alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32.2

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

In connection with the Annual Report of OraSure Technologies, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2017 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Ronald H. Spair, Chief Operating Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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

 

 

/s/ Ronald H. Spair

 

 

Ronald H. SpairChief Operating Officer and 

Chief Financial Officer

June 7, 2018
Case 3:04-cr-00081-H Document 29 Filed 05/12/05 Page 1 of 4 PageID 86
 

 Case 3:04-cr-00081-H Document 29 Filed 05/12/05 Page 2 of 4 PageID 87
 

 Case 3:04-cr-00081-H Document 29 Filed 05/12/05 Page 3 of 4 PageID 88
 

 Case 3:04-cr-00081-H Document 29 Filed 05/12/05 Page 4 of 4 PageID 89
# C_2016191EN.01003501.xml

| 30.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 191/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 191/35

---

Action brought on 21 March 2016 — Isdin v EUIPO — Spirig Pharma (ERYFOTONA ACTINICA)

(Case T-117/16)

(2016/C 191/47)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Isdin, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: G. Macías Bonilla, P. López Ronda, G. Marín Raigal and E. Armero, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Spirig Pharma AG (Egerkingen, Suisse)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Applicant of the trade mark at issue:

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘ERYFOTONA ACTINICA’ — Application for registration No 11 853 116

Trade mark at issue:

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Procedure before EUIPO

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 January 2016 in Case R 1387/2015-4

Contested decision

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO and, if the case might be, the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs, including the essential costs incurred in the proceedings before the Opposition Division and the Board of Appeal of EUIPO. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and, if the case might be, the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs, including the essential costs incurred in the proceedings before the Opposition Division and the Board of Appeal of EUIPO.

Pleas in law

Pleas in law

| — | The Board of Appeal’s decision not to suspend proceedings constitutes a manifest error of assessment, a misuse of powers and an infringement of the Rule 20(7) in connection with the Rule 50(1) of Regulation No 2868/95, Rule 52(1) of Regulation No 2868/95, Articles 75, 76(1) and 99(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 and breach of the principles of equality before the law, proportionality, legal certainty and sound administration; |
| --- | --- |

—

The Board of Appeal’s decision not to suspend proceedings constitutes a manifest error of assessment, a misuse of powers and an infringement of the Rule 20(7) in connection with the Rule 50(1) of Regulation No 2868/95, Rule 52(1) of Regulation No 2868/95, Articles 75, 76(1) and 99(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 and breach of the principles of equality before the law, proportionality, legal certainty and sound administration;

| — | Subsidiary, infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Subsidiary, infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.

---
## Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

Jessica Growden, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Appellant

No. 06

- 17

- 00093

- CV v.
Good Shepherd Health System, The Good Shepherd Hospital, Inc., and Good Shepherd Medical Center, Appellee s Appeal from the 124th District Court of Gregg County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 2016

- 647

- B ). Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Morriss, Justice Moseley and Justice Burgess participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find reversible error in the judgment of the

court below. Therefore, we reverse the trial court ’s dismissal of Growden’s class

- action claims, including her claim for attorney fees related to those claims, reverse the trial court’s dismissal of

Growden’s individua l claim for attorney fees, and remand this matter to the trial court for further proceedings

. We further order that th e appell ee s , Good Shepherd Health System, The Good Shepherd Hospital, Inc., and Good Shepherd Medical Center , pay all costs of this appeal.

RENDERED MAY 9, 2018 BY ORDER OF THE COURT JOSH R. MORRISS, III CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST: Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
Case 3:04-cv-02001-M Document 20 Filed 08/10/05 Page 1 of 1 PageID 90
**Exhibit 32.1**

**Certification of Chief Executive Officer ofAdvance America, Cash Advance Centers, Inc.Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350(Adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)**

In connection withthe Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Advance America, Cash AdvanceCenters, Inc. (the “Company”) for the quarter ended September 30,2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I,Kenneth E. Compton, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1.                The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2.                Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| November 14, 2005 |                                    |
|------------------------|-----------------------------------------|
|                   | /s/ KENNETH  E. COMPTON                 |   |
|                   | Kenneth E. Compton                      |
|                   | *President and Chief Executive Officer* |

 

----
Case 2:04-cv-00039-J Document 17 Filed 03/15/07 Page 1 of 2 PageID 83
 

 Case 2:04-cv-00039-J Document 17 Filed 03/15/07 Page 2 of 2 PageID 84
# C_2017053EN.01004702.xml

| 20.2.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 53/47 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.2.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 53/47

---

Order of the General Court of 20 December 2016 — Amira and Others v Commission and ECB

(Case T-736/16) (1)

1

(2017/C 053/58)

Language of the case: English

The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 475, 19.12.2016.

1

---
John D. STACEY, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Emma S. STACEY, a/k/a Emma Stanley, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-2981

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 20, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUTPUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
STATE of Louisiana v. Anthony LACASSIN

NO. 2019-KH-0143

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 15, 2019

WRIT NOT CONSIDERED. Petitioner has not demonstrated that he sought review in the court(s) below before filing in this Court nor shown the "extraordinary circumstances" that would justify bypassing that level of review. La.S.Ct.R. X § 5(b).
STATE of Louisiana v. Germaine GUMMS

NO. 2018-K-0999

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 25, 2019

*596Denied.
# C_2016118EN.01003501.xml

| 4.4.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 118/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.4.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 118/35

---

Action brought on 8 February 2016 — Chanel v EUIPO — Li Jing Zhou and Golden Rose 999 (Representation of an ornament)

(Case T-57/16)

(2016/C 118/40)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Chanel SAS (Neuilly-sur-Seine, France) (represented by: C. Sueiras Villalobos, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Defendant:

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Li Jing Zhou (Fuenlabrada, Spain) and Golden Rose 999 Srl (Rome, Italy)

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the design at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Proprietor of the design at issue:

Design at issue: Community design representation of an ornament — Community Design No 1 689 027-0001

Design at issue:

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 November 2015 in Case R 2346/2014-3

Contested decision

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | declare the contested design invalid; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the contested design invalid;

| — | order EUIPO, and any other parties or interveners liable to appear in the present proceedings in support of the contested decision, to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO, and any other parties or interveners liable to appear in the present proceedings in support of the contested decision, to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Articles 5 and 6 of Regulation No 6/2002. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Articles 5 and 6 of Regulation No 6/2002.

---
STATE of Louisiana v. Derrick SCOTT

NO. 2019-KH-0320

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 15, 2019

WRIT NOT CONSIDERED. Petitioner has not demonstrated that he sought review in the court(s) below before filing in this Court nor shown the "extraordinary circumstances" that would justify bypassing that level of review. La.S.Ct.R. X § 5(b).
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

January 29, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 132435 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 132435 

 COA: 259358 
 Wayne CC: 90-003165

DARYLE ANTHONY STEWART,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the September 26, 2006 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

d0122 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

January 29, 2007 

 Clerk
**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 Mpower Holding Corporation (the
      "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2005 as filed with
      the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
      the undersigned, Rolla P. Huff, Chief Executive Officer of the Company and
      S. Gregory Clevenger, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
      pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of our
    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.
  
 /s/ Rolla P. Huff
    
    
    /s/ S.
      Gregory ClevengerRolla
      P. Huff
      Chief
      Executive Officer
      May
      10, 2005
    
    
    S.
      Gregory ClevengerChief
      Financial Officer
      May
      10, 2005
   *The
foregoing Certification shall not be deemed incorporated by reference by any
general statement incorporating by reference this report into any filing under
the Securities Act of 1933 or under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, except
to the extent that we specifically incorporate this information by reference,
and shall not otherwise be deemed filed under such Acts.*
 
 *A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Registrant and will be retained by the Registrant and furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.*
Case 4:04-cv-00819-A Document 17 Filed 06/30/05 Page 1 of 2 PageID 121
 

 Case 4:04-cv-00819-A Document 17 Filed 06/30/05 Page 2 of 2 PageID 122
Jason Darryl HARRIS, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

Case No. 5D19-0105

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Opinion filed February 1, 2019

Patrick Michael Megaro of Halscott Megaro, P.A., Orlando, for Petitioner.

No Appearance for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The petition for belated appeal is granted. A copy of this opinion shall be filed with the trial court and be treated as the notice of appeal from the October 2, 2018 order regarding Petitioner's motion for postconviction relief, filed in Case No. 05-2014-CF-16780-A-X, Eighteenth Judicial Circuit Court in and for Brevard County, Florida. *See* Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(c)(6)(D).

PETITION GRANTED.

BERGER, EISNAUGLE and GROSSHANS, JJ., concur.
Thomas Eugene GRAVES, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-2289

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed April 2, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
STATE of Louisiana v. Senan HUSSEIN

No. 2018-KP-1637

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 8, 2019

**ON SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE THIRTY-SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF TERREBONNE**

PER CURIAM:

*61Denied. Applicant fails to show he was denied access to the courts by an arbitrary and unjustified enforcement of the uniform rules governing the filing of applications in the court of appeal, and thus shows no error in the court of appeal's denial of writs on technical grounds. La.C.Cr.P. art. 912.1(C).

Applicant has now fully litigated his application for post-conviction relief in state court. Similar to federal habeas relief, *see*28 U.S.C. § 2244, Louisiana post-conviction procedure envisions the filing of a second or successive application only under the narrow circumstances provided in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4 and within the limitations period as set out in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8. Notably, the legislature in 2013 La. Acts 251 amended that article to make the procedural bars against successive filings mandatory. Applicant's claims have now been fully litigated in accord with La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.6, and this denial is final. Hereafter, unless he can show that one of the narrow exceptions authorizing the filing of a successive application applies, applicant has exhausted his right to state collateral review. The district court is ordered to record a minute entry consistent with this per curiam.
I 

119TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 173 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to classify certain automatic 

fire sprinkler system retrofits as 15-year property for purposes of depreciation. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 3, 2025 

Ms. MALLIOTAKIS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to classify 

certain automatic fire sprinkler system retrofits as 15- 

year property for purposes of depreciation. 

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 ‘‘High Rise Fire Sprin5 kler Incentive Act of 2025’’. 

6 SEC. 2. CLASSIFICATION OF CERTAIN AUTOMATIC FIRE 

7 SPRINKLER SYSTEM RETROFITS. 

8 (a) TREATMENT AS 15-YEAR PROPERTY.—Section 

9 168(e)(3)(E) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is 

10 amended by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end of clause (vi), by 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 173 IH

1 striking the period at the end of clause (vii) and inserting 

2 ‘‘, and’’, and by adding at the end the following: 

3 ‘‘(viii) any automatic fire sprinkler 

4 system retrofit property.’’. 

5 (b) APPLICABLE DEPRECIATION METHOD.—Section 

6 168(b)(3) of such Code is amended by adding at the end 

7 the following new subparagraph: 

8 ‘‘(H) Any automatic fire sprinkler system 

9 retrofit property.’’. 

10 (c) ALTERNATIVE SYSTEM.—The table contained in 

11 section 168(g)(3)(B) of such Code is amended by inserting 

12 after the item relating to subparagraph (E)(vii) the fol13 lowing: 

‘‘(E)(viii) ......................................................................................... 39’’. 

14 (d) DEFINITION OF AUTOMATIC FIRE SPRINKLER

15 SYSTEM RETROFIT PROPERTY.—Section 168(i) of such 

16 Code is amended by adding at the end the following new 

17 paragraph: 

18 ‘‘(20) AUTOMATIC FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM

19 RETROFIT PROPERTY.—The term ‘automatic fire 

20 sprinkler system retrofit property’ means any sprin21 kler system which— 

22 ‘‘(A) meets the standards of National Fire 

23 Protection Association 13 (or any successor 

24 benchmark), 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 173 IH

1 ‘‘(B) is installed for use in residential 

2 property, and 

3 ‘‘(C) is installed in a building which— 

4 ‘‘(i) was placed in service before the 

5 date of such installation, and 

6 ‘‘(ii) has an occupiable floor more 

7 than 75 feet above the lowest level of fire 

8 department vehicle access.’’. 

9 (e) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

10 this section shall apply after the date of enactment of this 

11 Act. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
**Exhibit 32.02**

 

**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 KMG America Corporation Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned hereby certifies, 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 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 KMG America Corporation.

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to KMG America Corporation and will be retained by KMG America Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

 
| Date: August 8, 2006 | /s/ Scott H. DeLong III                                                                                       |
|----------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                 | Scott H. DeLong III

Senior Vice President & Chief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer)

  |
ABOVE ALL BAIL BONDS and Timothy Kozlowski, Appellants, v. STATE of Florida and The St. Lucie Clerk of the Circuit Court, Appellees.

No. 4D18-2266

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[March 14, 2019]

**DECISION WITHOUTPUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Susan DANNELLY, Appellant, v. UNIVERSAL PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-3932

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed April 2, 2019

AFFIRMED.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA §

§

V. § No. 3:04-cr-205-O (10)

 § 

WILLIAM GALLO, §

§

Defendant. §

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND 

RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

The United States Magistrate Judge made findings, conclusions, and a 

recommendation in this case. No objections were filed. The District Court reviewed 

the proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation for plain error. Finding 

none, the Court ACCEPTS the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the

United States Magistrate Judge.

On the basis of Defendant’s Motion to Compel B.O.P. to Find Placement or 

Suitable Shelter Upon Release [Dkt. No. 873], which seeks relief under 28 U.S.C. § 

2241, the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to open a new civil action (NOS: 530), TERM 

the motion in the criminal action, and TRANSFER the new civil action to the 

Beaumont Division of the Eastern District of Texas for further proceedings.

SO ORDERED this 23rd day of February, 2017.

 

 Case 3:04-cr-00205-O Document 877 Filed 02/23/17 Page 1 of 1 PageID 4284