alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Submitted January 31;

conviction on Count 1 reversed, remanded for resentencing, otherwise affirmed March 1, 2017

#### STATE OF OREGON, *Plaintiff-Respondent, v.*MARCUS JOSEPH HORN, *Defendant-Appellant.*

Klamath County Circuit Court

1500088CR; A159184

389 P3d 1196

Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, and Vanessa McDonald, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant.

Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Leigh A. Salmon, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.

Before Sercombe, Presiding Judge, and Flynn, Judge, and DeHoog, Judge.

*193PER CURIAM

Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction for two counts of witness tampering (Counts 1 and 2), ORS 162.285.1 On appeal, defendant raises two assignments of error. We reject without discussion defendant’s second assignment of error, in which he contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal on Count 2. However, we reach a different conclusion as to defendant’s first assignment of error. In his first assignment, defendant contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal on Count 1. Defendant asserts that the evidence is insufficient to support the conviction on that count. The state concedes that, as to Count 1, the evidence was legally insufficient and the trial court erred in denying defendant’s motion for judgment of acquittal. The state’s concession is well founded, and we accept it.

Conviction on Count 1 reversed; remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.

1

 Under ORS 162.285(l)(a), a person commits the crime of tampering with a witness if

> “[t]he person knowingly induces or attempts to induce a witness or a person the person believes may be called as a witness in any official proceeding to offer false testimony or unlawfully withhold any testimony!.] ”
#### Sterling L. SINGLETON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Patricia BROWN, Lieutenant, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 17-6475

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: March 13, 2018

Decided: March 15, 2018

Sterling L. Singleton, Appellant Pro Se. Peter Michael Balthazor, Roy F. Laney, RILEY, POPE & LANEY, LLC, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Sterling L. Singleton appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Singleton v. Brown,*No. 9:15-cv-02723-JMC, 2017 WL 942177 (D. S.C., Mar. 10, 2017). We deny Singleton’s motion for appointment of counsel. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED*
No. 11-10457.

#### Coleman *v.*United States.

C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
OKLAHOMA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRO NMENTAL Q UALITY

N otice of Public Hearing for Regional Haze State Implementation Plan

The Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) will hold a public hearing on the proposed Regional Haze State Implementation Plan (SIP) and the Best Available Retrofit Technology determinations contained therein. The hearing is

scheduled for Wednesday, December 16, 2009 from 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon in the Multipurpose Room of the DEQ , 707 N orth Robinson Ave nue , Oklahoma City, OK

731 02.

The DEQ prepared the proposed Re gional Haze SIP to comply with the requirements contained in the federal Clean Air Act and 40 CFR Part 51, Subpart P, Protection of Visibility.

All persons interested in these matters are invited to attend the public hearing

and/or submit comments

. P erson s planning to comment may submit a written statement

and/or additional information relevant to this matter for inclusion in the record of proceedings of the public hearing. The hearing officer may limit the length of oral presentation s to allow all those who wish to provide oral comments an opportunity to do

so. Written comments on the proposed Regional Haze SIP will be accepted prior to and at the hearing on December 16, 2009.

The proposed implementa tion plan is available on the DEQ website at http://www.deq.state.ok.us/aqdnew/RulesAndPlanning/Regional_Haze/index.htm

. Copies may also be obtained from the Departme nt by contacting Cheryl E. Bradley, Environmental Programs Manager, at (405) 702

- 4100 or Cheryl.Bradley@deq.ok.gov

.

Please send written comments regarding the proposed Region al Haze SIP to Ms. Bradley at Cheryl.B radley@deq.ok.gov or Department of Environmental Quality, Air Quality Division, P.O. Box 1677, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73101

- 1677, ATTN: Cheryl

E. Br adley. Comments may be submitted by f ax to the Air Quality Division

, ATTN: Cheryl E. Bradley, at (405) 702

- 4101.

Should you plan to attend but have a disability and need accommodation, please notify the Air Quality Division three (3) days in advance at (405)702

- 4216. For the hearing impaired, the TDD relay number is 1

- 800

- 522

- 8506 or 1

- 800

- 722

- 0353, for TDD machine use only.
Three Months Ended     Nine Months Ended
                                      Sept. 29,  Sept. 30,  Sept. 29, Sept. 30,
                                        1996       1995       1996       1995
                                          (Unaudited)           (Unaudited)

Primary

Average shares outstanding             5,253       5,243        5,251    5,235

Net effect of dilutive stock options-
 based on the treasury stock method
 using average market price               27           -          15        44
Net effect of dilutive restricted
 stock grants                              5           8           5         9

  Total                                5,285       5,251       5,271     5,288

Net income                           $   740     $   299     $ 1,915   $ 1,918

Per share earnings                   $  0.14     $  0.06     $  0.36   $  0.36


The  computation  of per  share  earnings  on a fully  diluted  basis  does  not
materially differ from the amounts calculated on a primary basis.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 43 (Wednesday, March 5, 1997)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 9989-9990]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-5354]


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


FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 73

[MM Docket No. 96-9; RM-8736]


Radio Broadcasting Services; Ukiah, CA

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final rule; Petition for reconsideration.

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

SUMMARY: This document dismisses a petition for partial reconsideration 
filed on behalf of LifeTalk Broadcasting Association (``LifeTalk'') of 
the Report and Order in this proceeding, which allotted Channel 246A to 
Ukiah, California, as that community's fourth local commercial FM 
transmission service, rather than reserving Channel 246A for 
noncommercial educational use, as requested by LifeTalk. See 61 FR 
58340, November 14, 1996. LifeTalk subsequently requested the 
withdrawal of its petition for partial reconsideration. With this 
action, the proceeding is terminated.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 14, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nancy Joyner, Mass Media Bureau, (202) 
418-2180.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's 
Memorandum Opinion and Order, MM Docket No. 96-9, adopted February 21, 
1997, and released February 28, 1997.

[[Page 9990]]

The full text of this Commission decision is available for inspection 
and copying during normal business hours in the FCC's Reference Center 
(Room 239), 1919 M Street, NW., Washington, DC. The complete text of 
this decision may also be purchased from the Commission's copy 
contractors, International Transcription Services, Inc., 2100 M Street, 
NW., Suite 140, Washington, DC 20037, (202) 857-3800.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

    Radio broadcasting.

Federal Communications Commission.
Douglas W. Webbink,
Chief, Policy and Rules Division, Mass Media Bureau.
[FR Doc. 97-5354 Filed 3-4-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

        CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 1350 OF CHAPTER 63 OF 18 U.S.C.
  AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002/SEC RULE
                                   13a-14(b)

In connection with the Quarterly Report of The Immune Response Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), which this written statement
accompanies, I, John N. Bonfiglio, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
certify that:

      (1)   The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) 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.

Dated: May 13, 2005                                    /s/ John N. Bonfiglio
                                                       ------------------------
                                                       John N. Bonfiglio
                                                       Chief Executive Officer
No. 11-10374.

#### Lacson *v.*United States.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                         866,612
<SECURITIES>                                 2,571,996
<RECEIVABLES>                                   21,942
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    191,224
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,720,902
<PP&E>                                       1,045,649
<DEPRECIATION>                                (528,211)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,435,126
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          170,867
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        43,161
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,221,098
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,435,126
<SALES>                                         37,440
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                37,440
<CGS>                                            7,488
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    7,488
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               625,991
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (1,191,943)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (1,191,943)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (1,191,943)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .15
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .15
        


</TABLE>
No. 11-10174.

#### Coulter *v.*United States District Court for the District of South Carolina.

C. A. 4th Cir. Certio-rari denied.
#### COM. v. SOUFFRANT, K.

217 MDA 2017

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

09/15/2017

CP-36-CR-0002313-2013, CP-36-CR-0002314-2013 (Lancaster)

Affirmed
#### Rimarlo Antonio RAGLAND, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NC STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION; William Cobey, individually and in their representative capacity; Al Collins, individually and in their representative capacity; Dan Forest, individually and in their representative capacity; Janet Cowell, individually and in their representative capacity; Rebecca Taylor, individually and in their representative capacity; Reginald Kenan, individually and in their representative capacity; Kevin Howell, individually and in their representative capacity; Olivia Holmes Oxendine, individually and their representative capacity; Gregory Alcorn, individually and in their representative capacity; Wayne McDevitt, individually and in their representative capacity; Patricia Willoughby, individually and in their representative capacity; Eric Davis, individually and in their representative capacity; Dr. June Atkinson, Superintendent, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-1909

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: February 27, 2018

Decided: March 16, 2018

Rimarlo Antonio Ragland, Appellant Pro Se.

Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

*314Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Rimarlo Antonio Ragland appeals the district court’s order adopting in part the magistrate judge’s recommendation, dismissing Ragland’s civil complaint, and denying appointment of counsel. We conclude that the district court próperly dismissed Ragland’s claim pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), as amended, 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (West 2012 & Supp. 2017), because the Defendants did not employ Rag-land, as required for an action under Title VII. The district court also appropriately dismissed Ragland’s claims for monetary relief under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, 1985 (2012) because Defendants were immune from suit. *See*28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(iii) (2012). We further conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in abstaining from exercising jurisdiction, pursuant to *Younger v. Harris,*401 U.S. 37, 91 S.Ct. 746, 27 L.Ed.2d 669 (1971), over Ragland’s 18 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, 1985 claims for injunctive relief. Finally, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to appoint counsel or exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Ragland’s state law claims.

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. *Ragland v. N.C. State Bd. of Educ.,*No. 5:16-cv-00288-FL (E.D.N.C. July 11, 2017). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED*
No. 11-9703.

#### Vega *v.*United States.

C. A. 11th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                         612,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,010,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     63,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,786,000
<PP&E>                                         453,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               9,557,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,307,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                  9,717,000
<COMMON>                                    12,826,000
<OTHER-SE>                                (17,223,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 9,557,000
<SALES>                                      1,710,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,710,000
<CGS>                                          559,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  958,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              86,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                108,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            108,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   108,000
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .01


</TABLE>
Exhibit 32

WAVE LIFE SCIENCES LTD.

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 this Amendment No. 2 to Annual Report of Wave Life Sciences Ltd. (the Company) on Form 10-K/A for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of the undersigned officers of the Company hereby
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of such officers 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.
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

May 9, 2018



/s/ Paul B. Bolno, M.D.Paul B. Bolno, M.D.President and Chief Executive Officer
(principal executive officer)


May 9, 2018



/s/ Keith C. RegnanteKeith C. RegnanteChief Financial Officer (principal
financial officer and principal accounting officer)


This certification accompanies the Form 10-K/A to which it relates is not deemed
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of Wave Life Sciences Ltd. under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made
before or after the date of the Form 10-K/A), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.
• ~=m~,~~x:~~'~'~!~"m' SECRETARY 

February 18, 2015 

Mr. Shawn Garvin 

Regional Administrator 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III 

1650 Arch Street (Mail Code: 3RAOO) 

Philadelphia, P A 19103-2029 

Dear Mr. Garvin: 

· This letter concerns the early certification of 2014 particulate matter (PM2.s) ambient air data. 

As required under 40 CFR 58.15, I hereby certify that, to the best of my knowledge, the 

2014 PM2.5 ambient concentration data and the quality assurance data collected and analyzed by 

the Pennsylvania Department ofEnvironmental Protection (DEP) are completely submitted to 

the Air Quality System (AQS) database and the ambient data are accurate taking into 

consideration the quality assurance findings. I further certify that the data collection procedures 

conform to the applicable quality assurance, air monitoring methodology, probe siting criteria 

and reporting requirements in 40 CFR Part 58, Appendices A, C, and E. Enclosed are two copies 

of the AMP 450, AMP 450NC and AMP 600 reports to identify the data that are being certified. 

The early certification of the 2014 PM2.s data prior to February 27, 2015, is necessary to support 

the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's reconsideration of certain nonattainment boundaries 

for the 2012 annual PM2.5 National Ambient air Quality Standard (12.0 micrograms per cubic 

meter). Based on the complete, quality assured, certified 2014 ambient air PM2.s data, the 

monitor in Freemansburg in the Allentown, P A, nonattainment area and the monitor in the 

Johnstown, P A, nonattainment area are below the PM2.s standard for 2012-2014. To this end, we 

are requesting that the designations for these nonattainment areas be changed to attainment. In 

accordance with 40 CFR 58.15, the "annual certification letter" for other criteria and non-criteria 

pollutants will be submitted to the EPA by May 1, 2015. 

Should you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Joyce E. Epps, 

Director, Bureau of Air Quality, by e-mail at jeepps@pa.gov or by telephone at 717.787.9702. 

Sincerely, 

• 

ohn Quigley 

Acting Secretary 

Enclosures 

Rachel Carson State Office Building I P.O. Box 2063 I Harrisburg, PA 17105-2063 

717.787.2814 w Printed on Recycled Paper Z::SC? www.depweb.state.pa.us
**
**Exhibit 32**

**Certifications of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer 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 on Form 10-K of Crescent Capital BDC, Inc. (the “Company”)for the year ended December 31, 2019, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), each of the undersigned officers of the Company, does hereby certify, to the best of such officer’sknowledge and belief, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: 

(1) The Reportfully complies with the requirements of Section 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, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. 

 

/s/ Jason A. Breaux
Name: Jason A. BreauxTitle: Chief Executive OfficerDate: March 4, 2020
/s/ Gerhard Lombard
Name: Gerhard LombardTitle: Chief Financial OfficerDate: March 4, 2020**
#### COM. v. POUST, C.

2016 MDA 2016

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

09/21/2017

CP-56-CR-0000106-2016 (Snyder)

Vacated
EXHIBIT 11.1

                 STEVENS INTERNATIONAL, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
              COMPUTATIONS OF NET INCOME (LOSS) PER COMMON SHARE
                                 (Unaudited)
                (Amounts in thousands, except per share data)



                                                          Three Months Ended
                                                              March 31,
                                                           2001        2000
                                                         -------      -------
 Basic and diluted:

  Weighted average shares outstanding - basic              9,502        9,502
  Assumed exercise of $1 million of 10% convertible
   subordinated notes at $0.50 per share - anti-dilutive       -            -
  Assumed exercise of Series A and B stock options
    (Treasury stock method)                                    -            -
                                                         -------      -------
 Total common share equivalents - diluted                  9,502        9,502
                                                         =======      =======
 Net income (loss)                                      $   (660)    $ (2,141)
                                                         =======      =======
 Per share amounts  -- Basic and fully diluted:

 Net income (loss) - basic                               $ (0.07)    $  (0.22)
                                                         =======      =======
 Net income (loss) - diluted                             $ (0.07)    $  (0.22)
                                                         =======      =======