alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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 Bluefly, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2005, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Melissa
Payner-Gregor, Chief Executive 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 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/ Melissa Payner-Gregor
-------------------------
Melissa Payner-Gregor
Chief Executive Officer
November 7, 2005
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 on Form 10-Q of Synovics Pharmaceuticals,
Inc. (the Company) for the quarterly period ended July 31, 2009 filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Gerald
Price, Principal Executive Officer, 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 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 consolidated financial condition of the Company as of the dates
 presented and consolidated results of operations of the Company for the
 periods presented.

|                           |                                 
|-------------------------- | --------------------------------
|Dated:
 September 21, 2009
|                          
|By:                        | /s/ Gerald Price                
|                           |                                 
|                           | Gerald Price                    
|                           | Interim
 Chief Executive Officer

This
certification has been furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.

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

---
Exhibit 32.1

Certification of the Chief Executive Officer

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350

Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. § 1350, I, the undersigned Chief Executive Officer of Nicholas Financial,
Inc. (the Company), hereby certify, based on my knowledge, that the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2007 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|              |  |  |  |                        
|------------- |  |  |  | -----------------------
|June 14, 2007 |  |  |  | /s/ Peter L. Vosotas   
|              |  |  |  | Peter L. Vosotas       
|              |  |  |  | Chief Executive Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

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

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                             432
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,078
<ALLOWANCES>                                      (40)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 1,694
<PP&E>                                             776
<DEPRECIATION>                                   (570)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   2,031
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,146
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             6
<OTHER-SE>                                       (121)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     2,031
<SALES>                                          3,827
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 3,827
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,590
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  43
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    194
<INCOME-TAX>                                       189
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  5
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         5
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .01


</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Luis Serrano, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Eugene L. Nardelli, J.), rendered November 30, *5101981, convicting defendant, following a jury trial, on indictment No. 224/81, of robbery in the first and second degrees, criminal use of a firearm in the first and second degrees, attempted robbery in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and sentencing him to two terms of from *8 Vs*to 25 years on the convictions for robbery in the first degree and criminal use of a firearm in the first degree and four terms of 5 to 15 years on each of the other counts, all to run concurrently, unanimously affirmed.

Judgment (same court), rendered November 30, 1981, convicting defendant following a jury trial on indictment No. 225/81, of robbery in the first degree and criminal use of a firearm in the first degree and sentencing him to two concurrent terms of *8 Vs*to 25 years, to run consecutively to the sentences imposed under indictment No. 224/81, unanimously affirmed.

Judgment (same court), rendered November 30, 1981, convicting defendant following a jury trial on indictment No. 1566/80, of attempted murder in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and sentencing him to concurrent terms of 12 *Vz*to 25 years on the attempted murder count and 5 to 15 years on the weapons possession count, to run consecutively with the sentences imposed under indictments Nos. 224/81 and 225/81, unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of reversing the sentence on the attempted murder in the second degree count and imposing a sentence of *8 Vs*to 25 years and, except as so modified, is otherwise affirmed.

The District Attorney concedes that defendant’s sentence of *12 Vi*to 25 years on his conviction for attempted murder in the second degree, a class B violent felony offense, was illegal. *(See, People v Gonzalez,*99 AD2d 1001; Penal Law § 70.02 [4].) Penal Law § 70.02 (4) provides that the minimum period of imprisonment that may be imposed for a violent felony offense cannot exceed one third of the maximum, unless the sentence is for a conviction for a class B armed felony offense, in which case the court may impose a minimum of up to one half of the maximum. Attempted murder in the second degree is not an armed felony offense since neither the possession nor the display of a gun is an element of the crime. (Penal Law § 125.25.) While defendant’s use of a shotgun was a factual element of the crime, it was not a statutory element. Inasmuch as the court obviously intended to sentence defendant to the maximum term allowable, we find a remand for resentence unnecessary and we modify the sentence accordingly. *511
      *(See, People v Gonzalez, supra.)*We have examined the remaining arguments advanced by appellant and find them lacking in merit. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Carro, Asch, Kassal and Rosenberger, JJ.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 179 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 179

To constitute the minority party's membership on certain committees for 
the One Hundred Twelfth Congress, or until their successors are chosen.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 11, 2011

Mr. McConnell submitted the following resolution; which was considered 
                             and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
To constitute the minority party's membership on certain committees for 
the One Hundred Twelfth Congress, or until their successors are chosen.

    Resolved, That the following shall constitute the minority party's 
membership on the following committees for the One Hundred Twelfth 
Congress, or until their successors are chosen:
    COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION: Mrs. Hutchison, 
Ms. Snowe, Mr. DeMint, Mr. Thune, Mr. Wicker, Mr. Isakson, Mr. Blunt, 
Mr. Boozman, Mr. Toomey, Mr. Rubio, Ms. Ayotte, and Mr. Heller.
    COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES: Ms. Murkowski, Mr. 
Barrasso, Mr. Risch, Mr. Lee, Mr. Paul, Mr. Coats, Mr. Portman, Mr. 
Hoeven, Mr. Heller and Mr. Corker.
    COMMITTEE ON FINANCE: Mr. Hatch, Mr. Grassley, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Kyl, 
Mr. Crapo, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Enzi, Mr. Cornyn, Mr. Coburn, Mr. Thune and 
Mr. Burr.
    COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS: Ms. 
Collins, Mr. Coburn, Mr. Brown (Massachusetts), Mr. McCain, Mr. Johnson 
(Wisconsin), Mr. Portman, Mr. Paul and Mr. Moran.
    COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET: Mr. Sessions, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Enzi, Mr. 
Crapo, Mr. Cornyn, Mr. Graham, Mr. Thune, Mr. Portman, Mr. Toomey, Mr. 
Johnson (Wisconsin), and Ms. Ayotte.
    SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON AGING: Mr. Corker, Ms. Collins, Mr. Hatch, Mr. 
Kirk, Mr. Heller, Mr. Moran, Mr. Johnson (Wisconsin), Mr. Shelby, Mr. 
Graham, and Mr. Chambliss.
                                 <all>
```
See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.4. 1

COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 2-06-405-CR

SHEILA LANETTE CALHOUN APPELLANT

A/K/A SHEILA L. CALHOUN

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

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

FROM THE 213TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

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

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

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

Appellant Sheila Lanette Calhoun pled guilty to theft of property valued

under $1500 with two prior theft convictions. The jury found her guilty, found

that she had used or exhibited a deadly weapon during the offense, and

assessed her punishment at ten years’ confinement in the Institutional Division
386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967). 2

See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); 3

Mays v. State, 904 S.W.2d 920, 922-23 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1995, no

pet.).

See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 82-83, 109 S. Ct. 346, 351, 52 4

(1988). 

2

of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. The trial court sentenced her accordingly.

Appellant’s court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to

withdraw as counsel and a brief in support of that motion. In the brief, counsel

avers that, in his professional opinion, this appeal is frivolous. Counsel’s brief

and motion meet the requirements of Anders v. California by presenting a 2

professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable

grounds for relief. Although Appellant was given an opportunity to file a brief,

she has not done so.

After an appellant’s court-appointed counsel files a motion to withdraw

on the ground that the appeal is frivolous and fulfills the requirements of

Anders, this court is obligated to undertake an independent examination of the

record. Only then may we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. Because 3 4

Appellant entered an open plea of guilty, our independent review for potential

error is limited to potential jurisdictional defects, the voluntariness of her plea,
See Monreal v. State, 99 S.W.3d 615, 620 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003). 5

See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827-28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). 6

3

error that is not independent of and supports the judgment of guilt, and error

occurring after entry of the guilty plea.5

We have carefully reviewed counsel’s brief and the record. We agree

with counsel that this appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit; we find

nothing in the record that arguably might support the appeal. Accordingly, we

6

grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the trial court’s judgment.

PER CURIAM

PANEL F: DAUPHINOT, GARDNER, and WALKER, JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH

TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED: March 6, 2008
#### Sonya WOLF, an individual; Roger Craig, in his capacity as Guardian ad Litem for the Minor N.H., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CITY OF STOCKTON; Sandoval, individually and in his in his official capacity as police officer for the City of Stockton; Azverand, individually and in his official capacity as police officer for the City of Stockton; DOES 1-20, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 10-15776.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted June 13, 2011.*

Filed July 1, 2011.

David John Beauvais, Oakland, CA, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

Shelley L. Green, Assistant City, Stockton City Attorney, Stockton, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before: O’SCANNLAIN and BYBEE, Circuit Judges, and HAYES, District Judge.**

*

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

**

 The Honorable William Q. Hayes, United States District Judge for the District of Southern California, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM ***

Sonya Wolf and Roger Craig appeal from the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the City of Stockton and to Officers Darren Sandoval and Eric Azve-rand. As the facts are known to the parties, we repeat them only as necessary to explain our decision.

The officers’ limited search of Wolfs van was justified under the emergency aid exception to the Fourth Amendment. *See Brigham, City v. Stuart,*547 U.S. 398, 403-04, 126 S.Ct. 1943, 164 L.Ed.2d 650 (2006); *United States v. Cervantes,*219 F.3d 882, 888 (9th Cir.2000). Given the concerns of Nicholas’s father, the unusual living conditions inside the van, and Wolfs uncooperative and disruptive behavior, the officers had reasonable grounds to believe that Nicholas was residing in a situation unsafe for a young child, and thus that a potential emergency situation required further investigation. *See United States v. Bradley,*321 F.3d 1212 (9th Cir.2003); *White v. Pierce Cnty.,*797 F.2d 812 (9th Cir.1986). The officers’ search of the van and interview with Nicholas did not go beyond that which was necessary to determine that he was safe. *See Martin v. City of Oceanside,*360 F.3d 1078, 1082 (9th Cir.2004).

Furthermore, the officers’ brief detention of Wolf during the interview with Nicholas did not violate the Fourth Amendment. By her own admission, Wolf was disrupting the officers’ attempts to speak with Nicholas. Because their investigation of Nicholas’s welfare was valid under the Fourth Amendment, so too was their reasonable decision temporarily to detain Wolf to facilitate such investigation. *482Wolf remained within clear sight of Nicholas throughout the interview, and her detention lasted no longer than necessary to facilitate the officers’ investigation.

The judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 140 (Monday, July 26, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 40067]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-15866]



[[Page 40067]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute on Aging; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute on Aging Special Emphasis 
Panel; Mitochondria and Aging.
    Date: September 3, 2021.
    Time: 10:00 a.m. to 12:30 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institute on Aging, Gateway Building, 7201 
Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Video Meeting).
    Contact Person: Anita H. Undale, MD, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Officer, Scientific Review Branch, National Institute on Aging, 
National Institutes of Health, Gateway Building, Suite 2W200, 7201 
Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-827-7428, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#4b2a25223f2a653e252f2a272e0b252223652c243d"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="dbbab5b2afbaf5aeb5bfbab7be9bb5b2b3f5bcb4ad">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.866, Aging 
Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: July 21, 2021.
Miguelina Perez,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2021-15866 Filed 7-23-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
III 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 130 

Designating April 5, 2011, as ‘‘Gold Star Wives Day’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 5, 2011 

Mr. BURR (for himself and Mrs. MURRAY) submitted the following resolution; 

which was considered and agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

Designating April 5, 2011, as ‘‘Gold Star Wives Day’’. 

Whereas the Senate honors the sacrifices made by the 

spouses and families of the fallen members of the Armed 

Forces of the United States; 

Whereas the Gold Star Wives of America, Inc. represents the 

spouses and families of the members and veterans of the 

Armed Forces of the United States who have died on active duty or as a result of a service-connected disability; 

Whereas the primary mission of the Gold Star Wives of 

America, Inc. is to provide services, support, and friendship to the spouses of the fallen members and veterans 

of the Armed Forces of the United States; 

Whereas, in 1945, the Gold Star Wives of America, Inc. was 

organized with the help of Mrs. Eleanor Roosevelt to asVerDate Mar 15 2010 00:20 Apr 06, 2011 Jkt 099200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6300 E:\BILLS\SR130.ATS SR130

tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•SRES 130 ATS 

sist the families left behind by the fallen members and 

veterans of the Armed Forces of the United States; 

Whereas the first meeting of the Gold Star Wives of America, 

Inc. was held on April 5, 1945; 

Whereas April 5, 2011, marks the 66th anniversary of the 

first meeting of the Gold Star Wives of America; 

Whereas the members and veterans of the Armed Forces of 

the United States bear the burden of protecting freedom 

for the United States; and 

Whereas the sacrifices of the families of the fallen members 

and veterans of the Armed Forces of the United States 

should never be forgotten: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate— 

2 (1) designates April 5, 2011, as ‘‘Gold Star 

3 Wives Day’’; 

4 (2) honors and recognizes— 

5 (A) the contributions of the members of 

6 the Gold Star Wives of America, Inc.; and 

7 (B) the dedication of the members of the 

8 Gold Star Wives of America, Inc. to the mem9 bers and veterans of the Armed Forces of the 

10 United States; and 

11 (3) encourages the people of the United States 

12 to observe ‘‘Gold Star Wives Day’’ to promote 

13 awareness of— 

14 (A) the contributions and dedication of the 

15 members of the Gold Star Wives of America, 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
3 

•SRES 130 ATS 

1 Inc. to the members and veterans of the Armed 

2 Forces of the United States; and 

3 (B) the important role the Gold Star Wives 

4 of America, Inc. plays in the lives of the 

5 spouses and families of the fallen members and 

6 veterans of the Armed Forces of the United 

7 States. 

Æ 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
-1- 

### STATE OF MICHIGAN

COURT OF APPEALS

HASEM SALEM,

Plaintiff-Appellant, UNPUBLISHED October 14, 2014

v No. 316464 Wayne Circuit Court SALEH SALEH, LC No. 11-012076-NI

Defendant-Appellee.

Before: O WENS , P.J., and J ANSEN and O’C ONNELL , JJ.

O WENS

, P.J. ( dissenting ).

I respectfully dissent from the majority opini on and would affirm the trial court’s order granting defendant’s motion for summary disposition.

While the question whether a particular de fendant acted reasonably when faced with a sudden emergency may be a question of fact for the jury, where a defendant moves for summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C )(10), this is only true wher e there is a genuine issue of material fact. See, e.g., White v Taylor Distributing Co, Inc , 482 Mich 136, 143, 140-141; 753 NW2d 591 (2008). In this case, even when viewi ng the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff, the nonmoving party, Joseph v Auto Club Ins Ass’n , 491 Mich 200, 206; 815 NW2d 412 (2012), I would conclude that there was no genui ne issue of material fact whether defendant acted reasonably under the circumstances of the particular sudden emergency. After he learned decedent had been shot, defendant found his passe nger “in danger,” and was required to act in
the chaotic moments that ensued—with the en couragement of his companions, including plaintiff—without time to consider what, in hinds ight, might have been better means to avoid the impending danger. The evidence supported a findi ng that defendant acted reasonably when confronted with a sudden emergency. Therefore, I would conclude that th e trial court correctly applied the sudden-emergency doctrine to grant defendant summary disposition.

/s/ Donald S. Owens