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

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C.**

** **

**SECTION 1350, ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

** **

**SECTION 906 OFTHE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

 

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned certify that:

 

(1)                  This QuarterlyReport on Form 10-Q of Option Care, Inc. for the period endedSeptember 30, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commissionon the date hereof (the “Report”), fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange act of 1934; and

 

(2)                  The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of Option Care, Inc.

 

 
| Date:  November 14, 2003 | By:    | /s/ Rajat  Rai                                      |   |
|-------------------------------|--------|-----------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                          |   | Rajat Rai                                           |
|                          |   | Chief  Executive Officer                            |
|                          |   |                                                |
|                          |   |                                                |
| Date:  November 14, 2003 | By:    | /s/ Paul  Mastrapa                                  |   |
|                          |   | Paul  Mastrapa                                      |
|                          |   | Senior Vice  President and Chief  Financial Officer |

 

----
#### Charles R. ADAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Lieutenant BAILEY; Sergeant W. Johnston; Correctional Officer Waltson, Defendants-Appellees

No. 15-20389 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed August 29, 2017

Charles R. Adams, Pro Se

Matthew James Greer, Esq., Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General, General Litigation Division, Austin, TX, for Defendants-Appellees

Before DAVIS, SOUTHWICK, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Charles R. Adams, Texas prisoner # 1247914, appeals the jury verdict in favor of the defendants in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit alleging excessive use of force and retaliation. He argues that the verdict was against the great weight of the evidence. Because Adams did not move before or after the verdict for a judgment as a matter of law, the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the verdict is reviewed for plain error to determine “whether there was any evidence to support the jury verdict.” *Flowers v. S. Reg’l Physician Servs. Inc.,*247 F.3d 229, 238 (5th Cir. 2001). Defendants Johnston and Bailey testified that they used force on Adams, who was resisting being secured, in order to subdue him. They stated that they did not slam, kick, hit, elbow, or knee Adams, Johnston and Bailey also testified that they did not retaliate against Adams for exercising a constitutional right. The jury, as the trier of fact, is responsible for resolving conflicting evidence and determining witness credibility, and thus could choose to believe the defendants over the testimony of Adams and Officer Brooks. *See Martin v. Thomas,*973 F.2d 449, 453 (5th Cir. 1992), Based on that testimony, there was sufficient evidence to support the jury’s verdict. *See Flowers,*247 F.3d at 238.

Adams’s motion for the appointment of counsel is denied, as he has not shown the existence of exceptional circumstances warranting such an appointment. *See Ulmer v. Chancellor,*691 F.2d 209, 212-13 (5th Cir. 1982). Adams’s motion for a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order is also denied because he has not shown that the instant case is an exceptional ease. *See Greene v. Fair, 314*F.2d 200, 202 (5th Cir. 1963). Adams’s motion to expedite a ruling on his motion for an injunction is denied as moot. Finally, Adams’s motion to suspend under Fed*295eral Rule of Appellate Procedure 2, which the Clerk’s Office construed as motion for leave to file exhibits, is denied as unnecessary because the exhibits are contained in the district court record.

JUDGMENT AFFIRMED; MOTIONS DENIED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
Chuvez HANNIBAL, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D16-2248

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed May 16, 2018

Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and Stephen J. Weinbaum, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Marlon J. Weiss, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Before SUAREZ, LAGOA, and SALTER, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6421 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 6421

 To prohibit the Secretary of Energy from enforcing energy efficiency 
 standards applicable to manufactured housing, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           November 15, 2023

Mr. Bucshon (for himself, Mr. Weber of Texas, Mrs. Cammack, Mrs. Lesko, 
   Mr. Carter of Georgia, Mrs. Miller-Meeks, Mr. Baird, Mr. Dunn of 
 Florida, Mr. Moolenaar, Mr. Fleischmann, Mr. Gooden of Texas, and Mr. 
    Yakym) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To prohibit the Secretary of Energy from enforcing energy efficiency 
 standards applicable to manufactured housing, and for other purposes.

    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 ``Affordable Housing Over Mandating 
Efficiency Standards Act'' or the ``Affordable HOMES Act''.

SEC. 2. REPEAL OF AUTHORITY TO ESTABLISH STANDARDS FOR MANUFACTURED 
              HOUSING.

    (a) Repeal.--
            (1) In general.--The Energy Independence and Security Act 
        of 2007 (42 U.S.C. 17071) is amended by striking section 413.
            (2) Clerical amendment.--The table of contents in section 
        1(b) of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 is 
        amended by striking the item relating to section 413.
    (b) No Force or Effect.--The final rule titled ``Energy 
Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Manufactured 
Housing'' published by the Department of Energy in the Federal Register 
on May 31, 2022 (87 Fed. Reg. 32728), shall have no force or effect.
                                 <all>
```
#### In the Matter of Mary E. McMenamy, Appellant, against Arthur N. Aitken, Individually and as Superintendent of Niagara County Sanatorium, Respondent.

Argued January 6,1943;

decided February 25, 1943.

*549
      *Philomena R. Marsicano*for appellant.

*Robert L. Rice, Jr.,*for respondent.

Order affirmed, without costs; no opinion.

Concur: Lehman, Ch. J., Loughran, Finch, Bippey, Lewis, Conway and Desmond, JJ.
#### LAUTI and LIOLIO, Plaintiffs v. FAAMAU and TAFA, Defendants

No. 15-1911

High Court of American Samoa Civil Jurisdiction, Trial Division [Land: “Lefetau” in Amouli]

June 5, 1913

S. L. HENDERSON, *Senior Member;*J. L. DWYER, *Associate Member;*and TULXFUA, *Associate Member*

DECISION

This action was brought by Lauti, a chief of Vatia, in Tutuila, and Liolio, a chief of Manua, against Faamau and Tafa, chiefs of Manua, to determine the ownership of the land known as LEFETAU in the settlement of Amouli, Manua.

The evidence presented by both plaintiffs and defendants was contradictory and weak as to important points. The Court endeavored to arrive at the true state of affairs by eliciting evidence from the witnesses produced; it should be remembered, however, that the primary duty of the Court is to hear the testimony that is produced by the parties, and the authority of the Court to question the witnesses is limited, inasmuch as the members of the Court must invariably maintain an impartial attitude .towards both parties to an action.

The preponderance of evidence in this case favors the claim of the plaintiffs, Lauti and Liolio, and the Court is therefore constrained to award the land to the plaintiffs.

Let a decree issue, therefore, vesting the title to the land in dispute, LEFETAU, in the plaintiffs Liolio and Lauti.

*273Costs are assessed at $30.00, to be divided as follows: $10.00 to be paid by Lauti and Liolio and $20.00 to be paid by Faamau and Tafa.
9/1/2015 Docket ID FAA­2015­1841

https://email.dot.gov/owa/9­AWA­AVS­333Exemptions@faa.gov/?ae=Item&t=IPM.Note&id=RgAAAABFvqQJAFf5SI8crGhIsEIyBwD3qfMUO7BCQ74YBi9P12... 1/1

Docket ID FAA­2015­1841

Doug Bell [dbell36@gmail.com]

Sent:Tuesday, September 01, 2015 11:20 AM

To: 9­AWA­AVS­333Exemptions (FAA)

As requested, I have given my custom built X8 aircraft a name.

DBCarbon X8

Kind Regards,

Doug Bell
Jack & Julie Carmichael 

519 South Rogers Street 

Mason, Ml 48854 

February 10, 2012 

-••'TT-' 

'/Oi? FEB 1 5 P 3- \ M 

Docket Management Facility 

U. S. Department of Transportation Facility 

Sirs:^__^ ^ __-_ . ^.^._ _ 

Please continue to grant Washington, D.C. landing rights at Reagan National Airport to Sun Country 

Airlines. 

We use this route to visit our daughter who is working in the Washington, D.C. area and we really 

appreciate the non-stop, direct access. /"^cy ^ /6-A ^ l/fc^ I'fl ^ yl'i* ^ ^ ) 

Sincerely yours,
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 Annual Report of Blockbuster Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
Report), I, John F. Antioco, 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 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: March 1, 2007



/s/ John F. AntiocoJohn F. Antioco Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 39 (Monday, February 28, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 11044]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-04116]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

[B-68-2021]


Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 38--Spartanburg County, South Carolina; 
Authorization of Production Activity; BMW Manufacturing Company, LLC; 
(Passenger Motor Vehicles) Spartanburg, South Carolina

    On October 22, 2021, BMW Manufacturing Company, LLC submitted a 
notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board for its 
facility within Subzone 38A, in Spartanburg, South Carolina.
    The notification was processed in accordance with the regulations 
of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400), including notice in the Federal 
Register inviting public comment (86 FR 60201, November 1, 2022). On 
February 22, 2022, the applicant was notified of the FTZ Board's 
decision that no further review of the activity is warranted at this 
time. The production activity described in the notification was 
authorized, subject to the FTZ Act and the FTZ Board's regulations, 
including Section 400.14.

    Dated: February 22, 2022.
Elizabeth Whiteman,
Acting Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-04116 Filed 2-25-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. AR NULFO RIC ARDO M AR TINEZ, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 13-30323

D.C . No. 2:06-c r-02119-W FN M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Ea ste rn Distric t of W a shington Wm . Fre m

m ing Nie lse n, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d August 13, 2014 ** B e fore : SC HR O EDER , THOM AS, and HUR W ITZ, C i rc uit Judge s . Arnulfo Ric ardo M artine z a ppe a ls from

the distric t c ourt’ s judgm e nt a nd c ha lle nge s the 24-m onth se nte n c e im pose d upon re voc at ion of supe rvise d re le a se . W e hav e jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a nd we a ffirm . M artine z c onte nds tha

t the distric t c ourt proc e dura lly e rre d by fa iling to 

# FIL ED AUG 18 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S . CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).e xpla in the se nte nc e a de quate ly in light of the

18 U.S.C . § 3553(a) se nte nc ing fa c t ors a n d his mitiga

ting a rgum e nts. W e re v ie w for pla in e rror, se eUnite d State s v . Vale nc ia–Barragan , 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th C ir. 2010), a nd find none . The re c o rd re fle c ts tha

t the distric t c ourt c onside re d M artine z ’ s m itiga ting a rgum e nts and the re le va

nt se nte nc ing fa c tors but de te rm ine d tha t a low-e nd, c onse c utive se nte nc e wa s wa

rrante d be c a

use M artine z viola

te d supe rvise d

re le a se by c om m itting a nothe r drug offe n se . S

e eUnite d State

s v . Simtob , 485 F.3d 1058, 1062-63 (9th C ir. 2007). M artine z a lso c onte nds tha t the distric t c ourt im

pose d a substa ntive ly unre a s ona

ble se nte nc e . The distric t c ourt did not a b use its disc re tion in im

posing M artine z ’ s se nte nc e . Se eGall v . Unite d State s , 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The se nte nc e is substa

ntive ly re a sona ble in light of the

se c tion 3583(e ) se nte nc ing fa c t ors a n d the tota lity

of the c irc um s ta

nc e s, inc luding M a

rtine z ’ s bre a c h of the c ourt’ s trust. Se e U.S.S.G. § 7B 1.3(f); Simtob , 485 F.3d a t 1063. AFFIRM E D.

1 3 - 3 0 3 2 3 2
Timothy PRICE v. MTD PRODUCTS

2016-CT-00925-COA

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Filed: March 13, 2018 Closed: May 17, 2018

Motion Desc: Petition for Writ of Certiorari.

Certiorari - Denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-01-2000
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   37,133
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,620
<INVENTORY>                                     51,082
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                90,058
<PP&E>                                          83,997
<DEPRECIATION>                                  39,898
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 163,737
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           53,813
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           109
<OTHER-SE>                                     100,872
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   163,737
<SALES>                                         73,740
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                73,740
<CGS>                                           55,625
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   65,264
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 478
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  7,998
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,139
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              4,859
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,859
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .49
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .49


</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.1
                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. section1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Fona, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2011, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael Friess,
Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer 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 to the best of my knowledge:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d),
as applicable, 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.



BY(Signature)                         /s/ Michael Friess
(Name and Title)                      Michael Friess, Chairman of the Board,
                                      President and Chief Executive Officer

(Date)                                August 12, 2011








                                       15
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                              15,564
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                          180
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    15,744
<PP&E>                                              94,485
<DEPRECIATION>                                       7,932
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     111,286
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,159,188
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                            51,583
<OTHER-SE>                                      (1,107,012)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       111,286
<SALES>                                              5,431
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     5,431
<CGS>                                               (2,893)
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       24,472
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                         0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  16,065
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (361,880)
<INCOME-TAX>                                      (361,880)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (361,880)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (361,880)
<EPS-BASIC>                                         (0.038)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       (0.038)



</TABLE>
#### Abiodun M. SODIPO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ron ROSENBERG, Chief, Administrative Appeals Office; United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 15-15464

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted February 17, 2017 * San Francisco, California

Filed March 10, 2017

Abiodun M. Sodipo, Pro Se

Genevieve M. Kelly, Trial Attorney, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, for Defendants-Appellees

Before: TASHIMA and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges, and ADELMAN,** District Judge.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

**

The Honorable Lynn S. Adelman, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM ***

Abiodun Sodipo applied for an employment-based visa, but did not satisfy the statutory requirements of a job offer, *see*8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2)(A), or a Department of Labor certification of a labor shortage, *see*8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(5)(A)(i). The United States Citizenship and Immigration Services declined Sodipo’s request to waive these requirements “in the national interest,” 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2)(B)(i); 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(4)(ii), and denied his visa application. Sodipo then filed this action under the Administrative Procedure Act challenging the denial of the national interest waiver. The district court granted summary judgment to the government defendants, and Sodipo timely appealed.

The Immigration and Nationality Act provides that “no court shall have jurisdiction to review ... any ... decision ... of the Attorney General ... the authority for which is specified under this subchapter to be in the discretion of the Attorney General.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii). The deci*634sion to deny a national interest waiver is one such decision, *See*8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2)(B)(i) (“[T]he Attorney General may, when the Attorney General deems it to be in the national interest, waive the *requirements... Schneider v. Chertoff,*450 F.3d 944, 948 (9th Cir. 2006) (describing national interest waiver as “purely discretionary”). Thus, the district court lacked jurisdiction to review the denial of the waiver.

We therefore vacate the judgment below and remand for entry of an order dismissing Sodipo’s action for lack of jurisdiction. Each party is to bear its own costs.

VACATED AND REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS.

***

 xhiS disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.