TABLE>
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

U.S. Indo-Pacific CommandUSINDOPACOM

U.S. Indo-Pacific Command

Search

Search
Search

-  Home		 
-  Leadership    -  Commander         
  -  Deputy Commander         
  -  Chief of Staff         
  -  Senior Enlisted Leader 
-  About USINDOPACOM    -  History         
  -  USPACOM Area of Responsibility         
  -  USPACOM Previous Commanders         
  -  Women, Peace and Security 
-  Organization    -  Organization Chart 
-  Media    -  News      -  Spotlight 
  -  Photos         
  -  Speeches / Testimony         
  -  Freedom of Information Act      -  FOIA - Reading Room         
    -  Submit FOIA Request         
    -  Request Status         
    -  FOIA FAQS 
-  Resources    -  Travel Requirements         
  -  Useful Theater Information         
  -  FAQ         
  -  Useful Links 
-  Newcomers		 
-  Contact    -  Directory         
  -  Media Inquiries         
  -  Industry Engagements 
-  JTF - Red Hill		 
-  JTF-Micronesia		 

Home : Media : News : News Article View

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

# Alaska State Defense Force: A tradition of homeland protection

By Victoria GranadoAlaska National Guard Public Affairs

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-4401

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus WILLIAM LUTHER YOUNG, JR., Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District ofMaryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge. (CR96-393-DKC) Submitted: October 31, 1997 Decided: December 3, 1997 Before ERVIN and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James K. Bredar, Federal Public Defender, Beth M. Faber, Chief Assistant Federal Defender, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant. Lynne A. Battagalia, United States Attorney, Deborah A. Johnston, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).23 PER CURIAM: William Luther Young, Jr. appeals his conviction and sentence for interstate travel with intent to engage in a sex act with minor in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2423(b) (1994). Appellant contends that the statute: (1) exceeds Congress’s authority under the CommerceClause; (2) is unconstitutionally vague; (3) impinges upon constitutionally protected behavior; and (4) does not require the necessary overt act. Appellant, who was residing in Pennsylvania, established contact through the Internet with a 12-year old Maryland girl. He traveled to Maryland to meet her, at which time he had sexual contact with her. He traveled again to Maryland to meet her and was arrested. The Appellant moved to dismiss the indictment, raising the same issues raised in the instant appeal. The district court denied the motion. The Appellant then pled guilty and was sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment and three years of supervised release. We affirm Appellant's conviction and sentence on the reasoning of the district court as expressed in its comprehensive memorandum opinion denying Appellant's motion to dismiss the indictment. United States v. Young , No. 96-CR-393 (D. Md. Feb. 18, 1997). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.4 AFFIRMED
(i)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and(ii)
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the
Registrant.
  By
    /s/ Peter J. YoungerPeter J. Younger, President and Chief ExecutiveOfficer of Cronos Capital Corp., General Partner
of the Registrant/s/ Frank P. VaughanFrank P. Vaughan, Chief Financial Officer of Cronos Capital Corp., General Partner of the Registrant A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the
Partnership and will be retained by the Partnership and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
 
 *
    
    This certification, required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, other than as
required by Section 906, shall not be deemed to be filed with the Commission or subject to
the rules and regulations promulgated by the Commission under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended, or to the liabilities of Section 18 of said Act.