alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

               CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement
(Form S-8, No. 333-83975), pertaining to the drugstore.com, inc. 1999 Employee
Stock Purchase Plan and drugstore.com, inc. 1998 Stock Plan, and the
Registration Statement (Form S-8, No. 333-58174), pertaining to the
drugstore.com, inc. 1998 Stock Plan, of our report dated January 18, 2002, with
respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of drugstore.com,
inc. included in its Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 30,
2001.


                                       /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP

Seattle, Washington
March 28, 2002
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-1849

In Re: STEPHEN YAGMAN, 

 Petitioner. 

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (5:08-hc-02103-D) 

Submitted: April 16, 2009 Decided: April 20, 2009 

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. 

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Stephen Yagman, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

Stephen Yagman petitions for a writ of mandamus, 

requesting this court to direct the district court to order an 

immediate return to Yagman’s 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2006) habeas 

petition and to discontinue its alleged custom and practice of 

ordering returns to habeas petitions within twenty days without 

a finding of good cause, a custom and practice Yagman alleges 

violates 28 U.S.C. § 2243 (2006). Our review of the docket 

sheet reveals that the district court recently dismissed 

Yagman’s § 2241 habeas petition. Accordingly, because the 

district court has recently decided Yagman’s case, we deny the 

mandamus petition as moot. We dispense with oral argument 

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented 

in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process. 

PETITION DENIED
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Gary Equiluz ALFARO, also known as Gordo, also known as G2, also known as G., Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-10054 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed September 22, 2017

Gary Equiluz Alfaro, Pro Se

Before JOLLY, OWEN, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Gary Equiluz Alfaro, federal prisoner # 43041-177, appeals the district court’s denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for a sentence reduction based on Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. He contends that the district court abused its discretion in denying his § 3582(c)(2) motion in a “Blanket Form Order” without meaningfully considering the relevant factors, specifically, his post-sentencing rehabilitative efforts.

The district court correctly recognized that Alfaro was eligible for a sentence reduction. *See Dillon v. United States,*560 U.S. 817, 826-27, 130 S.Ct. 2683, 177 L.Ed.2d 271 (2010). However, the district court was under no obligation to grant him one. *See United States v. Evans,*587 F.3d 667, 673 (5th Cir. 2009). Alfaro’s arguments in favor of a sentence reduction, including his post-sentencing rehabilitative efforts, were set forth in his § 3582(c)(2) motion. His post-sentencing conduct, both positive and negative, was also addressed in the probation officer’s worksheet. In denying Alfaro’s § 3582(c)(2) motion, the district court noted that he had several disciplinary cases, the most recent one less than two months prior to the court’s order. Because the record shows that the district court gave due consideration to Alfaro’s § 3582(c)(2) motion, as well as the applicable policy statements and sentencing factors, Alfaro has not shown that the district court abused its discretion in denying the motion. *See United States v. Henderson,*636 F.3d 713, 717-18 (5th Cir. 2011); *United States v. Whitebird,*55 F.3d 1007, 1010 (5th Cir. 1995). Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

*

 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.
# C o u rt o f

A p p ea ls

o f t h e S t a te o f

G eo rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _

Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A1 7 D0 08 9 . HENRY BARNES v . EI LEEN W A LKER.

Hen ry Barn es ap p l i ed to t h i s Co u rt fo r d is cret i o n ary rev iew o f th e t ri al co urt ’ s

o rd er ho l d i n g h i m i n co nt em p t o f cert ai n p o r t i o ns o f t h e p art i es ’ d i v o rce d ecree

co n cern in g t h e eq u it ab l e d i v i s i o n o f m ari t al p ro p ert y

. Th e Geo rg i a Su p rem e Co u rt

h as j u ri s d i ct i o n o v er al l d i v o rce an d al i m o n y cas es , i n cl u d i n g t h o s e cas es an ci l l a ry

t o d i v o rce p ro ceed in gs

. See G a. Co n s t

. 1 9 8 3

, Art

. VI, Sec. VI, Par. III (6 ); Mo r r i s v.

S u r g es , 2 8 4 Ga. 7 48

, 7 5 0 (2 ) (6 7 0 SE2 d 84 ) (2 0 08 ). “ [A] n ap p eal fro m t h e ju d g m en t

i n a co n t em

p t act i on s eek i n g t o en fo rce an y p o rt i o n o f [a] d i v orce d ecree ot h er t h an

ch i l d cu s t o d y is an ci l lary t o d i v o rce an d al i m o n y an d fal l s wi t h i n [ t h e S u p r e m e]

Co u rt ’ s ju ri s d i ct i o n o v er ‘ d i v o rce an d al i m o n y cas es

. ’ [Ci t s .] ” Ro g er s v. McGa h ee , 2 7 8 Ga. 2 8 7

, 2 8 8 (1 ) (6 0 2 S E 2 d 5 8 2 ) (2 0 04 ); s ee al s o Mo r r i s , 2 8 4 Ga. at 7 5 0 (2 ).

Becau s e t h i s ap p l i cat io n ap pears t o fal l wi t h i n t h e Su p rem e Co urt ’ s ju ri s d i ct i o n , i t i s

h ereb y TRANSFERRED t o t h e Su p rem e Co u rt fo r d i s p os i t i o n.

C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o

f G e o r g ia

C le r k ’ s O f f i c e

, A t la n t a

,

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r ti fy t h a t t h e a b o v e i s a t r u e e x t r a c t f r o m

t h e m i n u t e s o

f t h e C o u r t o

f A p p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

. W i tn e s s m y s i g n a t u r e a n d th e s e a l o

f s a i d c o u r t

h e r e t o a f f i x e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r l a s t a b o v e w r i t t e n

.

, C l e r k

. 10/13/2016 October 13, 2016
EXHIBIT 32.1

TIBCO SOFTWARE INC.

CERTIFICATION

I, Vivek Y. Ranadivé, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of TIBCO Software Inc. (the Company), do hereby certify,
pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the Exchange Act) and 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that, to my knowledge:



| | (a) | the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the fiscal year ended November 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
Report), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act; and
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



|                        |  |                                     
|----------------------- |  | ------------------------------------
|Dated: January 29, 2010 |  | /s/ Vivek Y. Ranadivé               
|                        |  | Vivek Y. Ranadivé                   
|                        |  | Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
04/27/2012 10:35 FAX 2024935142 04/20/2012 10:17 FAX 3107256816 FAA AWP-:7 -+ 

### OMS



### U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF 

### BEARINGS WASHINGTON, DC 

## tJ!Z

In theMatter ofFlying High, LLC, 

### FAA Docket No. !'To be Assigned) 

### DMS No.: FAA 2011-1292 Respondent FAA Region: 

### Western Pacific 

### Judge: Richard C. Goodwin
MOTION 1'0DISMISS


### To: The Honorable 

### Richard C. Goodwin and 

### RespOndent: Pursu.antto 14 C.F.R. 13.218(£)(2), 

### ComplainantFedera!Aviation Administration, 

### through counsel, hereby files this Motion to Dismiss. This motion is based 

### on the fact the parties have 

### settled this matter, therefore 

### a hearing is no lo11ger 

### required. Respectfully submitted, NAOMI TSUDA 

### Regional Counsel By:

# /~~iL Adam Runkel Attorney · Dated: APR 20 2012 141002/003 14100204/27/2012 10:35 FAX 2024935142 04/20/2012 10:17 FAX 3107256816 FAA 

### AWP-7

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE + OMS



### I hereby certify that on

### this date I sent. viaUnited 

### States mail, postage**prepaid~** the executed original and one copy. as well as one copy 

### by facsimile, ofthe COMPLAINANT'S MOTlON TO DIS:MJSS, addressed as follows: 

### Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue. SW 

### Washington, DC**205~1** Attn: Hearing J)ocket Clerk, AGC·430 Wilbur

### \llright Building-SuitEl 

### 2Wl000 Facsimile: (202) 493-5142 And 

### by facsimile only to: 

### Hon. Richard C. Goodwin Office ofHearings, 

### M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation 

### 1200 New Jersey Ave., S.E. East Building Ground Floor, Room 

### E12-230 Washington,

### D.C. 20590 Facsimile: (202) 366-7536 I 

### :furrh.er certifythat onthis date I sent via United States mail, postage prepaid, a true copy 

### ofthe COMPLAINANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS, addressed as follows:

Dated: APR 20 

### 2012

# ~~zf~ JeffKam6erg. Legal 

### T ' 

### Flying High. LLC Attn: SeanBeJtjamin**Cooke~** Manager 3309 E. Milky Way 

### Gilbert. AZ 85295

Office ofthe Regional Counsel Federal AviatioD Administration**Westem~Pacific** 

### Region Lawndale, California



### 2**~** 003/003 

### r4l 003
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of ArthroCare Corporation (the
Company) hereby certifies, to such officers knowledge, that:



| | (i) | The accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the three months ended March 31, 2004 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



|                   |  |                        
|------------------ |  | -----------------------
|Dated: May 9, 2005 |  | /s/ Fernando Sanchez   
|                   |  | Fernando Sanchez       
|                   |  | Chief Financial Officer



A signed original of
this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 906), or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version
of the written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to ArthroCare Corporation and will be retained by ArthroCare Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



29
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 6593 

To require that the regulations related to SAVE Plan shall have the force 

and effect of enacted law. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 5, 2023 

Mr. GOLDMAN of New York (for himself, Ms. JACOBS, Ms. NORTON, Ms. 

MCCOLLUM, Ms. CROCKETT, Mr. KHANNA, and Ms. BONAMICI) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce 

A BILL 

To require that the regulations related to SAVE Plan shall 

have the force and effect of enacted law. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Codifying SAVE Plan 

5 Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. CODIFYING THE SAVE PLAN. 

7 The provisions of parts 682 and 685 of title 34, Code 

8 of Federal Regulations, (relating to the SAVE Plan), as 

9 amended by the final regulations published by the DepartVerDate Sep 11 2014 22:02 Dec 12, 2023 Jkt 049200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H6593.IH H6593
2 

•HR 6593 IH

1 ment of Education in the Federal Register on July 10, 

2 2023 (88 Fed. Reg. 43820), shall have the force and effect 

3 of enacted law. 

Æ
#### Will FOSTER, Appellant, v. LYKES BROS. STEAMSHIP COMPANY, Inc., et al., Appellees.

No. 23120.

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.

Nov. 4, 1966.

Rehearing Denied Dee. 12, 1966.

Charles R. Maloney, New Orleans, La., for appellant.

James L. Schupp, Jr., William E. Wright, New Orleans, La., for appellees. Terriberry, Rault, Carroll, Yancey & Farrell, New Orleans, La., of counsel.

Before THORNBERRY and COLEMAN, Circuit Judges, and YOUNG, District Judge.

PER CURIAM.

This is a suit in admiralty by a longshoreman for injuries sustained aboard *327a vessel of the defendants while it was being loaded at a wharf in New Orleans. Appellant has received the compensation due him under the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act, but further contends that he is entitled to recovery because the vessel was unseaworthy. The District Court granted summary judgment for the defendant.

Careful consideration of the record, including the deposition of the plaintiff, reveals no indication of unseaworthiness and that there was no genuine issue of fact thereasto. We must affirm. Admiralty Rule 58; Neal v. Lykes Bros. Steamship Co., 5 Cir., 1962, 306 F.2d 313; McQuiston v. Freighters and Tankers Steamship Company, 5 Cir., 1964, 327 F.2d 746.

Affirmed.
#### Lazard Freres & Co. LLC, Respondent, v West*Group Properties LLC et al., Appellants.

[769 NYS2d 896]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Herman Cahn, J.), entered September 5, 2003, which, inter alia, denied defendants’ motions to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The motion court correctly found long-arm jurisdiction (CPLR 302 [a] [1]) as against all defendants based on CGR Advisors’ meeting with the New York-based plaintiff in New York at which the marketing of CGR’s option to purchase the Rolim defendants’ interests in the West* Group defendants was discussed; *352the positions of CGR’s principals as either officers of the Rolim defendants and/or representatives of its interests on the boards of the West*Group defendants *(cf. Kreutter v McFadden Oil Corp.,*71 NY2d 460, 473 [1988]); the economic interest of all defendants in plaintiffs successful marketing of the option; the West*Group defendants’ meetings in New York for the purpose of marketing the option; and the many telephone and facsimile communications and document transfers between defendants and the New York plaintiff *(see Parke-Bernet Galleries v Franklyn,*26 NY2d 13 [1970]). We also note the New York choice-of-law clause in the contract between plaintiff and the West*Group defendants *(see Agency Rent A Car Sys., Inc. v Grand Rent A Car Corp.,*98 F3d 25, 29 [1996]). We have considered defendants’ other arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Buckley, P.J., Tom, Ellerin and Marlow, JJ.
`EXHIBIT 32.1

                           NATIONAL AUTO CREDIT, INC.
                  CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                           PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. 1350
                 (SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002)

I, James J. McNamara, Chief Executive Officer of National Auto Credit, Inc., a
Delaware corporation (the "Registrant"), in connection with the Registrant's
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended October 31, 2004, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
do hereby represent, warrant and certify 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) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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


/s/ James J. McNamara
--------------------------------------------
Name:  James J. McNamara
Title: Chief Executive Officer
(principal executive officer)

Date:  December 10, 2004



















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 National Auto Credit, Inc. and
will be retained by National Auto Credit, Inc. and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.




                                       39`
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 6700 

To require the Children’s Bureau to collect and maintain information 

regarding all private adoptions, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 11, 2023 

Mr. LAMBORN introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To require the Children’s Bureau to collect and maintain 

information regarding all private adoptions, and for other 

purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Adoption Counts Act’’. 

5 SEC. 2. ADOPTION STATISTICS. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 473A(c) of the Social Se7 curity Act (42 U.S.C. 673b(c)) is amended by adding at 

8 the end the following: 

9 ‘‘(4) ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT.— 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 6700 IH

1 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding para2 graph (1), a State shall not be considered to be 

3 in compliance with this subsection for a fiscal 

4 year if any court of the State that finalized the 

5 adoption of a person pursuant to a voluntary 

6 consent or relinquishment in the calendar year 

7 ending in the preceding fiscal year has not sub8 mitted to the Children’s Bureau of the Depart9 ment of Health and Human Services the report 

10 described in subparagraph (B) for the calendar 

11 year. 

12 ‘‘(B) REPORT.—The report described in 

13 this subparagraph for a calendar year is a re14 port that contains the following information 

15 about each adoption referred to in subpara16 graph (A) finalized by the court in the calendar 

17 year: 

18 ‘‘(i) Whether the person at the time of 

19 the adoption was less than 1 year of age, 

20 not less than 1 year of age and less than 

21 3 years of age, not less than 3 years of age 

22 and less than 18 years of age, or not less 

23 than 18 years of age. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
3 

•HR 6700 IH

1 ‘‘(ii) In the case that the person at 

2 the time of the adoption was less than 18 

3 years of age— 

4 ‘‘(I) Whether the person was 

5 adopted by a step-parent, relative, or 

6 legal guardian of the child, or none of 

7 the foregoing. 

8 ‘‘(II) Whether the person was 

9 born as a result of gestational 

10 surrogacy. 

11 ‘‘(III) Whether the adoptive par12 ents of the person had been given cus13 tody of the child through an inter14 national adoption placement or inter15 national guardianship. 

16 ‘‘(IV) At the option of the court, 

17 the race of the person.’’. 

18 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

19 subsection (a) shall take effect on the 1st day of the 1st 

20 calendar year that begins after the date of the enactment 

21 of this Act. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5 
<CIK> 0001004990
<NAME> N/A
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          69,007
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  102,901
<ALLOWANCES>                                    18,098
<INVENTORY>                                     24,902
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               186,870
<PP&E>                                          46,473
<DEPRECIATION>                                  19,735
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 422,389
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           45,723
<BONDS>                                        113,418
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           187
<OTHER-SE>                                     263,208
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   422,389
<SALES>                                        103,711
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               103,711
<CGS>                                           77,485
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   77,485
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   490
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,235
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  6,372
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,740
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,632
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,632
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .20
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .20
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 13.2



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 AudioCodes Ltd. (the Company) on Form 20-F for the period ending December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Nachum Falek, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, 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 result of operations of the Company.







/s/ NACHUM FALEK



Nachum Falek

Vice President Finance and

Chief Financial Officer





June 30, 2004





| |  | 
| |  |