alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**EXHIBIT- 32.3**

 

MOSSIMO, INC.

 

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 ofMossimo, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter period ended March 31,2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the Report), I Vicken Festekjian, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,certify, in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, That to the best of myknowledge:

 

(1)              The Report, to which this certification is attached as Exhibit -32.3, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of theSecurities and Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

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

 
| /s/    | Vicken Festekjian       |   |
|--------|-------------------------|--------|
|   | Vicken Festekjian       |
|   | Chief Financial Officer |
|   | May 13, 2005            |

 

A SIGNED ORIGINAL OF THIS WRITTENSTATEMENT REQUIRED BY SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 HASBEEN PROVIDED TO THE COMPANY AND WILL BE RETAINED BY THE COMPANY AND FURNISHEDTO THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION STAFF UPON REQUEST.

 

THIS CERTIFICATION ACCOMPANIES THE FORM10-Q TO WHICH IT RELATES, IS NOT DEEMED FILED WITH THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGECOMMISSION AND IS NOT TO BE INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE INTO A FILING OF THECOMPANY UNDER THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1933 OR THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1934 (WHETHERMADE BEFORE OR AFTER THE DATE OF THE FORM 10-Q), IRRESPECTIVE OF ANY GENERALINCORPORATION LANGUAGE CONTAINED IN SUCH FILING.

 

----
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

The undersigned, Kenneth A. Shewer, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) | The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Futures Strategic Trust for the period ended March 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Quarterly 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 Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Registrant.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                      |  |                                      
|--------------------- |  | -------------------------------------
|/s/ Kenneth A. Shewer
|Name:                 |  | Kenneth A. Shewer                    
|Title:                |  | Co-Chief Executive Officer           
|                      |  | (Principal Executive Officer)        
|                      |  | Preferred Investment Solutions Corp.,
|                      |  | Managing Owner of                    
|                      |  | Futures Strategic Trust              
|                      | 
|Date:                 |  | May 15, 2008
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

The undersigned, Kenneth A. Shewer, Co-Chief Executive Officer of the Managing Owner, Preferred Investment Solutions
Corp. (the Managing Owner), of Futures Strategic Trust (the Trust), hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) | The Trusts Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Quarterly
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 Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Trust.
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                          
|--------------------------
|/s/ Kenneth A. Shewer     
|Kenneth A. Shewer         
|Co-Chief Executive Officer
|August 14, 2006
#### NETWORK APPAREL GROUP, LP, Clarus Data, Inc., dba Korcett Holdings, Inc., KHI-TW, LLC, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. AIRWAVE NETWORKS INCORPORATED, Defendant-Appellee *1004Pavlov Media, Inc., Apogee Telecom, Inc., Elauwit, LLC, Time Warner Cable Inc., Time Warner Cable Texas LLC, Defendants

2016-1943

2016-2036

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

March 13, 2017

David G. Henry, Sr., Gray Reed *&*McGraw, PC, Dallas, TX, argued for plaintiffs-appellants. Also represented by . Michael D. Ellis, James Lawton Reed, Jr., Houston, TX.

Tracy J. Willi, Willi Law Firm, P.C., Austin, TX, argued for defendant-appellee. Also represented by James Norman Willi.

(Wallach, Chen and Hughes, Circuit Judges).

JUDGMENT

Per Curiam

This Cause having been heard and considered, it is ORDERED and Adjudged:

AFFIRMED. *See*Fed. Cir. R. 36.'
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14

- 60612 Summary Calendar

RAUL FERRUSCA

- VEGA , Petitioner

v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL , Respondent

Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A087 244 014

Before SMITH, WIENER, and ELROD, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *
Raul Ferrusca

- Vega (Ferrusca), a citizen and native of Mexico, petitions for review of the order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal from the order of the immigration judge denying his application for cancellation of removal. F errusca argues that he was statutorily eligible for cancellation of removal because his conviction for a crime involving moral turpitude occurred more than five years after he entered the United States.

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED April 8, 2015 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 14-60612 Document: 00512998215 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/08/2015N o. 14

- 60612

He asserts that the plain language of 8 U.S.C. § 122 7(a)(2)(A)(i) encompasses only crimes involving moral turpitude that are committed within five years after the date of an alien’s admission and that, therefore, he has not been convicted of an offense under § 1227(a)(2)(A)(i) that renders him ineligible fo r cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(C). He maintains that the deference normally given to the BIA’s interpretation of immigration law is inapplicable in this case because the BIA’s ruling was contrary to the plain language of the releva nt statutes. A panel of t his court has previously rejected the argument raised by
Ferrusca. See Nino v. Holder , 690 F.3d 691, 696

- 98 (5th Cir . 2012). We cannot
overrule that decision a bsent an intervening statutory change, Supreme Court decision, or en banc decision of this court

. See Jacobs v. Nat’l Drug Intelligence Ctr. , 548 F.3d 375, 378 (5th Cir. 2008)

. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

2 Case: 14-60612 Document: 00512998215 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/08/2015
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

IN THE INTEREST OF: K.T., A MINOR

PETITION OF: K.T. :

:

:

:

: No. 177 WAL 2022

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

IN THE INTEREST OF: K.T., A MINOR

PETITION OF: ALLEGHENY COUNTY CHILDREN, YOUTH AND FAMILIES :

:

:

:

: No. 178 WAL 2022

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 18 th day of August, 2022, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

GRANTED . The issues, as stated by petitioner, are :

1. Whether this Court should grant review to ensure that trial courts across the Commonwealth are uniformly applying the correct stand ard for evaluating the bond between a child and parent when conducting a needs and welfare analysis under Section 2511(b) of the Adoption Act in an involuntary termination of parental rights case by:

a. Clarifying that the trial court must evaluate whether t he bond is necessary and beneficial to the child and not just whether any parent

child bond exists; and

b. Clarifying that the trial court must evaluate whether severing that bond would cause the child to experience extreme emotional consequences and not just any adverse effect?

2. Whether a divided three judge panel of the Superior Court, by ignoring

this Court’s decisions in In re T.S.M. , 71 A.3d 251 (Pa. 2013) and In re

E.M. , 680 A.2d 481 (Pa. 1993), erred in affirming the trial court’s denial of a petiti on for termination of parental rights when the almost 5

- year

- old[ 177 WAL 2022 and 178 WAL 2022 ]

- 2 child had been in care in a secure and stable kinship pre

- adoptive foster home for almost four years, and it was undisputed that the mother was unlikely to ever be able to parent the child, t hat the mother was still court

ordered to have supervised visits due to concerns about the mother’s
behavior, and that the court

- appointed psychologist opined that the child needed permanence through adoption by her kinship foster parent with

whom the chil d enjoyed a strong and secure bond?

Additionally, the Application for Leave to File a Brief in Support of Joint Petition for

Allowance of appeal as Amici Curiae is GRANTED.
EX 32.1

                                  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 Nanoscience  Technologies,  Inc.,  (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending September 30, 2007 as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
John T. Ruddy,  Chief Executive Officer  of  the  Company, certify, pursuant  to
18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act
of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

1. The Report fully complies with the  requirements  of section 13 (a) or 15 (d)
of the Securities and 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.

                              By: /s/ John T. Ruddy
                              -------------------------
                              Name:  JOHN T. RUDDY
                              Title: Chief Executive Officer
                              Date:  December 27, 2007


A signed  original of this written  statement  required by Section 906, or other
document  authentications,  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   Nanoscience
Technologies,  Inc. and will be retained by Nanoscience  Technologies,  Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-51156

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JUAN MANUEL TORRES, also known as Juan Manuel Rodriguez, also known

as Juan Manuel Torres-Rodriguez

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 5:07-CR-197-ALL

Before KING, STEWART, and PRADO, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Juan Manuel Torres

raises arguments that are foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States,

523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), which held that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty

provision and not a separate criminal offense. United States v. PinedaArrellano, 492 F.3d 624, 625 (5th Cir. 2007), cert. denied, 128 S. Ct. 872 (2008).

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

March 5, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 07-51156

2

The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the

judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-28-1997
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   30,447
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,027
<INVENTORY>                                     35,965
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                68,124
<PP&E>                                          69,553
<DEPRECIATION>                                  30,770
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 130,140
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           21,443
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            57
<OTHER-SE>                                      84,004
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   130,140
<SALES>                                        113,543
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               113,543
<CGS>                                           85,437
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  101,288
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 665
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 11,590
<INCOME-TAX>                                     4,636
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              6,954
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     6,954
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.17
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.17
        

</TABLE>
14405

#### WAITES v. BROTHERHOOD OF MAINTENANCE OF WAY EMPLOYEES

(189 S. E., 355)

*348
      *Messrs.*Benet, *Shand & McGowan*and *J. J.*Parnan, for appellant,

*Mr. C. T.*Graydon, for respondent.

January 4, 1937.

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Baker.

This is the second appeal in this case. The first appeal resulted in this Court remanding the case for a new trial for the reason that inadmissible and prejudicial testimony had been allowed. See *Waites v.*Brotherhood, 181 S. C., 215, 186 S. E., 276.

On the second trial, again resulting in a verdict for plaintiff-respondent, and from which this appeal is had, the testimony and exhibits are the same, with the exceptions: The inadmissible testimony is absent, and the witness, C. B. Smith, testified he had never instructed the members of appellant that they could pay their dues other than as provided in the Constitution and by-laws of appellant, and retain the benefits provided; and that, when he testified in the first trial that the dues could be paid at any time within the quarter without the member losing any accrued rights, and that he had given out this information to *349the membership generally, such testimony was untrue; that he was confused, excited, and mixed up at the first trial.

Respondent put in evidence the pertinent portion of the testimony of the witness Smith on the first trial.

The sole point involved in this appeal: Refusal to direct a verdict for the defendant on the evidence and under the terms of the by-laws governing the contract between the parties.

“The rule is generally recognized that on a motion for a directed verdict the evidence must beconsidered most favorably to the opponent of that motion, and that the jury may properly pass on inferences from determined facts as well as disputed facts, and contradictions in the testimony of a witness as well as his credibility.” *Tyler v. Sovereign Camp, W. O. W., 177*S. C., 454, 181 S. E., 650, 651. *Waites v. Brotherhood, supra,*makes further discussion unnecessary.

Affirmed.

Mr. Ci-iiee Justice Stabler and Messrs. Justices Carter, Bonham and FishburnE concur.
<PAGE>   1
EXHIBIT 15

                           INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS' REVIEW REPORT

The Board of Directors and Stockholders
NCS HealthCare, Inc. and Subsidiaries

We have reviewed the accompanying condensed consolidated balance sheet of NCS
HealthCare, Inc. and subsidiaries (the Company) as of September 30, 1996, and   
the related condensed consolidated statements of income and cash flows for the 
three-month periods ended September 30, 1996 and 1995. These financial
statements are the responsibility of the Company's management. 

We conducted our review in accordance with standards established by the American
Institute of Certified Public Accountants. A review of interim financial
information consists principally of applying analytical review procedures to
financial data, and making inquiries of persons responsible for financial and
accounting matters. It is substantially less in scope than an audit conducted in
accordance with generally accepted auditing standards, which will be performed
for the full year with the objective of expressing an opinion regarding the
financial statements taken as a whole. Accordingly, we do not express such an
opinion.

Based on our review, we are not aware of any material modifications that should
be made to the accompanying financial statements at September 30, 1996 and for
the three-month period then ended for them to be in conformity with generally
accepted accounting principles.

We have previously audited, in accordance with generally accepted auditing
standards, the consolidated balance sheet of NCS HealthCare, Inc. and
subsidiaries as of June 30, 1996, and the consolidated statements of income,
stockholders' equity and cash flows for the year then ended, not presented
herein, and in our report dated August 2, 1996, we expressed an unqualified
opinion on those consolidated financial statements. In our opinion, the
information set forth in the accompanying condensed consolidated balance sheet
as of June 30, 1996 is fairly stated, in all material respects, in relation to
the consolidated balance sheet from which it has been derived.

Cleveland, Ohio                                    /s/   Ernst & Young LLP
November 13, 1996
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2001
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                          34,104
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  166,067
<ALLOWANCES>                                    40,257
<INVENTORY>                                     30,163
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               197,134
<PP&E>                                          92,638
<DEPRECIATION>                                  50,055
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 557,924
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          291,852
<BONDS>                                        309,856
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           234
<OTHER-SE>                                     162,572
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   557,924
<SALES>                                        159,022
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               159,022
<CGS>                                          130,985
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  130,985
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 3,220
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               8,049
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (7,013)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       100
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (7,113)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (7,113)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.31)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.31)


</TABLE>
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

MANUEL EDUARDO ALONSOOCHOA,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 09-10402

D.C. No. 2:06-CR-00187-RCJ

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Nevada

Robert Clive Jones, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted May 25, 2010** 

Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.

Manuel Eduardo Alonso-Ochoa appeals from the 24-month sentence

imposed following the revocation of his supervised release. We have jurisdiction

under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

FILED

JUN 07 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 09-10402

Alonso-Ochoa contends that the district court erred by basing its sentencing

decision on impermissible factors. The record shows that the district court did not

rely primarily on factors that were inappropriate for consideration. See United

States v. Miqbel, 444 F.3d 1173, 1182 (9th Cir. 2006); see also United States v.

Simtob, 485 F.3d 1058, 1062-63 (9th Cir. 2007). Moreover, in light of the totality

of the circumstances, the district court’s sentence is substantively reasonable. See

United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 993 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).

AFFIRMED.