alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 32
 
 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 Air Methods Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I 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 result of operations of the Company.
 
 /s/ Aaron D. Todd
 Aaron D. Todd
 Chief Executive Officer
 August 7, 2009
 
 /s/ Trent J. Carman
 Trent J. Carman
 Chief Financial Officer
 August 7, 2009
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 32

                        CERTIFICATIONS UNDER SECTION 906

         Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections
(a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each
of the undersigned officers of Tutogen Medical Inc., a Florida corporation (the
"Company"), does hereby certify, to such officer's knowledge, that:

         The Quarterly Report for the quarter ended March 31, 2006 (the "Form
10-Q") of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in
the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
and results of operations of the Company.

         Dated: July 6, 2006

         /s/ Guy L. Mayer
         -------------------------------
         Guy L. Mayer
         Chief Executive Officer


         Dated: July 6, 2006

         /s/ Robert Johnston, Jr.
         -------------------------------
         Robert Johnston, Jr.
         Chief Financial Officer


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Sanjuana RANGEL-FONSECA, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 15-73855

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted December 18, 2017 *

Filed December 20, 2017

Sanjuana Rangel-Fonseca, Pro Se

*872Lindsay Dunn, Trial Attorney, OIL, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent

Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Sanjuana Rangel-Fonseca, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro.se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying her applications for cancellation of removal, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, *Zehatye v. Gonzales*458 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006), and review de novo questions of law, *Vinh Tan Nguyen v. Holder,*763 F.3d 1022, 1027 (9th Cir. 2014). We grant in part and deny in part the petition for review, and remand.

The agency did not have the benefit of our decision in *Ramirez-Contreras v. Sessions,*858 F.3d 1298 (9th Cir. 2017), holding that California Vehicle Code § 2800.2(a) is not a crime involving moral turpitude, when it determined that Rangel-Fonseca’s conviction under § 2800.2(a) was categorically a crime involving moral turpitude. We therefore remand for the agency to consider Rangel-Fonseca’s eligibility for cancellation of removal. *See Ramirez-Contreras,*858 F.3d at 1306 (holding § 2800.2 is indivisible).

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that Rangel-Fonseca failed to establish a nexus between the harm she fears and a protected ground. *See Zetino v. Holder,*622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (“An alien’s desire to be free from harassment by criminals motivated by theft or random violence by gang members bears no nexus to a protected ground.”). Thus, her withholding of removal claim fails.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of Rangel-Fonseca’s CAT claim because she did not demonstrate a particularized threat of torture, and her generalized evidence of violence and crime in Mexico is insufficient to meet the standard for relief. *See Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder,*600 F.3d 1148, 1152 (9th Cir. 2010).

Each party shall bear its own costs for this petition for review.

PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED in part; DENIED in part; REMANDED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
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
September 30, 2003, 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.
|--- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|October 28, 2003 /s/ DAVID L. SCHLOTTERBECK 
David L. SchlotterbeckPresident and Chief Executive Officer |  | 
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  |
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM TENNECO
CREDIT CORPORATION AND CONSOLIDATED SUBSIDIARIES FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>  1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                             117
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  547,141
<ALLOWANCES>                                    (7,477)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                          69,606
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (21,725)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,002,043
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                        707,375
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                     258,990
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,002,043
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                74,169
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 7,472
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              53,478
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 15,715
<INCOME-TAX>                                     6,294
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              9,421
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     9,421
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### Willie TRIPLETT, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant v. Darrel VANNOY, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary, Respondent-Appellee

No. 17-30100

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed March 2, 2018

*397Willie Triplett, Jr., Pro Se

Before DENNIS, SOUTHWICK, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Willie Triplett, Jr., Louisiana prisoner # 100388, was convicted of aggravated rape and sentenced to life imprisonment. He moves for a certificate of appealability (COA) and for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) to challenge the district court’s order that Triplett’s motion for relief from judgment not be filed.

Triplett’s unfiled motion raised a new 28 U.S.C. § 2254 claim and was a successive § 2254 application. *See Gonzalez v. Crosby,*545 U.S. 524, 532-33, 125 S.Ct. 2641, 162 L.Ed.2d 480 (2005). Because Triplett did not have this court’s permission to file a second or successive application, the district court did not have jurisdiction to consider it. *See*28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A).

To the extent that Triplett is required to obtain a COA, he has not shown that reasonable jurists could conclude that the district court abused its discretion in ordering that Triplett’s motion for relief from judgment not be filed. *See Hernandez v. Thaler,*630 F.3d 420, 428 (5th Cir. 2011). Accordingly, his request for a COA is DENIED. To the extent that he does not need a COA, the order of the district court is AFFIRMED. His motion for leave to proceed IFP on appeal is DENIED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
SomePrinciplesofRegulation•Theburdenofproofisours.•Enforcementisameans,notanend.•Weacäeptorcreateourownlimitations.•“Followingrulesinflexiblyproducesfools.”•“Theheaviestpenaltyfordecliningtoruleistoberuledbysomeoneinferiortoyourself.”•Whenweattainfullcompliancewithminimalstandards,wewillremindourselveswehavejustmettheloweststandardspermissible.•Webaseouractivitiesoncertainassumptions:1.Ourstaffiscompetent.2.Thesurvey/investigativeprocessisvalid.3.Thestandardsweapplyarecurrent,meaningful,dynamic,leastintrusive,fiscallyresponsible,andoutcomeoriented.4.Pastconductisavalidpredictoroffuturecompliance.5.Wehaveanduseallavailableremedies/approaches.•6.Themoreagencies,organizations,interestgroupsandpeopleweinvolvethemoretheycansupportus.7.Thepublicisentitledtomoreinfonnatipnandaccess.8.Whatwedoisimportantandrelevant.Ithasdirectedandcollateraleffectontheregulated,staff,consumersofserviceandfamilies.9.Thoseweregulateareknowledgeable,familiarwithrequirements;areactingingoodfaith;legitimatebusinesses.10.Nooneisattemptingtodeliberatelycircumventorpervertourfunction.11.Objectsandquestions/appealsarelegitimate,sinceredisagreementsormisunderstandings.12.Wearededicatedtonottakingawayanyremainingchoice,autonomy,decision-making,prilefromresident/patients/consumersofservices.Paternalismandprojectitinarenotacceptable.Paternalisticwrappingorselfannointingourselvesdevaluestheirdignityandtarnishesours.••Ourreputationandabilitytoinfluencechangeisnotcumulative;butonlyaseffectiveaseachindividual.•Noonebenefitsfromdelayorconfusion,especiallytheconsumer.•Weshallrequirestandardsforourselvesequaltothosewesetforothers.•Thequality/valueofourworkisnotmeasuredby:Thenumberofverifiedcomplaints,thenumberofviolationsidentified,othergovernmentagencies,oursatisfactionwiththesurveyresults,thelove/adorationofadvocates.•Weareresponsibletoallthepublic.•Weareinvolvedinasystemoflaw—oOfprinciples.Ofreason.Ofequity.Ofvalues.
EAC Decision on Request for Interpretation 2007-02 

2002 Voting Systems Standards, Vol. 1, Section 4.2.5 

Date: 

 

May 14, 2007 

Question: 

Are variable names that differ by only a single character acceptable when they enhance the 

readability and intelligibility of the program? In particular when the names chosen are 

consistent and in agreement with the standard names as used by the operating system, 

industry accepted standards, or publicly documented interfaces or algorithms?

Facts: 

The issue is one of maintaining consistency with industry standard naming conventions 

so reviewers and developers can better understand the code. The following examples 

identify the areas of concern: 

1) Standard API’s, eg, printf(), sprintf(), fprintf(), open(), fopen(), etc. 

2) Standard accepted programming conventions such as get/set, as in gettime(), 

settime(). 

3) Multiple instances or occurrences of similar items, such as COM1, COM2, SIO1, 

SIO2, and their related functions, e.g. sio0Open(), sio1Open(). 

4) Reference to publicly documented hardware (chip) interfaces such as registers 

STN_R_FIFO and STN_W_FIFO , for Read and Write, or values such as 

TPS2206_VCC_3V and TPS2206_VCC_5V , for 3 Volt and 5 Volt settings. 

5) Reference to industry accepted and known variables, such as X and Y for 

coordinates. 

6) Reference to variables defined in algorithms, such as the variables A,B,C,D, etc 

defined in the SHA1 algorithm. 

7) Reference to the collection, i.e. plural, of an object such as Race for the singular 

and Races for the plural. 
Section of Standards or Guidelines: 

2002 Voting Systems Standards, Volume 1, Section 4.2.5 

Conclusion: 

Suggested Interpretation - Names that differ by only a single character, that enhance the 

readability and intelligibility of the program, accurately represent their use, and increase 

consistency between code and documentation, are acceptable under the provisions of 

Volume 1, Section 4.2.5. 

The EAC agrees with the interpretation suggested in this RFI. The purpose of the 

standard is to enhance the readability and intelligibility of the code and the examples 

provided show numerous conditions where such variations are used with little apparent 

problem and, in some cases, are actually very easy to recognize. The interpretation 

allows for a practical application and use of industry accepted standards while still 

permitting egregious instances of misused names to be challenged by the laboratory. 

2
**Exhibit        31.1**

**Certification        of CEO Pursuant to Securities Exchange Act **
**Rules 13a-14 and        15d-14 as Adopted Pursuant to **
**Section 302 **
**of        the **
**Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 **

|                                   |                                                                                |                                      |
|----------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------|
|                                   | BF                  ENTERPRISES, INC.                                               |
|                              |                                                                           |                                 |
| Date:                  August 12, 2005 | By:                                                                       |  /s/                  Brian P. Burns |
|                                   |                                                                                     |
|                                   | Chairman                  of the Board and Chief Executive                  Officer |
No. 11-10269.

#### Rodriguez *v.*Cate, Secretary, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Brenda GONZALEZ, Defendant-Appellant

No. 17-40451 Conference Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed February 20, 2018

Traci Lynne Kenner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Eastern District of Texas, Tyler, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Brenda Gonzalez, Pro Se

Before REAVLEY, CLEMENT, and HO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Brenda Gonzalez has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Gonzalez has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel *293is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 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.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                              10
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       52
<ALLOWANCES>                                         7
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   168
<PP&E>                                              42
<DEPRECIATION>                                      19
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     338
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              111
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                          39
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       338
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   717
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      603
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    86
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  10
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     18
<INCOME-TAX>                                         7
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 11
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                        11
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.53
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.52


</TABLE>
,,- ,? 

TI3E.A ORNEY GENERAL 

OF TEXAS 

Honorable George K Cox 

State Health Offlarr 

Aurtln, Texan 

Dear Elrl Opinion No, O-2697 

Ret In~uranar of tm mobile 

laborrtorlrr. 

We ham your lrtter of Aupmt 6, 1940, In vhiah you rrqurat 

opinion of thil Deprrtmrnt aa to whethrr there im any my in whibh 

your Dapwtment may inruro trmP mobilr laboratorlea, and thr aontrntr 

thereof, an drraribd by you. 

pa Opinion No. O-201, addrrnmrd to you on February 14, 1969, 

with refrrenar to thr authority of thr @tat. Health I)rpartmont to Inoura agrIn& fire, State propwty in the rrrprati~r offlaer of the 

Deparbnent, you were adviaad that in the light of Senate Conaurrrnt 

Resolution No. 3, panned In the Ssoond Called Seraion of the 37th 

Legislature, "Your diatriot dlreotore have no authorlty to pay inBuranoe prsmiuraa frm your looal oontingent funds." 

This Department has written several other opinions on the 

question of thepurohase of insurance by Stats Departments. These are: 

No. O-1762, No, O-164, No, o-2130, and No. o-1100, copies of whioh are 

attaohsd hereto for your perusal, and whioh we believe oover all phases 

of your problem. 

In view of the opinion expressed to you in Opinion No. O-201, 

and sinoe it may be assmed that there is no substantial differenoe in 

the application of the rule between departmental property looated in 

district offices and that located in mobile laboratories,vs deem it 

unneoessary to review herein excerpts from these former opinions. 

In accordance with past opinions of this De~rtment, you are 

respectfully advised that it is our opinion that the Stats Department 

of Health may not insurs these mobile laboratories. 

Very truly yours 

ATTORNEYGEUERAL OF TEXAS 

APPROVED AUG 9, 1940 

/s/ Grover Sellers By /s/Walter R. Koch 

FIRST ASSISTANT 

ATTORNEX GESEFIAL l%lter R. Koch 

WRK:AW1egW Approved Assistmt 

Opinion Committee 

By B W B Chairman
Exhibit 32

Certification of Chief Executive Officer

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
Alliance HealthCare Services, Inc. (the Company) hereby certifies, to such officers knowledge, that:

(i) the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended June 30, 2010 (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: August 6, 2010 |  |  |  | /s/ PAUL S. VIVIANO                              
|                      |  |  |  | Paul S. Viviano                                  
|                      |  |  |  | Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer



---

Certification of Chief Financial Officer

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
Alliance HealthCare Services, Inc. (the Company) hereby certifies, to such officers knowledge, that:

(i) the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended June 30, 2010 (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: August 6, 2010 |  |  |  | /s/ HOWARD K. AIHARA                                
|                      |  |  |  | Howard K. Aihara                                    
|                      |  |  |  | Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer