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

Certification of the Chief Executive Officer

and the Chief Financial Officer

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,

As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Cost
Plus, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended February 2, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), Barry J. Feld, Chief Executive Officer and President,
and Jane L. Baughman, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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



|                                                                                 
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                 
|/s/ Barry J. Feld                                                                
|Barry J. Feld Chief Executive Officer and President (Principal Executive Officer)
|                                                                                 
|April 17, 2008                                                                   



|                                                                                                
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                
|/s/ Jane L. Baughman                                                                            
|Jane L. Baughman Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer)
|                                                                                                
|April 17, 2008
#### Lucaj v City Building Maintenance,

No. 90982;

Court of Appeals No. 133304. Reconsideration denied November 25, 1991.
#### Hiram WHITTLE, Administrator of the Estate of Edgar Whittle, Appellant, v. J. Millard TAWES, Governor of the State of Maryland, Appellee.

No. 9746.

United States Court of Appeals Fourth Circuit.

Argued March 5, 1965.

Decided April 5, 1965.

Hiram Whittle, appellant, pro se.

Fred Oken, Asst. Atty. Gen., of Maryland (Thomas B. Finan, Atty. Gen., of Maryland, on brief), for appellee.

Before SOBELOFF and J. SPENCER BELL, Circuit Judges, and LARKINS, District Judge.

PER CURIAM:

This appeal must be dismissed for it is an attempt to have immediate review of an unappealable interlocutory order.

Hiram Whittle brought an action against the Governor of Maryland to compel him to investigate the circumstances surrounding the death of the plaintiff’s brother, Edgar Whittle, which occurred in 1942. The defendant filed a motion to dismiss and obtained an order deferring the taking of depositions by the plaintiff pending the disposition of that motion. It is from this order that appellant appeals. This is a -routine procedural step in the normal administration of the case and obviously not the type of order that may be reviewed before the final determination of the case, and 28 U.S.C.A. § 1292(a) (1), upon which the appellant relies, is inapplicable. The appeal will be

Dismissed.
|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 Quarterly Report of Palomar Medical Technologies, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended
September 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Joseph P. Caruso, President and Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, and I, Paul S. Weiner, 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, to our knowledge:
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| | (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.
| | --- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|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.
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|                                      | 
|------------------------------------- | 
|November 3, 2006                      | 
|                                      | 
|/s/    Joseph P. Caruso               | 
|Joseph P. Caruso                      | 
|President and Chief Executive Officer | 

|                         | 
|------------------------ | 
|Dated:  November 3, 2006 | 
|                         | 
|/s/ Paul S. Weiner       | 
|Paul S. Weiner           | 
|Chief Financial Officer  | 

|
|
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-20-00544-CV

In re Estate of J.B. Wells Jr., Deceased

On Appeal from the

County Court of Gonzales County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. OTH17-9886

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes the appeal should be dismissed. The Court orders the appeal 

DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion. Costs of the appeal are taxed against the 

party incurring same.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

July 22, 2021
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-15-00803-CV

Armando BENAVIDES,

Appellant

v.

Anselmo BENAVIDES, Antonio Benavides, and A.T. Trucking, L.L.P.,

Appellees

From the 79th Judicial District Court, Jim Wells County, Texas

Trial Court No. 06-03-44411-CV

Honorable Richard C. Terrell, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE BARNARD, JUSTICE ALVAREZ, AND JUSTICE RIOS

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is 

AFFIRMED. Costs of this appeal are taxed against appellant.

SIGNED February 15, 2017.

_____________________________

Irene Rios, Justice
Order entered June 7, 2016 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-16-00081-CV 

IN RE SUSAN E. JONES, INDEPENDENT EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE OF 

FRANCES J. HUTCHINS, DECEASED, Relator 

Original Proceeding from the Probate Court No. 3 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. PR-12-00182-3 

ORDER 

Before Justices Lang-Miers, Evans, and Whitehill 

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we CONDITIONALLY GRANT the writ of 

mandamus. We ORDER the trial judge, the Honorable Margaret Jones-Johnson, Judge of 

Probate Court No. 3, Dallas County, Texas, to VACATE her October 30, 2015 order granting a 

new trial. If she fails to comply with this order, the writ will issue. We ORDER the trial judge 

to file with this Court, within 30 days of the date of this order, a certified copy of her order 

issued in compliance with this order. Relator has not sought recovery of costs in this proceeding, 

so we ORDER each party to bear its own costs of this original proceeding. 

/s/ BILL WHITEHILL 

 JUSTICE
III 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. RES. 606 

Designating May 5, 2020, as the ‘‘National Day of Awareness for Missing 

and Murdered Native Women and Girls’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 3, 2020 

Mr. DAINES (for himself, Mr. TESTER, Mr. HOEVEN, Ms. WARREN, Mr. 

CRAMER, Mr. WYDEN, Mr. LANKFORD, Mr. UDALL, Mr. CRAPO, Ms. 

MCSALLY, Ms. MURKOWSKI, and Mr. RISCH) submitted the following resolution; which was considered and agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

Designating May 5, 2020, as the ‘‘National Day of Awareness for Missing and Murdered Native Women and 

Girls’’. 

Whereas, according to a study commissioned by the Department of Justice, in some Tribal communities, American 

Indian women face murder rates that are more than 10 

times the national average murder rate; 

Whereas, according to the most recently available data from 

the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in 2017, 

homicide was the sixth leading cause of death for American Indian and Alaska Native females between 1 and 44 

years of age; 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•SRES 606 ATS 

Whereas little data exist on the number of missing American 

Indian and Alaska Native women in the United States; 

Whereas, on July 5, 2013, Hanna Harris, a member of the 

Northern Cheyenne Tribe, was reported missing by her 

family in Lame Deer, Montana; 

Whereas the body of Hanna Harris was found 5 days after 

she went missing; 

Whereas Hanna Harris was determined to have been raped 

and murdered, and the individuals accused of committing 

those crimes were convicted; 

Whereas the case of Hanna Harris is an example of many 

similar cases; and 

Whereas Hanna Harris was born on May 5, 1992: Now, 

therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate— 

2 (1) designates May 5, 2020, as the ‘‘National 

3 Day of Awareness for Missing and Murdered Native 

4 Women and Girls’’; and 

5 (2) calls on the people of the United States and 

6 interested groups— 

7 (A) to commemorate the lives of missing 

8 and murdered American Indian and Alaska Na9 tive women whose cases are documented and 

10 undocumented in public records and the media; 

11 and 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•SRES 606 ATS 

1 (B) to demonstrate solidarity with the fam2 ilies of victims in light of those tragedies. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                            SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION

I, Steven A. Odom, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of Verso
Technologies, Inc. (the "Company"), do hereby certify in accordance with 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 Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended
            December 31, 2003 (the "Periodic Report") fully complies with the
            requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
            Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. Sections 78m or 78o(d)); and

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

Dated: March 15, 2004

                                               /s/ Steven A. Odom
                                               ---------------------------------
                                               Steven A. Odom
                                               Chief Executive Officer and
                                               Chairman of the Board
|Exhibit 99.1
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Palomar Medical Technologies, Inc.
(the Company) for the period ended September 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, Joseph P. Caruso, Chief Executive
Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, 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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|Date: November 12, 2002
                  |  | By: /s/ Joseph P. Caruso
             
              Joseph P. Caruso
              President, Chief Executive Officer and Director
|------------------------------------------------ |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION

 NEWMAN, 

Plaintiff

 v Civil: C-1-01-67

 

P & G,

Defendant

ORDER

Defendant’s Motion for Extension of Time (#94) is GRANTED. 

Defendant P&G shall file its reply to Plaintiff’s memorandum 

opposing summary judgment on or before September 25, 2003.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

_____s/Herman J. Weber_____

Herman J. Weber, Senior Judge

United States District Court

 

Case 1:01-cv-00067-HJW Document 97 Filed 09/18/2003 Page 1 of 1
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON

JAMARIYO DRANE,

Petitioner, : Case No. 3:18-cv-047

- vs - District Judge Thomas M. Rose

Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz

WARDEN, Corrections Reception Center, 

et al.,

 

:

Respondents.

TRANSFER ORDER 

This is an action for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The Petition was mailed 

to the Dayton location of court by Petitioner (ECF No. 1-4, PageID 30) and therefore filed here 

and assigned to Dayton judicial officers.

However, the Petition discloses that the underlying criminal conviction occurred in the 

Franklin County Common Pleas Court (Petition, ECF No. 1, ¶ 18, PageID 4). S. D. Ohio Civ. R.

82.1(f) provides that “[a] habeas corpus action shall be filed at the location of Court that serves the 

county in which the state-court judgment1 that is the subject of the habeas petition was filed.” That 

location of court is Columbus. S. D. Ohio Civ. R. 82.1(b). Litigants are not permitted to choose a 

location of court for filing because that practice would facilitate judge-shopping and disrupt the 

allocation of work among the judicial officers of the District.

 1 The Magistrate Judge appreciates that Mr. Drane purports to be challenging not the underlying criminal judgment, 

but the imposition of post-release control sanctions by the Ohio Adult Parole Authority. That does not change the 

appropriate venue within the District. 
2

Therefore the Clerk is ORDERED to transfer this case to the Eastern Division at Columbus 

for reassignment to a District Judge resident at that location and referral to a Magistrate Judge in 

accordance with the Eastern Division General Order of Reference.

February 16, 2018.

 s/ Michael R. Merz

 United States Magistrate Judge
#### John Edward HUNT, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 15885.

United States Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit.

March 26, 1965.

Lester J. Drake, Ann Arbor, Mich., Fred S. Steingold, Ann Arbor, Mich., on brief, for appellant.

Patricia J. Pernick, Asst. U. S. Atty., Detroit, Mich., Lawrence Gubow, U. S. Atty., Detroit, Mich., on brief, for ap-pellee.

Before WEICK, Chief Judge, PHILLIPS, Circuit Judge, and ARTHUR M. SMITH, Associate Judge.*

*

 Sitting by designation from the United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals.

PER CURIAM.

This appeal is from an order of the District Court denying Appellant’s motion to vacate sentence filed under authority of 28 U.S.C. § 2255. A jury in the District Court found him guilty of the charge of intimidating a federal witness in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1503.

Appellant was represented by counsel at the trial. He filed a motion for a new trial, which was denied. No appeal was taken from the judgment of conviction.

In his motion to vacate the sentence Appellant enumerated a number of alleged errors which he claimed took place at the trial. The District Judge analyzed these claims and found them to be without merit.

In his appeal Appellant complains about instructions given by the trial court in answer to questions asked by .jurors, and alleges that the instructions were coercive. He asserts that the colloquy which took place between the District Judge and the jurors indicated the inclination of some of the jurors with respect to conviction. This point was not mentioned in the motion to vacate sentence and was not passed upon by the District Judge.

We are of the opinion that the instructions correctly stated the law and were not coercive. We find that no constitutional rights of Appellant were violated in his trial.

The motion to dismiss the appeal is denied and the judgment of the District Court is affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 15 (Monday, January 24, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 3567]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-01240]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of 
Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious 
Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; Emerging Science and Technology in 
Transplantation Research (U01 Clinical Trial Not Allowed).
    Date: February 16-17, 2022.
    Time: 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, 
National Institutes of Health, 5601 Fishers Lane, Room 3G45, 
Rockville, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).
    Contact Person: Vanitha S. Raman, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Officer, Scientific Review Program, Division of Extramural 
Activities, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, 
National Institutes of Health, 5601 Fishers Lane, Room 3G45, 
Rockville, MD 20852, 301-761-7949, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#4533242b2c312d246b372428242b052b2c2d6b222a33"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="d8aeb9b6b1acb0b9f6aab9b5b9b698b6b1b0f6bfb7ae">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, 
Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, 
Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes 
of Health, HHS)

    Dated: January 18, 2022.
Tyeshia M. Roberson-Curtis,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2022-01240 Filed 1-21-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1



                   REPORT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS
                   ----------------------------------------


To the Board of Directors and Shareholders of Reunion Energy Company and Reunion
Operating Company:

We have audited the combined statement of assets and liabilities directly
attributable to oil and gas operations (See Note 1) of Reunion Energy Company
and Reunion Operating Company (both Delaware corporations and collectively
referred to as "the Company") as of December 31, 1995, and the related combined
statements of revenues and expenses and cash flows for the year then ended.
These financial statements are the responsibility of the Company's management.
Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements based
on our audit.

The accompanying financial statements omit those assets and liabilities and
revenues and expenses of the Company that are not directly attributable to its
oil and gas operations.  Therefore, these financial statements are not intended
to be a complete presentation of the Company's assets and liabilities and
revenues and expenses.

We conducted our audit in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards.
Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable
assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material
misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting
the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. An audit also includes
assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by
management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation.
We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in
all material respects, the assets and liabilities directly attributable to oil
and gas operations of Reunion Energy Company and Reunion Operating Company as of
December 31, 1995, and their related revenues and expenses and cash flows for
the year then ended, in conformity with generally accepted accounting
principles.


                                            ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP


Houston, Texas
March 27, 1996
**Exhibit 23**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos. 333-56975, 333-67441, 333-83561, 333-45710, 333-68322, 333-96899, and 333-118819 of CostPlus, Inc. and subsidiaries on Form S-8 of our report dated April 14, 2005 relating to the consolidated financial statements (which report expresses unqualified opinions and includes an explanatory paragraph relating to the restatement described inNote 2) appearing in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Cost Plus, Inc. and subsidiaries for the year ended January 29, 2005. 

 

/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP 

 

San Francisco, California 

April 14, 2005