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

SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

I, Friedhelm Blobel, Chief Executive 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: May 11, 2009 |  |  |  | /s/ Friedhelm Blobel, Ph.D.
|                   |  |  |  | Friedhelm Blobel, Ph.D.    
|                   |  |  |  | Chief Executive 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.
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential. 

# Wniteb**~tate~** 

# Qtourtof**~peaI~** 

# fortbejf 

# eberaI (!Circuit
DONNA R. CAMP, Petitioner, 

### v. 

### DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, Respondent.

2013-3008 Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection Board in case no. SF0752120714-I-1. 

### ON MOTION

ORDER Donna R. Camp moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperIs. Upon consideration thereof, IT Is ORDERED THAT: The motion is granted. Case: 13-3008 Document: 7 Page: 1 Filed: 11/28/2012DONNA CAMP v. DVA

824 FOR THE COURT /s/ Jan Horbaly Jan Horbaly Clerk 2 Case: 13-3008 Document: 7 Page: 2 Filed: 11/28/2012
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
YEAR-END 10-K AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH 10-K.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                          10,080
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 1,910
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     62,534
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                         108,710
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                           108,755
<LOANS>                                        196,173
<ALLOWANCE>                                      2,575
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 388,850
<DEPOSITS>                                     334,584
<SHORT-TERM>                                       627
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              3,838
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         9,482
<OTHER-SE>                                      40,319
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 388,850
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 17,232
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               10,848
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   567
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                28,647
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              13,009
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              13,036
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           15,611
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      331
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                  97
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  9,515
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  8,458
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       8,458
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     6,117
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.61
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.61
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.59
<LOANS-NON>                                        616
<LOANS-PAST>                                       458
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                    725
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 2,625
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      506
<RECOVERIES>                                       125
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                2,575
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             2,575
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                          1,312
        

</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, : Case No. 3:18-cr-75
Plaintiff, : District Judge Walter H. Rice
Magistrate Judge Sharon L. Ovington
vs.
TRAVIS EDWARD WALKER,

Defendant.

DECISION AND ENTRY

This matter came before the Court for hearing on September 23, 2019 before
United States Magistrate Judge Sharon L. Ovington, who thereafter issued a Report and
Recommendations. (Doc. #24). Having conducted a full colloquy with Defendant, the
Magistrate Judge concluded that his plea of guilty is knowing, intelligent, and voluntary,
and that there is an adequate factual basis for a finding him guilty as charged in the
Indictment pending against him in this case.

The Court, noting that no objections to the Report and Recommendations have
been filed and that the time for filing objections has expired, hereby ADOPTS in full said
Report and Recommendations.

Therefore, based on the aforesaid, and this Court’s de novo review of the record
and the findings by the United States Magistrate Judge, this Court adopts the findings and

recommendations of the United State Magistrate Judge, and finds that Defendants guilty


plea was knowing, voluntary, and intelligent. Final acceptance of Defendant’s guilty plea
is deferred pending review of the pre-sentence investigation report.
{
1-317 Uma \ 62

Walter H. Rice
United States District Judge
Exhibit


Exhibit 10(iii)A(57)




AMENDMENT No. 5
TO
ACUITY BRANDS, INC
AMENDED AND RESTATED SEVERANCE AGREEMENT




THIS AMENDMENT made and entered into as of the 26th day of October, 2015, by and between ACUITY BRANDS, INC. (the “Company”) and MARK A. BLACK (“Executive”);


W I T N E S S E T H


WHEREAS, the Company and Executive entered into a Severance Agreement, dated as of November 19, 2008 (“Severance Agreement”), and amended as of October 28, 2009, March 30, 2010, March 28, 2014, and October 27, 2014, providing for the payment of certain compensation and benefits to Executive if Executive’s employment is terminated under certain circumstances; and


WHEREAS, the parties now desire to amend the Severance Agreement in the manner hereinafter provided;


NOW, THEREFORE, the Severance Agreement is hereby amended, as follows:




Section 4.2 is hereby amended by deleting “90%” from clause (i) and substituting “100%” in lieu thereof.


This Amendment to the Severance Agreement shall be effective as of the date of this Amendment.  Except as hereby modified, the Severance Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment as of the day and year first above written.


COMPANY


EXECUTIVE                     ACUITY BRANDS, INC.






______________________________        By:  ______________________________
MARK A. BLACK                            Vernon J. Nagel
        Chairman, President and CEO
No. 07

- 16

- 00073

- CR

Jimmy Zavala Appellant

v.

The State of Texas Appellee §

§

§

§ From the 137th District Court of Lubbock County

December 29, 2016

Opinion by Justice Pirtle

J U D G M E N T

Pursuant to the opinion of the Court dated December 29, 2016

, it is ordered,

adjudged and decreed that the judgment of the trial court be affirmed.

Inasmuch as this is an appeal in forma pauperis , no costs beyond those that

have been paid are adjudged.

It is further ordered that this decision be certified below for observance.

o O o
Mayor StanleyA. Clouse City of Kearney 18 East 22nd Street P. 0. Box 1180 Kearney, NE 68848-1180
February 19, 2015



### Michael Martin Office ofAviation Analysis DepartmentofTransportation 400 7th Street, SW Washington, DC 20590 TELEPHONE· (308) 233-3216 FAX · (308) 234-6399 E-MAIL· mayor@kearneygov.org WEBSITE · www.cityofkearnev.org



### RE: Kearney's SupporlofDEN-EAR Route OperatedbyGreatLakesAviation Dear Mr. Martin: The Essential Air Service program has been and continues to be a vital economic lifeline for communities across the country, and especially in rural Nebraska. The continuing growth of our local economy is sustainable in large part because of the air service that has been supported and connections to the national and international airtransportation system that exist today. Accordingly, the City of Kearney requests the selection of Great Lakes Aviation to provide essential air service for our community. The recommended proposal from Great Lakes is to provide two round trips daily from Kearney to Denver utilizing EMB-120 aircraft. Further, the City of Kearney respectfully requests thatthe proposal start date be March 1, 2015 and end February 29, 2016. The City of Kearney stands ready to assist and partner with Great Lakes Aviation in the promotion of regionaljet servicefor our community. Ifyou have any questions, pleasefeel free to contact me. 

### CITY OF KEARNEY

Stanley

### A. Clouse Mayor SAC/jms

We provide seNices, solutions, andopportunities forourcommunity.
Case 1:01-cv-00109-SSB     Document 67-7      Filed 08/20/2004     Page 1 of 9

Case 1:01-cv-00109-SSB     Document 67-7      Filed 08/20/2004     Page 2 of 9

Case 1:01-cv-00109-SSB     Document 67-7      Filed 08/20/2004     Page 3 of 9

Case 1:01-cv-00109-SSB     Document 67-7      Filed 08/20/2004     Page 4 of 9

Case 1:01-cv-00109-SSB     Document 67-7      Filed 08/20/2004     Page 5 of 9

Case 1:01-cv-00109-SSB     Document 67-7      Filed 08/20/2004     Page 6 of 9

Case 1:01-cv-00109-SSB     Document 67-7      Filed 08/20/2004     Page 7 of 9

Case 1:01-cv-00109-SSB     Document 67-7      Filed 08/20/2004     Page 8 of 9

Case 1:01-cv-00109-SSB     Document 67-7      Filed 08/20/2004     Page 9 of 9
#### Lehman v. Lowman.

-Attachments ’ *Failure to file separate eomplaint.*

Where an affidavit for attachment contains the essential allegations of a complaint, thi failure to file a-separate complaint is only an irregularity .in practice 'which may be cured by amendment, and does not affect the jurisdiction to issue the order of attachment. *Sannoner*v. *Jacobson,*47 *Arlt.,*31.

APPEAL from *Desha*circuit court.

Jno. A. Williams, Judge.

*J. W. DieMnson,*for appellant.

*Sannoner v. Jaeobson,*47. *Ark,*31, is decisive of this case.

*X. J. Pindall,*for appellees.

The record does not show that summons was issued or attachment bond filed, and 47 *Ark,*31 does not go so far as to hold summons and attachment bond not necessary. The affidavit was made by attorney, upon belief only.

Cockrill, C. J.

Lehman & Sons caused their affidavit and bond for attachment against Lowman & Bro. to be filed in the office of the clerk of the Desha circuit court.

The order of attachment and summons for the defendants issued and were executed. No separate complaint was filed before the summons and order of attachment issued. The defendants appeared and filed a motion to quash the attachment proceeding because there -was no suit pending when the order issued, and upon other grounds that are not insisted upon here.

*445Before the, motion wqs beard, the plaintiffs filed a. separate complaint. The defendants’ motion was sustained, tbe order of attachment was quashed and the attached property released — leave being extendéd to the. plaintiffs by the court to cause a new order to issue as of the date of the filing of their separate complaint. The plaintiffs took judgment *in-personam,*and prosecute this, appeal to reverse the judgment quashing their attachment.

The ease of *Sannoner v. Jacobson,*decided since the judgment in this cause was rendered, is, decisive of the question presented. 47 *Ark.,*31. It was there determined that if an affidavit for attachment contains the-essentials of a complaint, the absence of the separate complaint required by the statute is not a defect that goes to the jurisdiction or power to issue the ¡order of' attachment, but is an irregularity in practice only, subject to be cured by amendment.

In this appeal, the affidavit contains all the requisites^ of a complaint pointed out in Sannoner’s case, and the plaintiffs in apt time availed themselves of the right to amend by filing a separate complaint conforming to the. strict requirements of the practice. It was error,, therefore, to quasb the attachment.

Reverse the judgment appealed from, and remand the cause for further proceedings.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

                            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 Annual Report of Universal Health Realty Income Trust
(the "Trust") on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2002 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Alan B. Miller, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Trust, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. (S) 1350, as adopted pursuant to (S) 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 result of operations of the Trust.



                                       /s/ Alan B. Miller
                                      ----------------------------
                                          Alan B. Milller
                                          President and Chief Executive Officer
                                          March 25, 2003
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff, 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

WESTERN DIVISION FILED ri 

RICHARD W. Hf'..Gc.~ 

CLERK OF COURT 

v. 

ANDREY SHUKLIN 

Defendant. 

Case No. t: t 8-cr-00 t 09~ B SEP - 4 PH 2: l 0 

CRIMINAL MINUTES before 

Magistrate Judge Stephanie K. Bowman 

Ll s OISTR.ICT COURT 

c;ouTHFRN DIST OHIO 

·\\:EST Div C\NCl~'N~ l 

Courtroom Deputy: Kevin Moser 

Court Reporter: Luke Lavin (Official) Date/Time: 9/4/18 @ 1 :30 PM 

United States Attorney: Matthew Singer/Megan Gaffney 

Defendant Attorney: Eric Eckes (Retained) 

MAfffY fr/VALES (IUT!lrNE.D) 

Interpreter: Inna Owens (Russian - Language Skilled) 

bridal Appearance: 0Complaint; I&] Indictment; 0Information;Opetition for supervised release ORule S(c)/32.I Proceedings 

~ Counsel present D Pretrial Release Violation 

[81 Defendant informed of charges and potential penalties D Defendant informed of nature of supervised release violation(s) 

C8I Defendant informed of his I her rights £81 Defendant provided copy of charging document D copy provided to counsel (if sealed) 

D Government moves for defendant to be detained pending detention hearing _________ _ 

D Financial affidavit presented to the Court/Defendant 

D Counsel appointed 0 FPD D CJA) D Charging document unsealed upon oral motion of the United States 

*Detention: l8JDefendant to be detained pending trial pursuant to pretrial detention order D Defendant did not contest detention at this time 

Plaintiff Witness D Detention is moot - serving state sentence 

Defendant Witness ___________________ _ _ 

D OR D Secured with 0 Electronic MonitorD Other D Home Detention D Curfew 

Special Conditions ofRelease:OPretrial/Probation SupervisionD Drug testing & Treatment0maintain employment & verify 

O refrain from all/excessive alcohol Onarcotic drugs unless prescribed Duse/possession of firearms 0 Travel Restricted to 

Pretrial Bond Violation Hearing: 

D bond revoked - defendant detained pending trial Obond continued Obond modified: - ------------ - -

Preliminary Exam Hearing set _________ _ 

Preliminary Exam: D Probable Cause found; D not found; D waived;O bond continued/denied 

AUSA Witnesses: ________ _ Defendant Witnesses: 

----------~ 

AUSA Exhibits: _________ _ Defendant Exhibits:------------

Arraignment on ~ Indictment 

Defendant waives reading ~ 

D PSI ordered 

D Superseding Indictment D brformation D Misdemeanor Information: 

Defendant pleads: 0 GUILTY NOT GUILTY 

0 Sentencing set for _____________ _ 

Case to proceed before .::Tf//)6 E Bll/CI< 

Removal Hearing (Rule Sc or Rule 32.1): 

D Defendant waives Identity Hearing D Defendant waives Detention Hearing in this district 

D Defendant waives Preliminary Hearing in this district 

D Commitment to Another District Ordered Removed to - ------ ------- -- 0 Probable Cause Found 

Remarks: ~ })£ FEl\/j)/1/1/T 17/fEV'ro (!SLY }//j f) /).£TEN rZ:tJN II EA,,f Z:/I/ c LN 

Tll£ 5" I>. tJI=' FL tJ,f Z-£J/l -1N' JJ Wr/S c;,.< JJE,,e.EP JJET/f Z:N£ D. 

Case: 1:18-cr-00109-TSB Doc #: 40 Filed: 09/04/18 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: 301
## Flatwater Studios Standard Location Release

SERIES / PROGRAM TITLE: PRODUCTION DATE:
Perm ission is hereby granted to Flatw ater Studios to use the property located at:

**________________________________________________________________________________** for the purpose of photographing and recording scenes for the above program produced by Flatwater Studios. Perm ission includes the right to bring personnel and equipment onto the property and to remove them after completion of the work. The permission herein granted shall include the right, but not the obligation, to photograph the actual name connected with the premises and to use such name in the program(s). The undersigned hereby gives to Flatw ater Studios, its assigns, agents, licensees, affiliates, clients, principals, and representatives the absolute right and permission to copyright, use, exhibit, display, print, reproduce, televise, broadcast and distribute, for any lawful purpose, in whole or in part, through any means without limitation, any scenes c ontaining the above described premises, all without inspection or further consent or approval by the undersigned of the finished product or of the use to which it may be applied. Flatwater Studios hereby agrees to hold the undersigned harmless of and free from any and all liability and loss that Flatwater Studios, and/or its agents, may suffer for any reason, except that directly caused by the negligent acts or deliberate misconduct of the owner of the premises or its agents. The undersigned hereby warrants and represents that the undersigned has full right and authority to solely enter into this agreement concerning the above described premises, and that the undersigned hereby indemnifies and holds Flatwater Studios, and/or its agents, harmless from and aga inst any and all loss, liability, costs, damages or claims of any nature arising from, grow ing out of, or concerning the use of the above described premises except those directly caused by the negligent acts or deliberate misconduct of Flatwater Studios, o r its agents.

By : __________________________________________________ Signature of Authorized Property Representative
Mr. Dennis DeVany 

Chief. Essential Air Service Division 

• OHice of Aviation Analysis 

Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

July 24, 2012 

Re: Essential Air Service at Adak, Alaska, DOT-OST-2000-8556 - Proposal of Alaska 

Airlines, Inc·. 

Dear Mr. DeVany: 

Alaska Airlines, Inc. ("Alaska") respectfully submits its proposal to continue, for a one 

year period, providing twice weekly B-737 nonstop combi service between the community of 

Adak and Anchorage. The days and nature of the proposed operation would be the same as 

Alaska now operates. The compensation level Alaska requests is $1,675,703 the same amount 

Alaska has been receiving since August 2012 based on Alaska's 2009-10 costs. 1 Alaska 

proposes that this rate become effective as of the date of the Department's final carrier selection 

for Adak essential air service. 

Alaska's proposal would offer the residents of Adak the best combination of passenger, 

freight and mail service. Alaska's B-737 combi aircraft have the capacity to easily accommodate 

all three types of tra1Tic including palletized cargo shipments. The arrival and departure of all 

tra1Tic on the same aircraH would avoid the operational uncertainties inevitably associated with 

the operation of separate smaller combination and all-cargo aircraft on different days. The 

selection of Alaska would also offer the residents of Adak single carrier access to virtually the 

entire U.S. as well as mileage benefits on the extensive route systems of both Alaska and its 

many global marketing partners. 

Alaska's operational performance at Adak has also been exemplary in spite of the 

challenges posed by the Aleutian weather conditions. And, perhaps most importantly, Alaska 

has maintained strong community relations with the Adak community which in the past has 

supported Alaska in each successive Adak essential air service proceeding. Alaska is hopeful 

that the Adak community will again do so. 

1 This amount is less than the $2.023 million hold-in rate approved by the Department. The reduction results tram 

Alaska's lower than earlier anticipated fuel costs. 

':l T .. 

- ' 
Mr. Denni~D~Yanx.. 

. July 24, 2012 -

Page 2 

'.,. \ ',:...._,_ . 

Alaska is submitting its proposal on a one year basis because it continues to believe that 

over the long term the capacity provided by its existing schedule pattern with B-73 7 aircraft may 

not be the best option for Adak, Alaska, however, wants to make quite clear that it remains 

committed to evaluating various air service solutions that - again over the long term - will both 

favorably address the community's needs while also further lowering the amount of needed 

essential air service compensation. 

Alaska also shortly intends to separately submit the nondiscnmination, lobbying 

compliance and drug-free workplace certifications addressed in the Department's resolicitation. 

Finally, Alaska 'would' be pleased to answer any questions the Department ma)r" have ... 

cc: Mr. Kevin Adams 

Re 

Mar all S. Sinick 

Alaska Airlines Inc. 

Washington Counsel 

marshall.sinick@squiresanders.com
Case: 1:18-cv-00412-MWM-KLL Doc #: 30 Filed: 03/20/19 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: 463