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

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Bitstream Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the SEC) on the date hereof (the Report), each of the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his or her knowledge:



| | 1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the Exchange Act); and
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



|                    |  |                                                                          |  |                
|------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------ |  | ---------------
|SIGNATURE           |  | TITLE                                                                    |  | DATE           
|                    |  |                                                                         
|/s/ Anna M. Chagnon |  | President and Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)      |  | August 14, 2009
|Anna M. Chagnon     |  |                                                                         
|                    |  |                                                                         
|/s/ James P. Dore   |  | Vice President and Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer) |  | August 14, 2009
|James P. Dore       |  |                                                                         

This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Exchange Act, or otherwise subject to liability under that section. This certification shall not be deemed incorporated by reference in any filing under the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it by reference.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form with the electronic version 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 SEC or its staff upon request.
No. 11-11159.

#### McCoy *v.*United States.

Ct. App. D. C. Certiorari denied.
<PAGE>
<TABLE>
                                                                      Exhibit 12

                       Public Service Company of Oklahoma
                       Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
                        For the Years Ended December 31
<CAPTION>
                               2001       2000      1999      1998      1997
                                            (thousands, except ratios)
<S>                          <C>       <C>       <C>       <C>       <C>

Operating Income............. $ 96,991  $ 96,669  $ 98,713  $115,074  $ 82,024
Adjustments
  Income Taxes...............  54,408    10,291    18,562    52,494    12,313
  Provision for
    Deferred Income
      Taxes.................. (17,751)   25,453    14,521    (1,651)    8,615
Deferred Investment
      Tax Credits............  (1,791)   (1,791)   (1,791)   (1,795)   (2,278)
Charges for Investments
      and Plant Development
      Costs, Net of Tax......    -         -         -         -          (75)
Other Income and Deductions..    (881)    8,739       745      (951)      729
Allowance for Borrowed and
  Equity Funds Used During
  Construction...............   6,471     4,631     1,636     2,029     2,317
     Earnings................$137,447  $143,992  $132,386  $165,200  $103,645

Fixed Charges:
  Interest on
   Long-term Debt............  $29,305   $26,473   $26,528   $29,136   $30,474
  Interest on
   Short-term Debt...........   9,513    10,902     7,058     4,107     4,100
   Distributions on Trust
   Preferred Securities......   6,000     6,000     6,000     6,000     3,967
    Fixed Charges............ $44,818   $43,375   $39,586   $39,243   $38,541

Ratio of Earnings to
  Fixed Charges..............    3.06      3.31      3.34      4.20      2.68
</TABLE>
H. Res. 1054 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

July 20, 2020. 

Resolved, That the House has heard with profound sorrow of the death of the Honorable John Lewis, a Representative from the State of Georgia. 

Resolved, That a committee of such Members of the 

House as the Speaker may designate, together with such 

Members of the Senate as may be joined, be appointed to attend the funeral. 

Resolved, That the Sergeant-at-Arms of the House be 

authorized and directed to take such steps as may be necessary for carrying out the provisions of these resolutions and 

that the necessary expenses in connection therewith be paid 

out of applicable accounts of the House. 

Resolved, That the Clerk communicate these resolutions 

to the Senate and transmit a copy thereof to the family of 

the deceased. 
2 

•HRES 1054 EH 

Resolved, That when the House adjourns today, it adjourn as a further mark of respect to the memory of the deceased. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>5
       
<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                            DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                 MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                          23197768
<SECURITIES>                                           0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     989410
<ALLOWANCES>                                           0
<INVENTORY>                                            0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                       0
<PP&E>                                         118677444
<DEPRECIATION>                                  89838001
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  53078975
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                  0
<BONDS>                                                0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                  0
<PREFERRED>                                            0
<COMMON>                                               0
<OTHER-SE>                                      46189724
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    53078975
<SALES>                                                0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 2440098
<CGS>                                                  0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                          0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1542302
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                     0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   897796
<INCOME-TAX>                                           0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               897796
<DISCONTINUED>                                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                        0
<CHANGES>                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                      897796
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                       1.28
<EPS-DILUTED>                                          0
        

</TABLE>
No. 12-5138.

#### Lau *v.*Florida.

Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 5th Dist. Certiorari denied.
# C_2023063EN.01000901.xml

| 20.2.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 63/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.2.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/9

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 22 December 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Syndicat Les Entreprises du médicament (LEEM) v Ministre des Solidarités et de la Santé

(Case C-20/22) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Medicinal products for human use - Directive 89/105/EEC - Transparency of measures regulating the pricing of medicinal products for human use and their inclusion in the scope of national health insurance systems - Article 4 - Price freeze imposed on all medicinal products or on certain categories of medicinal products - National measure concerning only certain medicinal products, on an individual basis - Setting a maximum price for sales to health establishments of certain medicinal products)

(2023/C 63/11)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Syndicat Les Entreprises du médicament (LEEM)

Defendant: Ministre des Solidarités et de la Santé

Operative part of the judgment

Article 4(1) of Council Directive 89/105/EEC of 21 December 1988 relating to the transparency of measures regulating the pricing of medicinal products for human use and their inclusion in the scope of national health insurance systems

must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of a ‘price freeze ... on all medicinal products or on certain categories of medicinal products’ does not apply to a measure whose purpose is to control the prices of certain medicinal products, on an individual basis.

---

(1)  OJ C 119, 14.3.2022.

---
##### 



Exhibit 31.1
 Certification of Principal Executive Officer
Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002/SEC Rule 13a-14(a)
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Orchestra Therapeutics, Inc.;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material
fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of
the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the
period covered by this report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this report, fairly present in all material respect the financial condition,
results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods
presented in this report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)
and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:
 (a)
    
    designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure
that material information relating to the registrant is made known to us by others
within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
prepared;(b)
    
    evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of
the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this
report based on such evaluation; and(c)
    
    disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control
over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal
quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect,
the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and
 5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants
auditors and the audit committee of registrants board of directors (or persons performing
the equivalent functions):
 (a)
    
    all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to
adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report
financial information; and(b)
    
    any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting.
  /s/ Joseph F. ONeillJoseph F. ONeillChief Executive Officer
No. 11-1274.

#### Gabelli et al. *v.*Securities and Exchange Commission.

C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari granted.
Submitted February 23, 2016,

affirmed May 10, 2017

#### STATE OF OREGON, *Plaintiff-Respondent, v.*MICHAEL ANDREW SUITTER, *Defendant-Appellant.*

Baker County Circuit Court

13843; A157213

395 P3d 68

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

Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Paul L. Smith, Deputy Solicitor General, and Timothy A. Sylwester, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.

Before Ortega, Presiding Judge, and Lagesen, Judge, and Garrett, Judge.

*507PER CURIAM

Defendant appeals a judgment revoking his probation and imposing a 24-month term of imprisonment with no eligibility for early release programs. Defendant pleaded guilty to felony driving while revoked, ORS 811.182. As part of the plea agreement, the parties stipulated—and the court ordered—that defendant would receive three years’ probation in lieu of the presumptive 24-month prison sentence; however, if probation was revoked, defendant would serve the full 24-month sentence with “no good time or credit for time served.” The judgment reflects the parties’ stipulation. Subsequently, the trial court found that defendant had violated his probation, revoked it, and imposed the sentence to which the parties had stipulated. On appeal, defendant argues that the trial court erred by denying him eligibility for early release programs without making the requisite findings, on the record, at defendant’s probation-revocation hearing. *See*ORS 137.750(1) (providing that the court shall order that a defendant be considered for early release programs “unless the court finds on the record in open court substantial and compelling reasons to order that the defendant not be considered for” such programs). Defendant concedes that he failed to preserve that argument but asks that we review it as plain error.

Even if we found it appropriate to exercise our discretion to correct defendant’s unpreserved error, in light of our decision in *State v. Silsby,*282 Or App 104, 110-13, 386 P3d 172 (2016), *rev den,*360 Or 752 (2017), we conclude that defendant’s claim of error is not reviewable. *See*ORS 138.222(2)(d) (“[0]n appeal from a judgment of conviction entered for a felony committed on or after November 1,1989, the appellate court may not review * * * [a]ny sentence resulting from a stipulated sentencing agreement between the state and the defendant which the sentencing court approves on the record.”); *Silsby,*282 Or App at 110-13 (holding that ORS 138.222 (2)(d) precluded review of the defendant’s claim that her stipulated sentence was unlawful where the sentence was imposed pursuant to agreement, was a specific sentence, and the trial court imposed the agreed-upon sentence following revocation of the defendant’s probation).

Affirmed.
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 974 

To amend the Federal Reserve Act to require the Vice Chairman for Supervision of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System to 

provide a written report, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 5, 2019 

Mr. GOTTHEIMER (for himself and Mr. LUCAS) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Financial Services 

A BILL 

To amend the Federal Reserve Act to require the Vice Chairman for Supervision of the Board of Governors of the 

Federal Reserve System to provide a written report, and 

for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Federal Reserve Su5 pervision Testimony Clarification Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•HR 974 IH

1 SEC. 2. VICE CHAIRMAN FOR SUPERVISION REPORT RE2 QUIREMENT. 

3 Paragraph (12) of section 10 of the Federal Reserve 

4 Act (12 U.S.C. 247b) is amended— 

5 (1) by redesignating such paragraph as para6 graph (11); and 

7 (2) in such paragraph— 

8 (A) by striking ‘‘shall appear’’ and insert9 ing ‘‘shall provide written testimony and ap10 pear’’; and 

11 (B) by adding at the end the following: 

12 ‘‘If, at the time of any appearance described in 

13 this paragraph, the position of Vice Chairman 

14 for Supervision is vacant, the Chairman or their 

15 designee shall appear instead and provide the 

16 required written testimony.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
# Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed August 18, 2021. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________ No. 3D21-1330 Lower Tribunal No. F90-48092B

________________ Ana Maria Cardona, Appellant, vs. The State of Florida, Appellee. An Appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Miguel M. de la O, Judge. Ana Maria Cardona, in proper person. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, for appellee. Before EMAS, LOGUE and SCALES, JJ. PER CURIAM. Affirmed.
Sc hweizerische Eidgenossenschaft Confederation suisse Confederazione Sv i zzera Confederaz i un svizra

FOCA CH-3003 Bern Mr

. Paul Gretch Director, Office for International Aviation Federal Department of the Environment, Transport, Energy and Communications DETEC Federal Office of Civil Aviation FOCA Aviation Policy and Strategy

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International Affairs U.S. Department of Transportation 400 7th Street, S.W., Room 6402 Washington, DC 20590 USA

Reference: 0/01/01
-02

.02

.187 Your reference : Our reference : fjl Contact person: Laurence Fontana Jungo Tel. +41 31 323 04 10, Fax +41 31 325 92 12, Laurence.fontana-jungo@bazl.admin

.ch IWgen, 27 February 2013



### Declaration of Reciprocity
Dear Mr. Gretch 

## 1 

# J.A.e

# ~**f'~** The Federal Office of Civil Aviation of Switzerland herewith declares, that it will consider applications by U.S. air carriers for approval to operate charters to and from Switzerland in accordance with the provisions of the Air Transport Agreement between the Swiss Confederation and the United States of America, dated 21 June 2010, and, for those charters not specified in the Annex to the Agreement, on the basis of comity and reciprocity.
Yours sincerely

# V(.~~~ Marcel Zuckschwerdt Director Head Aviation Policy and Strategy

# \_ Laurence Fontana Jungo

# ~ Chief Negotiator Air Services Agreements

Federal Office of Civil Aviation MOhlestrasse 3, 3063 lttigen Postal address : CH-3003 Bern Tel. +41 31 325 80 39/40, Fax +41 31 325 80 32 www .aviation

.admin.ch
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Daniel Eugene THURSTON, Defendant-Appellant

No. 17-50180

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed March 9, 2018

Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, Jennifer Sheffield Freel, Ewell, Brown, Blanke & Knight, L.L.P., Austin, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

*434Judy Fulmer Madewell, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Maureen Scott Franco, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant

Before DAVIS, JONES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Daniel Eugene Thurston appeals the sentence imposed at resentencing for his conviction of being a felon in possession of a firearm. He argues that the district court committed reversible error by considering an incorrect range of supervised release.

We review Thurston’s claim for plain error. *See United States v. Neal,*578 F.3d 270, 272 (5th Cir. 2009). To show plain error, the defendant must show a forfeited error that is clear or obvious and that affects his substantial rights. *Puckett v. United States,*556 U.S. 129, 135, 129 S.Ct. 1423, 173 L.Ed.2d 266 (2009). If he makes such a showing, this court has the discretion to correct the error but should do so only if it seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. *Id.*

The district court considered an incorrect range of supervised release when fashioning Thurston’s sentence. That error arguably affected Thurston’s substantial rights. There is nothing in the record, however, indicating that a miscarriage of justice would result from a failure to correct the error because Thurston received a term of supervised release within the correct guidelines range. *See United States v. Escalante-Reyes,*689 F.3d 415, 425 (5th Cir. 2012) (en banc); U.S.S.G. § 5D1.2(a)(2).

AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
No. 11-10813.

#### Turner *v.*United States.

C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.