alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**EXHIBIT32.1**

**PROXIM CORPORATIONCERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICERPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

As ofthe date hereof, I, Kevin Duffy, Chief Executive Officer of Proxim Corporation(the “Company”), certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that thequarterly report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarterended April 1, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission(the “Report”), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)or 15(d) ofthe Securities Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company. This written statement is being furnished to theSecurities and Exchange Commission as an exhibit accompanying such Report andshall not be deemed filed pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
|                    | /s/  KEVIN  DUFFY        |
|-------------------------|-------------------------------|
|                    | Kevin Duffy                   |
|                    | Chief Executive Officer       |
|                    | (Principal Executive Officer) |
| Date: May 11, 2005 |                          |

 

----
Karen Sue THIBODEAUX v. GEICO CASUALTY COMPANY, et al.

No. 2018-C-1218

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

October 29, 2018

**ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT, PARISH OF LAFAYETTE**

Writ denied.

CRICHTON, J., would grant and assigns reasons:

I would grant and docket plaintiff's writ application to examine the significant policy issues raised therein. This matter arises in the context of a motion for partial summary judgment. As such, the trial judge's role is not to evaluate the weight of the evidence, and any doubts should be resolved in the non-moving party's favor. La. C.C.P. art. 966 ; *Larson v. XYZ Insurance Company* , 16-0745, p.6 (La. 2017), 226 So.3d 412, 416. Here, the facts construed most favorably for the plaintiff, who opposed the motion, reveal that the narrow issue presented is whether an employee returning home in her own personal vehicle from attending an optional training seminar - for which she is not paid - benefits the employer so as to consider the employee within the course and scope of her employment when the employer may have reimbursed the employee for mileage.

Despite the employee's testimony that she was attending the training in order to enhance her overall performance as a pharmacist and not because she was required to do so, the court of appeal concluded that her "motivation for completing the training was to follow her supervisor's directions." *Thibodeaux v. GEICO Casualty Company* , 17-853, p.8 (La. App. 3 Cir. 6/13/18), 249 So.3d 114, 120. In my view, the court of appeal thus erroneously weighed the evidence in the context of a summary judgment motion in order to prematurely conclude that the defendant-employer was vicariously liable for the actions of its employee. Such error may rise to a material injustice warranting this Court's review.

More importantly, however, the court of appeal's opinion establishes a new policy for this state that an employer is vicariously liable when an employee is on her way home in her own vehicle from an *optional**574employer-paid training seminar and has an automobile accident. Considering the general rule that the act of driving to and from work is not in the course and scope of employment, *Orgeron on Behalf of Orgeron v. McDonald* , 93-1353 (La. 1994), 639 So.2d 224, this decision expands the doctrine of vicarious liability, which should ordinarily be construed strictly, to cover any optional trainings offered by employers that may improve or increase an employee's skills. I would grant this writ in order to assess whether the court of appeal correctly ruled in light of the substantial burden such policy may have on businesses sponsoring employee trainings in the state.
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

**____________**
No. 22

- 20317

**____________ Lee Marvin Sanders; Matthew Sodrok,** 

Plaintiffs

— Appellants **,**

versus
**The Boeing Company; Kidde Technologies, Incorporated; Jamco America, Incorporated,** 

Defendants

— Appellees

**.**

**______________________________** Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USD C No. 4:21

- CV

- 4042

**______________________________**
Before **Elrod ,**  **Ho ,**  and **Wilson ,**  Circuit Judges

. **Jennifer Walker Elrod,** Circuit Judge **:**
Plaintiffs Lee Marvin Sanders and Matthew Sodrok appealed the district court’s dismissal of their claims as barred by Texas’s statute of
limitations. We certified two questions to the Supreme Court of Texas regarding the proper interpretation of Texas’s j urisdiction savings statute , Tex as Civ il Prac tice & Rem edies Code § 16.064

. 1 First, we asked whether

**________________ _____** 

1 Our previous opinion certifying the two questions to the Texas Supreme Court is Sanders v. Boeing Co. , 68 F.4th 977 (5th Cir. 2023)

. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED May 2, 2024 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 22-20317 Document: 130-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/02/2024No. 22

- 20317

2 Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code § 16.064 applies to this lawsuit where Plaintiffs could have invoked the prior district court’s subject matter jurisdiction with proper pleading. Sanders v. Boeing Co. , 68 F.4th 977, 984 (5th Cir. 2023)

. Second, we asked whether Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit within sixty days of when the prior judgment became “final” for purposes of Texas
Civil Practice & Remedie s Code § 16.064(a)(2). Id.
In a characteristically thorough and well

- reasoned opinion, the Supreme Court of Texas answered “yes” to both certified questions. Under Texas law, Section 16.064 (a)(1) applies whenever the previous court
dismisses an action f or lack of jurisdiction. Sanders v. Boeing Co. , 680 S.W.3d 340, 351 (Tex. 2023)

. This is so even whe n the court “erred and actually had jurisdiction or could have had jurisdiction had the claims been pleaded differently.” Id.
Further, a dismissal or othe r disposition does not “‘become[] final’ for purposes of Section 16.064(a)(2) [until] the parties have exhausted their appellate remedies and the courts’ power to alter the dismissal has ended.”
Id. at 357

– 58

. Thus , § 16.064 applies to this lawsuit where the Dallas district court dismissed Plaintiffs’ previous action for lack of jurisdiction and Plaintiffs filed this second action within sixty days after they had exhausted all appeals from that dismissal and “the appellate court lost pl enary power.” Id. at 358

.

* * * Because the Supreme Court of Texas has conclusively determined that § 16.064 applies in this case, we **REVERSE** the district court ’s judgment and **REMAND** for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Case: 22-20317 Document: 130-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/02/2024
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Earth

Filters

              - science_education(1)
              - science_science(8)
              - products_maps(1)
              - products_publications(12)
              - multimedia_before_after(1)
              - multimedia_image(2)
              - multimedia_image-141771(1)
              - multimedia_image-204460(1)
              - multimedia_video(10)
              - multimedia_video-149194(1)
              - multimedia_video-149195(8)
              - (-)multimedia_video-149196(1)
              - news_news-149245(2)
              - news_news-149250(1)
              - connect_staff_profiles(1)

## By Location

              - alabama(1)
              - arizona(1)
              - california(6)
              - (-)florida(1)
              - hawaii(1)
              - mississippi(1)
              - nebraska(1)
              - nevada(1)
              - new mexico(1)
              - puerto rico(1)
              - south dakota(11)
              - utah(1)
              - washington(1)

## By Year

Science Animations        September 19, 2017        Image of the Week - Irma Churns Up Sediment in the Florida Keys
**EXHIBIT 23.0**

**Independent Auditor’s Consent**

We consent to the incorporation by reference of our report datedSeptember 2, 2008, on the balance sheets of Jefferson Bancshares, Inc. as of June 30, 2008 and June 30, 2007, and the related statements of income, stockholders’ equity and cash flows for each of the years then ended, whichreport is included in the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended June 30, 2008 of Jefferson Bancshares, Inc., in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-106807, 333-106808 and 333-112051) filed by Jefferson Bancshares, Inc.with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission. 

 

/s/ Craine,Thompson & Jones, P.C. 

Craine, Thompson & Jones, P.C. 

Morristown, Tennessee 

September 11, 2008
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of the Interior

###### Bureau of Ocean Energy Management

          - [Docket No. BOEM-2023-0061]

# AGENCY:

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Interior.

# ACTION:

Notice of availability; correction.

# SUMMARY:

                        BOEM published a document in the                         **Federal Register**                         of November 14, 2024, concerning a Notice of Availability for the California Offshore Wind Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement. The document contained the incorrect start date of the 90-day comment period.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Lisa Gilbane, Chief, Environmental Analysis Section, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Camarillo, California Office, 760 Paseo Camarillo, Suite 102, Camarillo, CA 93010, (805) 384-6387 or                         *lisa.gilbane@boem.gov.*

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

## Correction

                    In the                     **Federal Register**                     of November 14, 2024, in FR Doc. 2024-26424, at 89 FR 90051, in the second column, correct “Submission of Public Comments” to read: The 90-day comment period began on November 14, 2024.                

Douglas P. Boren,

Pacific Regional Director, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management.

[FR Doc. 2024-29103 Filed 12-10-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4340-98-P
SCWC-17-0000543
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI # I

STATE OF HAWAI # I, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs. ADRIAN-JOHN C. BRINGAS, also known as ADRIANJOHN BRINGAS, Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant.

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS (CAAP-17-0000543; CRIMINAL NO. 16-1-0617)
ORDER ACCEPTING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI (By: Rec ktenwald, C.J., Na kayama, M cKenna, P ollack, a nd Wilson , JJ.,)

Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant Adrian-John C. Bringas’ application for writ of certiorari filed on January 14, 2019, is hereby accepted and will be scheduled for oral argument. The parties will be notified by the appellate clerk regarding scheduling.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai # i, February 20, 2019. /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna /s/ Richard W. Pollack /s/ Michael D. Wilson Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCWC-17-0000543 20-FEB-2019 01:26 PM
##### 



Exhibit 32.2 Certification Pursuant to Section 1350 of
Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code I, Joe D. Norwood, Executive Vice President of Stratos International, Inc.,
certify to the best of my knowledge and belief, that: (1) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended October
31, 2004 (the Periodic Report) which this statement accompanies fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)), and (2) the information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Stratos
International, Inc. Date: December 14, 2004 /s/ 
Joe D. NorwoodJoe D. NorwoodExecutive Vice President
 1
# C_2020428EN.01002601.xml

| 11.12.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 428/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.12.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 428/26

---

Update with effect from 1 July 2020 of the rate of contribution to the pension scheme of officials and other servants of the European Union (1)

(2020/C 428/13)

The rate of the contribution referred to in Article 83(2) of the Staff Regulations shall be 10,1 %, with effect from 1 July 2020.

---

(1)  Eurostat Report on the 2020 actuarial assessment of the Pension Scheme for European Officials of 1 September 2020.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>


        <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
BALANCE SHEET, THE STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS, AND THE STATEMENT OF CASH
FLOWS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                             858
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   858
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     858
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,000
<OTHER-SE>                                        (142)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       858
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      142
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (142)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (142)
<EPS-BASIC>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


<PAGE>

</TABLE>
i i i i i i



### MEMORANDUM OPI NIO N No. 04-10-00456- CV IN RE J eff

rey J

. F ATULA Orig inal Mandamus Proce eding 1 PER C URI AM Sitt ing: Sandee B ry an Mar ion, J ustice

Phy lis J . Speedlin, J ustice Steven C. Hilbig, Just ice Deliver ed and F iled: J uly 21, 2010 PETI TI ON F OR WR I T OF MANDAMUS DEN I ED On J une 16, 2010, relator filed a petiti on for writ of m andamus. The court ha s considere d rela tor’s petition for writ of mandamus and rea l party in interest’s response , and is of the opinion that rela tor is not entitled to t h e re l i ef s oug ht. Acc ording ly , the petition for writ of mandamus is DENI ED. See T E X . R. A P P . P. 52.8(a). PER C URI AM

1 ... This proce eding arises out of Ca use No. CCL -09-1, styled Estate of Allan Edward Kowals ki, Dec eased , in the County Court at L aw, Ke rr County , Texas, the Honora ble Spence r W. Br own pre siding.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

 v. 

JASON ANDREW DUNLAP, 

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-30211 

D.C. No. 3:15-cr-00107-SI-1 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Oregon

Michael H. Simon, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted July 10, 2018

Portland, Oregon

Before: WARDLAW and OWENS, Circuit Judges, and MÁRQUEZ,** District 

Judge.

Jason Andrew Dunlap (“Defendant”) appeals his sentence, arguing that the 

district court miscalculated the applicable guideline range and erroneously 

concluded it lacked authority to sentence Defendant below the statutory mandatory 

minimum. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a). 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The Honorable Rosemary Márquez, United States District Judge for 

the District of Arizona, sitting by designation.

FILED

JUL 19 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 

We vacate and remand for resentencing in light of United States v. Reinhart, 893 

F.3d 606 (9th Cir. 2018).

The parties first addressed Reinhart in Rule 28(j) letters filed shortly before 

oral argument. Defendant had previously conceded that the prior state conviction 

charged in the Information triggered a 25-year mandatory minimum sentence 

under 18 U.S.C. § 2251(e). However, Reinhart constitutes an intervening change 

in the law that may affect the analysis of this issue, and the parties agree that 

remand is appropriate to allow the district court to evaluate in the first instance the

potential impact of Reinhart on the applicable statutory mandatory minimum. 

Because we find that remand is appropriate in light of Reinhart, we decline to 

address at this juncture the other issues raised in Defendant’s appeal.

VACATED and REMANDED for resentencing.
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 Tabatha II, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the
period ending March 31, 2005 (the "Report"), I, John Ballard, President and Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

> 1) The Report fully complies with the requirement 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 Company's
> financial position and results of operations.

/s/John Ballard



 John Ballard,

 President and Chief Financial Officer

May 13, 2005
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: District of Columbia

Filters

              - science_science(16)
              - products_data(46)
              - products_maps(3)
              - products_publications(104)
              - products_web_tools(2)
              - multimedia_audio(3)
              - multimedia_audio-141766(2)
              - multimedia_audio-141767(1)
              - multimedia_image(21)
              - multimedia_image-141771(20)
              - multimedia_image-141775(1)
              - multimedia_video(18)
              - multimedia_video-149194(11)
              - multimedia_video-149195(4)
              - multimedia_video-149197(1)
              - multimedia_video-149225(2)
              - documents_file(1)
              - documents_file-149218(1)
              - news_news-149245(1)
              - news_news-149248(2)
              - news_news-149250(1)
              - news_other_news(1)
              - (-)connect_social_media(2)
              - connect_staff_profiles(4)
              - other_basic-42(5)

## By Location

              - delaware(2)
              - district of columbia(1)
              - maryland(2)

## By Year

              - 2022(1)
              - 2020(1)

social mediaUSGS Science in Maryland-Delaware-District of Columbia

social mediaUSGS Maryland-Delaware-DC Water Science Center
Felix RIVERA, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Grady C. JUDD, Sheriff, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-3429

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

October 17, 2018

BY ORDER OF THE COURT:

Petitioner's petition for writ of habeas corpus is denied.

LaROSE, C.J., and MORRIS and SALARIO, JJ., Concur.
IfeWST *bkt-l5 $k%-l£ 341-/J-

*b*JOmt& ELECTRONIC RECORD 3'7/«-/S"

COA # 06-14-00088-CR

STYLE:

Companion cases

Samuel Deleon Garza v. The State

of Texas

COA DISPOSITION: Affirmed

OFFENSE: 22.01

COUNTY: Hunt

TRIAL COURT: 196th District Court

DATE: 3/10/15 Publish: No TC CASE #: 28,996

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

Samuel Deleon Garza v. The State of

STYLE: Texas

PRO S£ Petition

FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW IN CCA IS:

re fuSerf

DATE: QWy 3.^. ZU>Jf

JUDGE: /22

CCA#: Ikk'ts rMo %fi~/s

CCA Disposition:

DATE:

JUDGE:

SIGNED:

PUBLISH:

REHEARING IN CCA IS:

JUDGE:

PC:

DNP:

MOTION FOR

ELECTRONIC RECORD
# C_2021341EN.01010701.xml

| 24.8.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 341/107 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.8.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 341/107

---

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on ‘Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EU) 2017/625 as regards official controls on animals and products of animal origin exported from third countries to the Union to ensure compliance with the prohibition of certain uses of antimicrobials’

(COM(2021) 108 final — 2021/0055 (COD))

(2021/C 341/16)

| Referral | European Parliament, 11.3.2021
  Council, 17.3.2021 |
| --- | --- |
| Legal basis | Articles 43(2), 114, 168(4)(b) and article 304 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union |
| Section responsible | Agriculture, Rural Development and the Environment |
| Adopted at plenary | 9.6.2021 |
| Plenary session No | 561 |
| Outcome of vote
  (for/against/abstentions) | 212/0/4 |

Referral

European Parliament, 11.3.2021

Council, 17.3.2021

Legal basis

Articles 43(2), 114, 168(4)(b) and article 304 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union

Section responsible

Agriculture, Rural Development and the Environment

Adopted at plenary

9.6.2021

Plenary session No

561

Outcome of vote

(for/against/abstentions)

212/0/4

Since the Committee endorses the content of the proposal and feels that it requires no comment on its part, it decided, at its 561st plenary session of 9 and 10 June 2021 (meeting of 9 June), by 212 votes in favour with 4 abstentions, to issue an opinion endorsing the proposed text.

Brussels, 9 June 2021.

The President of the European Economic and Social Committee

Christa SCHWENG

---
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

 Respondent

 v.

RICARDO A. SANCHEZ,

 Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 617 MAL 2014

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the

Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 14th day of January, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED.