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

# CERTIFICATION PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly
Report of ALARIS Medical Systems, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended
March 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Report), I, David L. Schlotterbeck, President and Chief Executive Officer of
the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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

|April 27, 2004 /s/ DAVID L. SCHLOTTERBECK 
David L. SchlotterbeckPresident and Chief Executive Officer |  | 
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  |
Exhibit 99.2

# CERTIFICATION PURSUANT
TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,  AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO 

SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report
of ALARIS Medical, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2003,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I,
William C. Bopp, Sr. Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:

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

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

|/s/WILLIAM C. BOPP
William C. BoppSenior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer April 30, 2003 |  | 
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  |
# C_2021278EN.01006601.xml

| 12.7.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 278/66 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.7.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 278/66

---

Action brought on 21 May 2021 — ALO jewelry CZ v EUIPO — Cartier International (ALOve)

(Case T-288/21)

(2021/C 278/89)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: ALO jewelry CZ s. r. o. (Prague, Czech Republic) (represented by: K. Čermák, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Cartier International AG (Steinhausen, Switzerland)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark ALOve — Application for registration No 16 724 701

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 March 2021 in Case R 2679/2019-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 8549 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 8549

 To prohibit the retention of incidentally acquired communications in 
           the course of intelligence collection activities.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 9, 2020

  Mr. Amash introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
               Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To prohibit the retention of incidentally acquired communications in 
           the course of intelligence collection activities.

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

SECTION 1. PROHIBITION OF RETENTION OF INCIDENTALLY ACQUIRED 
              COMMUNICATIONS IN THE COURSE OF INTELLIGENCE COLLECTION 
              ACTIVITIES.

    Section 309(b)(3)(A) of the Intelligence Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2015 (50 U.S.C. 1813) is amended by striking ``and shall 
permit the acquisition, retention, and dissemination of covered 
communications subject to the limitation in subparagraph (B)''.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 32.1
 Certification of
Chief Executive Officer & Chief Financial Officer
of VCA Antech, Inc.
   (i)
    
    the Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or section 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); and(ii)
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Issuer.
 Dated:  November 6, 2009
    /s/ Robert L. AntinRobert L. AntinChief Executive Officer/s/ Tomas W. FullerTomas W. FullerChief Financial Officer 39
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-2001
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                         7336942
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                   83771505
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                         2607031
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                           2564484
<LOANS>                                      217789868
<ALLOWANCE>                                    2307377
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               324440868
<DEPOSITS>                                   233403133
<SHORT-TERM>                                  50970346
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                            3792610
<LONG-TERM>                                   15162000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       4002154
<OTHER-SE>                                    17110625
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               324440868
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                8685245
<INTEREST-INVEST>                              2881407
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                 36760
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                              11603412
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                             4662512
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             6566398
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                          5037014
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                   325000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                4269219
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                1631391
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                     1027919
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   1027919
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.23
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.21
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    3.37
<LOANS-NON>                                     233000
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                964000
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                               2120767
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                   159659
<RECOVERIES>                                     21269
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                              2307377
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                        2307377


</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 8757 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 8757

 To amend title 18, United States Code, by increasing the maximum term 
  of imprisonment for the offense of rioting, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           November 17, 2020

 Mr. Buck (for himself, Mr. Sensenbrenner, Mr. Gohmert, Mr. Biggs, Mr. 
     Steube, Mr. McClintock, Mr. Tiffany, Mr. Gibbs, Mr. Budd, Mr. 
  Riggleman, Mr. King of Iowa, Mr. Duncan, Mr. Posey, Mr. Gosar, Mr. 
 Rouzer, Mr. Weber of Texas, Mr. Murphy of North Carolina, Mr. Perry, 
and Mr. Crawford) introduced the following bill; which was referred to 
                     the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title 18, United States Code, by increasing the maximum term 
  of imprisonment for the offense of rioting, 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 ``Blocking Rioters and 
Insurrectionists from our Cities to Keep us Safe Act of 2020'' or as 
the ``BRICKS Act of 2020''.

SEC. 2. MAXIMUM PENALTY FOR RIOTING INCREASED.

    Section 2101(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) by striking ``five years'' and inserting ``10 years'';
            (2) by striking the period after ``or both'' and inserting 
        the following: ``; or''; and
            (3) by adding at the end the following: ``If serious bodily 
        injury (as such term is defined in section 2246) results from 
        the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts 
        include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a 
        dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under 
        this title or imprisoned not more than 25 years, or both; and 
        if death results from the acts committed in violation of this 
        section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to 
        kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit 
        aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined 
        under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for 
        life, or both.''.
                                 <all>
```
SERVED DECEMBER 9, 2010 

. OtrnpiMENT OF 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATI0i^';}p^y(Sn^^^^ 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS ' ^^^^^ '^-"^^ 

WASHINGTON, DC ZGiaOtC !0 A 10:23 

IN THE MATTER OF 

LISA GAMACHE-WORTMAN 

FAA DOCKET NO. CP10AL0005 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

DMS NO. FAA-2010-1081 

NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT OF PROCEEDING 

This proceeding (heretofore designated as Case No. 2009AL700103) has been 

assigned to Administrative Law Judge Richard C. Goodvdn. All future pleadings and 

other communications regarding this proceeding shall be served on the Judge, the FAA 

Hearing Docket, and the other persons on the attached Service List. 

Attachment - Service List 

tonnie A. Yodei> 

Chief Administrativfriiaw Judp 
FAA Docket No. CP10AL0005 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

SERVICE LIST 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building—Suite 2W1000' 

ONE COPY 

Lisa Gamache-Wortman, Respondent 

P.O. Box 12793 

Olympia, WA 98508-2793 

Scott R. Morris, Complainant's Counsel 

Attorney, Office of the Regional Counsel 

Northwest Mountain Region, ANM-7 

Federal Aviation Administration 

1601 Lind Avenue, S.W. 

Renton, WA 98057 

,TEL: 425-227-1417 

FAX: 425-227-1007 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

East Building Ground Floor, Room El2-320 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-2139 Attorney-Advisor 

202-366-5121 Legal Assistant 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

' Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: 

Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S. W., Wilbur Wright Building—Suite 

2W1000, Washington, DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430,
U.S. ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION

633 3rd St. NW, Suite 200

Washington, DC 20001

EAC Decision on Request for Interpretation 2023-01 Logging of Ballot Selections

EAC Decision on Request for Interpretation

2023-01 10.2.4 Logging of Ballot Selections

VVSG 2.0 Principle 10 Ballot Secrecy

Guideline 10.2:

The voting system does not contain nor produce records, notifications, information about the 

voter or other election artifacts that can be used to associate the voter’s identity with the 

voter’s intent, choices, or selections.

Sections of Standards or Guidelines:

10.2.4-B – Logging of ballot selections

Logs and other portions of the audit trail must not contain individual or aggregate ballot 

selections.

Date:

February 10th, 2023

Question(s):

May ballot selections that have been changed by an election official (for example, when 

adjudicating voter intent) be captured in the audit trail?

Discussion:

One of the cornerstones of elections is the principle of voter secrecy. That is, it should not be 

possible to determine how a particular voter voted. Principle 10 of VVSG 2.0 supports this with 

several requirements all ensuring that a cast ballot cannot be associated with the voter who 

cast it. 

When a system cannot determine voter intent on a particular contest, for instance with an 

overvote or write-in vote, or the ballot is unreadable, then it may be flagged or separated. 

Depending on the jurisdiction’s laws, regulations or policies, the ballot will be examined by 

election officials to determine voter intent. This is known as adjudication and allows an election 

official to assign a vote to a contest if they can determine voter intent. 

10.2.3-B states that the voting system “must log all access to the directory or storage location 

for CVRs, ballot images, and ballot selections in addition to logging access to all actions 

occurring within the system”. Electronic adjudication requires this access and assigning a vote 

to a candidate or choice is an action occurring within the system. Log entries must include, at 
U.S. ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION

633 3rd St. NW, Suite 200

Washington, DC 20001

EAC Decision on Request for Interpretation 2023-01 Logging of Ballot Selections

minimum: the adjudication time stamp, the election official performing the adjudication, and 

the adjudication action taking place.

10.2.4 – B states that logs and other portions of the audit trail must not contain individual or 

aggregate ballot selections. This is in the context of preserving voter secrecy. Adjudication 

involves selection by an election official, and it is important that selection is logged as part of 

the adjudication process. With proper jurisdictional procedural mechanisms in place, the cast 

ballot, at this point, cannot be associated with the voter who cast it, whether it is flagged or 

not.

Conclusion:

Ballot selections that have been changed by an election official (for example, when adjudicating 

voter intent) may be captured in the audit trail.

Effective Date:

As of the date this document is published.
#### Keith WALKER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 17-5500

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Filed February 07, 2018

Tyrone Jemal Paylor, Federal Public Defender, Memphis, TN, for Petitioner-Appellant

Kevin G. Ritz, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Memphis, TN, for Respondent-Appellee

Before: BOGGS, CLAY, and KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judges.

KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judge

Keith Walker challenges under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 a prison sentence he received just over 20 years ago. He was sentenced under the “residual clause” of the then-mandatory Sentencing Guidelines, which required higher sentences for defendants with at least two prior convictions for crimes involving “conduct that presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another.” U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(l)(ii) (1995). In *Johnson v. United States,*the Supreme Court found unconstitutionally vague an *697identically worded clause in the Armed Career Criminal Act. — U.S. -, 135 S.Ct. 2551, 2557, 192 L.Ed.2d 569 (2015). Walker argues that sentences decided under the Guidelines’ residual clause when that clause was still mandatory — ie., as binding on courts as the Armed Career Criminal Act — are likewise unconstitutional under *Johnson.*

That argument comes to us in the context of a § 2255 motion, so Walker’s motion is untimely unless *Johnson*recognized a new right that applies retroactively to him on collateral review. *See*28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(3). The problem, then, is that *Johnson*dealt only with the Armed Career Criminal Act, not with the Guidelines. *See Welch v. United States,*— U.S. -, 136 S.Ct. 1257, 1265, 194 L.Ed.2d 387 (2016). That leaves defendants sentenced under the Guidelines’ residual clause — even when that clause was mandatory — without “a ‘right’ that ‘has been newly recognized by the Supreme Court’ let alone one that was ‘made retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review.’ ” *Raybon v. United States,*867 F.3d 625, 630 (6th Cir. 2017) (quoting § 2255(f)(3)).

We acknowledge the irony that a defendant in a similar position to that of the defendant in *Johnson*seems unable even to seek the same relief. But the fact of the matter is that Walker can seek relief under § 2265(f)(3) only if the Supreme Court recognizes a new right that applies retroactively to him. And per *Raybon*the Court has not yet done so.

The district court’s judgment is affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 41 (Monday, March 3, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9483-9484]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-5150]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Surface Transportation Board


Release of Waybill Data

    The Surface Transportation Board has received a request from 
Oppenheimer Wolff & Donnelly on behalf of Gateway Western Railway 
Company (WB518--2/19/97), for permission to use certain data from the 
Board's Carload Waybill Samples. A copy of the request may be obtained 
from the Office of Economics, Environmental Analysis, and 
Administration.

[[Page 9484]]

    The waybill sample contains confidential railroad and shipper data; 
therefore, if any parties object to these requests, they should file 
their objections with the Director of the Board's Office of Economics, 
Environmental Analysis, and Administration within 14 calendar days of 
the date of this notice. The rules for release of waybill data are 
codified at 49 CFR 1244.8.
    Contact: James A. Nash, (202) 927-6196.
Vernon A. Williams,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-5150 Filed 2-28-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4915-00-P
# School Reform

- U.S. Department of Education Supports Government of Puerto Rico's Move to Decentralize the Puerto Rico Department of Education Today, the U.S. Department of Education (the Department) expressed its support for the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico's decision and commitment to decentralize the Puerto Rico Department of Education (PRDE).
- ESEA Flexibility Requests and Related Documents This page provides access to ESEA Flexibility Requests submitted by states, and other related documents.
- Support for States Technical Assistance DocumentsAccountability Addendum to ESEA Flexibility Request [MS Word, 1.8M] and Sample Addendum [PDF, 643K]
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Frederick Lee ROBINSON, Jr., also known as Fredrick Lee Robinson, Jr., Defendant-Appellant

No. 17-10842 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed March 6, 2018

*409James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Peter Michael Fleury, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth, TX, for Defendant-Appellant

Before DAVIS, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Frederick Lee Robinson, Jr., appeals the 57-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm. He first argues that his prior Texas conviction for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon should not have been used to enhance his base offense level, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1, because the elements of the Texas offense are not equivalent to the elements of the generic aggravated assault offense. However, he acknowledges that this argument is foreclosed by this court’s decision in *United States v. Guillen-Alvarez,*489 F.3d 197, 200-01 (5th Cir. 2007), that determined that the Texas aggravated assault offense qualifies as a crime of violence under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2.

Next, Robinson argues that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), as construed, violates the Constitution in that it regulates conduct that falls outside the Commerce Clause. However, he recognizes- that this court has rejected that argument in *United States v. Alcantar,*733 F.3d 143, 145 (5th Cir. 2013), which held that § 922(g)(1) is a valid exercise of Congress’s authority under the Commerce Clause.

Last, Robinson contends that there was no allegation in the indictment and no factual basis presented that established that he knew that he possessed a weapon that had traveled in interstate commerce and, therefore, his conviction should be vacated. He concedes that this court has also rejected that argument in *United States v. Rose,*587 F.3d 695, 705 (5th Cir. 2009), in which the court determined that it is not necessary to prove that a defendant in possession of a firearm knew that the weapon has an interstate nexus.

Because the issues raised by Robinson on appeal are all foreclosed by this court’s precedent, Robinson’s unopposed motion for summary ■ disposition is GRANTED, and the district .court’s judgment is AFFIRMED. *See Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis,*406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969).

*

 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.