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

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

Inconnection with the amended annual report of Zaxis International Inc. (the“Company”) on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2007 (the“Report”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the datehereof, I, Ivo Heiden, CEO and CFO of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1. TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended; and2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

/s/ Ivo Heiden

Ivo HeidenCEO and CFODated: September 5, 2008

A signed original of this writtenstatement required by Section 906 has been provided to Zaxis International Inc. and willbe retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or itsstaff upon request.
# United States Court of Appeals **For the Eighth Circuit**

___________________________ No. 12-1429

___________________________ Thomas Alfred Brydon lllllllllllllllllllll Petitioner - Appellant
v. United States of America lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent - Appellee

____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa - Cedar Rapids

____________ Submitted: November 13, 2012 Filed: December 3, 2012 [Unpublished]

____________ Before RILEY, Chief Judge, WOLLMAN and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

____________ PER CURIAM. Petitioner Thomas Alfred Brydon appeals the district court's 1 denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 petition for relief. We affirm.

1 The Honorable Linda R. Reade, Chief J udge, United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa.Brydon pleaded guilty to conspiring to manufacture methamphetamine. At sentencing, the district court applied th e career-offender provisions of United States Sentencing Guidelines §§ 4B1.1 & 4B1.2. Th e court determined that four prior Iowa convictions for operating a motor vehicle w ithout the owner's consent and one prior Iowa conviction for operating a motor vehicl e while intoxicated qualified as predicate crimes of violence. Subsequently, the S upreme Court issued its opinion in Begay v. United States , 553 U.S. 137 (2008) (holding that driving while intoxicated is not a "violent felony" pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B)). Later, in United States v. Steward , 598 F.3d 960, 963 (8th Cir. 2010), we applied Begay and held that the Iowa offense of operating a motor vehicle withoutthe owner's consent is no longer to be deemed a predicate "crime of violence" as defined in U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1 & 4B1.2. Brydon filed his § 2255 petition asserting th at a failure to resentence him and extend to him the benefit of Begay would amount to a miscarriage of justice. The district court acknowledged the change in the law as expressed in Begay , but held that, because Brydon's sentence was below the statutory maximum penalty for his offense, he alleged only a Guidelines error such that § 2255 relief remained unavailable. Pursuant to our en banc ruli ng in Sun Bear v. United States , 644 F.3d 700 (8th Cir. 2011) (en banc), we affirm the judgm ent of the district court. In Sun Bear , our Court held that § 2255 provides no avenue of relief for a federal prisoner sentenced below the applicable statutory maximum se ntence even if that prisoner is sentenced as a career offender based upon a predicate offe nse later determined not to be a crime of violence in light of Begay . Id. at 704–06. Our court characterized such an error as an "ordinary" Sentencing Guidelines questi on rather than a cognizable error of law or an error that fits within any miscarriag e-of-justice exception for § 2255 relief. Id. at 704. Brydon's argument is materially indi stinguishable from the argument rejected in Sun Bear
.

-2-We affirm the judgment of the district court.

______________________________

-3-
Case: 1:18-cr-00043-TSB Doc #: 179 Filed: 11/10/21 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: 3023
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2


                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

I, Richard A. Waldron, Chief Financial Officer of SciClone Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
(the "Registrant"), do hereby certify in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, based
on my knowledge:

      (1) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Registrant, to which this
      certification is attached as an exhibit (the "Report"), fully complies
      with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
      1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); and

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

Date: July 30, 2003                                 /s/ Richard A. Waldron
                                              ----------------------------------
                                                      Richard A. Waldron
                                                    Chief Financial Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
required by Section 906, has been provided to SciClone Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and
will be retained by SciClone Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
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 Form 10-Q of Microtune, Inc. (the Company) for the quarter ended June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report),
I, James A. Fontaine, Chief Executive 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 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/ JAMES A. FONTAINE                
|James A. Fontaine                    
|Chief Executive Officer and President
|(Principal Executive Officer)        

Date: July 26, 2007
MYCUMORTGAGE

Plaintiff,

V.

CENLAR FSB

Defendant.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON

CASE N0.3:18cv91

JUDGE WALTER H. RICE

ORDER OF DISMISSAL; TERMINATION ENTRY

The Court having been advised by counsel for the parties that the above matter has been

settled, IT IS ORDERED that this action is hereby DISMISSED, with prejudice as to the parties,

provided that any of the parties may, upon good cause shown within 60 days, reopen the action if

settlement is not consummated.

Parties intending to preserve this Court's jurisdiction to enforce the settlement should be

aware of Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America^ 114 S.Ct. 1673 (1994), and incorporate

appropriate language in any substituted judgment entry.

The Court will retain jurisdiction to enforce the terms ofthe settlement between the parties, if

necessary.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

WALTER H. RICE, JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case: 3:18-cv-00091-WHR-SLO Doc #: 51 Filed: 09/30/21 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: 624
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 Form 10-Q of Microtune, Inc. (the Company) for the quarter ended September 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, James A. Fontaine, Chief Executive 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 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/ JAMES A. FONTAINE                
|James A. Fontaine                    
|Chief Executive Officer and President
|(Principal Executive Officer)        

Date: October 25, 2007
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 9 (Thursday, January 13, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 2178]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-00581]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--The Integrated Photonics Institute for 
Manufacturing Innovation Operating Under the Name of the American 
Institute for Manufacturing Integrated Photonics

    Notice is hereby given that, on November 23, 2021, pursuant to 
Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 
1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), the Integrated Photonics 
Institute for Manufacturing Innovation operating under the name of the 
American Institute for Manufacturing Integrated Photonics (``AIM 
Photonics'') has filed written notifications simultaneously with the 
Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in 
its membership. The notifications were filed for the purpose of 
extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust 
plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. 
Specifically, Regents of the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN; 
Buhler Inc. Leybold Optics, Cary, NC; and Spark Photonics Design, Inc., 
Waltham, MA, have been added as parties to this venture.
    No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned 
activity of the group research project. Membership in this group 
research project remains open, and AIM Photonics intends to file 
additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
    On June 16, 2016, AIM Photonics filed its original notification 
pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice 
published a notice in the Federal Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of 
the Act on July 25, 2016 (81 FR 48450).
    The last notification was filed with the Department on August 19, 
2021. A notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to 
Section 6(b) of the Act on October 5, 2021 (86 FR 55001).

Suzanne Morris,
Chief, Premerger and Division Statistics, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 2022-00581 Filed 1-12-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-11-P
#### Elsey v. Falconer.

Usurpation op Office: *Failure of sheriff to file collector’s bond intime vacates office.*

If a collector of revenue fails to file with the county clerk his bond as collector *until*the first Monday in January, the Governor may on that day appoint a collector, who may, by an action for usurpation of office, recover the office from the other, and all fees or commissions received by him since the plaintiff’s appointment and qualification.

APPEAL from *Franklin*Circuit Court.

Hon. G. S. CuxninohaM, Circuit Judge.

*Mansfield*for appellant.

*Yantis, Clendenin Sandels, contra.*

Eakin, J.

This case is submitted together with that of *Alston i\ Falconer,*in which an opinion has just been deliv-*118erecl. The statement of facts is made in that case, to which reference is made.

After Ealconer had been put in possession of the tax books by virtue of the mandamus granted by the Circuit ■Court, and had proceeded to act as collector, Elsey filed his .complaint in this case, relying upon his commission, and the filing of his bond, and setting up all the facts. He claimed that Falconer usurped the office, and prayed for his own reinstatement, and for judgment agaiust Falconer for such amount of fees, emoluments and perquisites as he had received. Falconer demurred and the demurrer was sustained. Elsey rested and appealed.

This was erroneous upon the principle decided in the other case. The demurrer should have been overruled.

Reverse and remand with the usual directions.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE>                                   5
<MULTIPLIER>                                1,000
       
<S>                                         <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                               9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                              JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                            5,046
<SECURITIES>                                          0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     8,575
<ALLOWANCES>                                          0
<INVENTORY>                                           0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 14,847
<PP&E>                                           89,189
<DEPRECIATION>                                        0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  137,291
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            12,843
<BONDS>                                          58,207
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                 0
<PREFERRED>                                           0
<COMMON>                                         57,787
<OTHER-SE>                                            0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    137,291
<SALES>                                               0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 40,299
<CGS>                                                 0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    36,339
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                      0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                4,431
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    (404)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        (62)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                (342)
<DISCONTINUED>                                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    (476)
<CHANGES>                                             0
<NET-INCOME>                                       (818)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (0.14)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         0

        


</TABLE>
**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**

Inconnection with the yearly report of Pharmaceutical Product Development, Inc. (“PPD”) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the“Report”), I, Fredric N. Eshelman, Chief Executive Officer of PPD, 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 my knowledge: 

1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities 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 PPD as of, andfor, the periods presented in the Report. 

Date: February 26, 2007
#### The UNITED STATES of America ex rel. Robert WEBER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Edward M. FAY, Warden of Green Haven Prison, Stormville, New York, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 417, Docket 29508.

United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit.

Argued March 31, 1965.

Decided April 6, 1965.

*711R. Kenly Webster, New York City (S. Edmund Resciniti, Jr., Brooklyn, N. Y., of counsel), for petitioner-appellant.

Philip Weinberg, Senior Atty. (Louis J. Lefkowitz, Atty. Gen., of New York, on the brief) (Samuel A. Hirshowitz, First Asst. Atty. Gen., of counsel) for respondent-appellee.

Before LUMBARD, Chief Judge, and KAUFMAN and MARSHALL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

This is an appeal from a denial of an application for a writ of habeas corpus by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Cannella, J. The basic facts appear in our prior opinion on the previous appeal of this appellant, United States ex rel. Weber v. People of State of New York and Fay, 316 F.2d 603 (2 Cir.), cert. denied 375 U.S. 822, 84 S.Ct. 62, 11 L.Ed.2d 56 (1963), and will not be repeated here. Both appeals involve the constitutionality of the New York procedure for revocation of parole of state prisoners. The allegations of the habeas petition in the present appeal are identical with those of the habeas petition in the previous appeal save for the additional charge that the parolee had been denied the assistance of counsel in the revocation-of-parole proceedings. Specifically, in this petition appellant challenges the constitutionality of section 218 of the N. Y. Correction Law, McKinney’s Consol. Laws, e. 43, which he reads as denying parolees the right to the assistance of counsel in revocation-of-parole proceedings even if such assistance is requested. Admittedly this was never raised by appellant in any state court proceeding. We therefore affirm because of failure to exhaust state remedies on this issue. United States ex rel. Kling v. LaVallee, 306 F.2d 199 (2 Cir. 1962); cf. United States ex rel. Weinstein v. Fay, 333 F.2d 815 (2 Cir. 1964).

We express our thanks to R. Kenly Webster, Esq., and S. Edmund Resciniti, Jr., Esq., for their extensive research and presentation of this appeal.

Affirmed.
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 11-2520

___________

Minor Lee McNeil, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * Tax Court.

*

Commissioner of Internal Revenue, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: January 4, 2012

Filed: January 10, 2012

___________

Before WOLLMAN, SMITH, and GRUENDER Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Minor McNeil challenges the tax court’s1

 decisions upholding determinations

by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue that he was liable for deficiencies in income

taxes, additions to tax, and penalties for filing frivolous tax returns for the 2006 and

2007 tax years. Having carefully reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments on

appeal, see Campbell v. Comm’r, 164 F.3d 1140, 1142 (8th Cir. 1999) (tax court’s

findings of fact are reviewed for clear error, and its legal conclusions are reviewed de

novo), we agree with the tax court’s decisions and find no basis for reversal, see Page

v. Comm’r, 823 F.2d 1263, 1272 (8th Cir. 1987) (Commissioner’s additions to tax

1

The Honorable David Laro, United States Tax Court Judge.
was entitled to presumption of correctness, and appellants bore burden of proving

such determinations were improper); Denison v. Comm’r, 751 F.2d 241, 242 (8th Cir.

1984) (rejecting as frivolous taxpayer’s arguments that wages were not income and

that Code was unconstitutional to extent it imposed tax on income from services); cf.

United States v. Marston, 517 F.3d 996, 1001 (8th Cir. 2008) (in appeal from

conviction for tax evasion, noting that tax return containing only zeros and no

information regarding gross income or deductions claimed, or only protest

information, is not considered valid return). 

In addition, we conclude that the tax court did not abuse its discretion in its

evidentiary rulings. See Sparkman v. Comm’r, 509 F.3d 1149, 1156 (9th Cir. 2007)

(tax court’s evidentiary rulings are reviewed for abuse of discretion and will not be

reversed absent showing of prejudice). 

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. We also deny the pending

motions.

______________________________

-2-
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 495 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. RES. 495

 Designating February 12, 2020, as ``Darwin Day'' and recognizing the 
          importance of science to the betterment of humanity.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           February 11, 2020

Mr. Blumenthal (for himself, Mr. Murphy, and Mr. Whitehouse) submitted 
 the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the 
                               Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Designating February 12, 2020, as ``Darwin Day'' and recognizing the 
          importance of science to the betterment of humanity.

Whereas Charles Darwin developed the theory of evolution by natural selection, 
        which provides humanity with a logical and intellectually compelling 
        explanation for the diversity of life on Earth;
Whereas the validity of the theory of evolution by natural selection is strongly 
        supported by the monumental amount of scientific evidence Charles Darwin 
        compiled to support the theory and the modern understanding of the 
        science of genetics;
Whereas the human curiosity and ingenuity exemplified by Charles Darwin have 
        promoted new scientific discoveries that have helped humanity solve many 
        problems and improve living conditions;
Whereas the advancement of science must be protected from individuals 
        unconcerned with the adverse impacts of global warming and climate 
        change;
Whereas the teaching of creationism in some public schools compromises the 
        scientific and academic integrity of the education systems of the United 
        States;
Whereas Charles Darwin is a worthy symbol of scientific advancement on whom to 
        focus and around whom to build a global celebration of science and 
        humanity intended to promote a common bond among all the people of the 
        Earth; and
Whereas February 12, 2020, is the anniversary of the birth of Charles Darwin in 
        1809 and is an appropriate date to designate as ``Darwin Day'': Now, 
        therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the Senate--
            (1) designates February 12, 2020, as ``Darwin Day'';
            (2) recognizes the importance of science to the betterment 
        of humanity; and
            (3) recognizes Charles Darwin as a worthy symbol for 
        celebrating science, the achievements of reason, and the 
        advancement of human knowledge.
                                 <all>
```
Record of Discussion 

Docket No. FAA- Directorate ldenti fier: 

With whom outside the FAA has this AD action been discussed (i.e., Design Approval Holder, 

manufacturet·, ATA, NBAA, RAA, AOPA, ALPA, GAMA, etc)? 

ORGANIZATION PERSON CONTACTED DATE TOPICS DISCUSSED 

Boeing Multiple Concur. 

Other/ Additional Information: 

9