alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Order entered June 16, 2021

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-20-00932-CR

NATHAN HAYWOOD STRONG, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 2

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F17-55421-I

ORDER

Before the Court is appellant’s June 14, 2021 fourth motion for an extension 

of time to file his brief. We GRANT the motion to the extent we ORDER 

appellant’s brief filed by July 9, 2021. The failure to file a brief by July 9, 2021

will result in the appeal being abated for a hearing under rule 38.8. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 38.8(b).

/s/ DENNISE GARCIA

JUSTICE
EXHIBIT 32.2



BEA SYSTEMS, INC.



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 periodic report of BEA Systems, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended April 30, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Mark P. Dentinger, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code,
that to the best of my knowledge:



| | (1) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 at the dates and for the periods
indicated.
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



This Certification has not been, and shall not be
deemed, filed with the Securities Exchange Commission.



|                    |  |                        
|------------------- |  | -----------------------
|Date: June 13, 2005 |  | /s/ Mark P. Dentinger  
|                    |  | Mark P. Dentinger      
|                    |  | Chief Financial Officer
734 A.2d 1280

#### COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellant, v. Timothy Paul FLANDERS, Appellee.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Submitted Aug. 9, 1999.

Decided Sept. 8, 1999.

Joseph P. Conti, Marshall J. Piccinini, Erie, Robert A. Graci, Harrisburg, for Com.

James A. Pitonyak, Joseph P. Burt, Erie, for Timothy Paul Flanders.

Karl Baker, Philadelphia, Gary Neil Asteak, Easton, for Amicus-Public Defenders Ass’n.

Stefan Presser, Philadelphia, for Amicus-ACLU.

Before FLAHERTY, C.J., and ZAPPALA, CAPPY, CASTILLE, NIGRO, NEWMAN and SAYLOR, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Based upon our disposition in *Commonwealth v. Williams,*557 Pa. 285, 733 A.2d 593 (1999), we affirm the Order of the Erie County Court of Common Pleas dated April 3, 1998.
EXHIBIT 32.1

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

I, John Mutch, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that except for
the failure to timely file the report, the Quarterly Report of Peregrine Systems, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2003 fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all
material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Peregrine Systems, Inc.

Date:
September 9, 2004

| |  | /s/JOHN MUTCHJohn Mutch
Chief Executive Officer
| |  | -----------------------------------------------

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

---



QuickLinks
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 97-10741

 

GARY LYN ELKINS, ET AL,

Plaintiffs

GARY LYN ELKINS

Plaintiff - Appellee Cross-Appellant

versus

FRITZ COMPANIES INC, ET AL

Defendants

FRITZ COMPANIES INC

Defendant-Appellant Cross-Appellee

 

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Northern District of Texas 

(3:96-CV-491-H) 

 

August 5, 1998

Before REYNALDO G. GARZA, HIGGINBOTHAM, and EMILIO M. GARZA,

Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

AFFIRMED. See Local Rule 47.6.
**Exhibit      32.2 -**
**Certification      of Principal Financial Officer and Secretary**

**CERTIFICATION      IN ACCORDANCE WITH**

**18      U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

**AS      ADOPTED BY**

**SECTION      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

|   | (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/                Jennifer S. LeBlanc               |
|------------------------------------------------------|
| Jennifer                S. LeBlanc                   |
| Chief                Financial Officer and Secretary |
| Date:                October                2, 2008  |

----
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-QSB of Sontra Medical Corporation (the Company) for the period ended September 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Thomas W. Davison, 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 to my 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/ Thomas W. Davison                
|Thomas W. Davison                    
|President and Chief Executive Officer
|November 20, 2006
#### In the Matter of Amber Rock Pharmacy, Inc., Doing Business as Parson’s Medical Center Pharmacy, et al., Petitioners, v David Axelrod, as Commissioner of the Department of Health of the State of New York, Respondent.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent Commissioner of the Department of Health, dated September 15,1983, which, after a hearing, found petitioners in violation of certain sections of Public Health Law article 33 and certain rules promulgated by respondent in accordance therewith, and imposed a penalty.

Determination confirmed and proceeding dismissed on the merits, with costs.

Respondent’s determination, which, *inter alia,*found the petitioner pharmacy to be in violation of certain rules and regulations requiring it to keep records of the receipt and dispensation of controlled substances, was supported by substantial evidence. At an administrative hearing respondent offered into evidence an audit conducted by its investigator showing unexplained overages and shortages of certain controlled substances, and the pharmacy produced an audit, conducted by its employee after receiving notice of pending charges, with contrary results. It is within the province of the administrative judge to accept the respondent’s investigator’s evidence and deny credence to contrary evidence offered by an interested party *(Ciccone v Waterfront Commn.,*52 NY2d 913; *Matter of Cassell v Allen,*27 AD2d 597, *lv denied*19 NY2d 583).

Furthermore, while there was no evidence specifically linking petitioner Feldman to these violations, he may nonetheless be *849held responsible, because as a supervising pharmacist he had a clear duty to supervise his employees and make sure adequate records were kept *(Matter of Snyder v Board of Regents,*50 AD2d 966; *Matter of Bernstein v Allen,*26 AD2d 727).

Finally, the civil fine imposed, based on the amount of overages and shortages and on the number of incomplete prescriptions filled, is not “1 “so disproportionate to the offense, in light of all the circumstances, as to be shocking to one’s sense of fairness” ’ ” *(Matter of McDermott v Murphy,*15 AD2d 479, *affd*12 NY2d 780). “Professionals have a serious responsibility not to abuse the trust which licensure places in them regarding controlled substances, and [the Department of Health has] the duty to protect the public” *(Matter of Davis v Ambach,*91 AD2d 1113, 1113-1114; *accord, Matter of Kaplan v Board of Regents,*87 AD2d 952; *Matter of Martin v Nyquist,*55 AD2d 726). Thompson, J. P., Weinstein, Niehoff and Lawrence, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 146 (Tuesday, August 3, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 41852]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-16461]


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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding 
Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for 
approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 
1841 et seq.) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR part 225), and all other 
applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company 
and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the 
power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the 
banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, 
including the companies listed below.
    The public portions of the applications listed below, as well as 
other related filings required by the Board, if any, are available for 
immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank(s) indicated below and 
at the offices of the Board of Governors. This information may also be 
obtained on an expedited basis, upon request, by contacting the 
appropriate Federal Reserve Bank and from the Board's Freedom of 
Information Office at https://www.federalreserve.gov/foia/request.htm. 
Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards 
enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)).
    Comments regarding each of these applications must be received at 
the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors, 
Ann E. Misback, Secretary of the Board, 20th Street and Constitution 
Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20551-0001, not later than September 2, 2021.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco (Sebastian Astrada, 
Director, Applications) 101 Market Street, San Francisco, California 
94105-1579:
    1. Goldwater Bancorp, Inc., to become a bank holding company by 
acquiring Goldwater Bank, National Association, both of Phoenix, 
Arizona.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, July 28, 2021.
Michele Taylor Fennell,
Deputy Associate Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 2021-16461 Filed 8-2-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
01C6721 Muzikowski vs. Paramount Pictures Corp. et al Page 1 of 1

Order Form (01/2005)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

Name of Assigned Judge

or Magistrate Judge

Charles P. Kocoras Sitting Judge if Other

than Assigned Judge

CASE NUMBER 01 C 6721 DATE 6/10/2005

CASE

TITLE

Muzikowski vs. Paramount Pictures Corp. et al

DOCKET ENTRY TEXT:

ENTER MEMORANDUM OPINION: We adopt Judge Levin’s report and recommendation and order

Muzikowski’s counsel to reimburse Paramount for attorneys fees in the amount of $50,915.25. Paramount’s

motion [132] to strike is denied and its motion [102] for summary judgment is granted. All matters in

controversy having been resolved, final judgment is hereby entered.

O [ For further detail see attached order.] Docketing to mail notices.

Copy to Magistrate Judge Levin

*Mail AO 450 form.

 Courtroom Deputy

Initials:

SCT
#### Ichsan GUNADI, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 08-71338.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted July 12, 2011.*

Filed July 20, 2011.

Allan A. Samson, Esquire, Law Office of Allan A. Samson, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.

OIL, Glen T. Jaeger, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

*180Before: SCHROEDER, ALARCÓN, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Misan Gunadi, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, 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, *Zetino v. Holder,*622 F.3d 1007, 1012 (9th Cir.2010), and we deny the petition for review.

Contrary to Gunadi’s contention, the record does not compel the conclusion that Gunadi filed his asylum application within a reasonable period of time after any extraordinary circumstances. *See*8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(5). Accordingly, his asylum claim fails.

Gunadi does not argue he suffered past persecution, but he contends he will be persecuted in the future due to his dispute with a former friend. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Gunadi failed to establish a clear probability of future persecution. *See Fisher v. INS,*79 F.3d 955, 961 (9th Cir.1996) (en banc) (explaining persecution is an “extreme concept” involving the infliction of harm). Accordingly, his withholding of removal claim fails.

Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because Gunadi failed to show that it is more likely than not that he will be tortured if returned to Indonesia. *See Wakkary v. Holder,*558 F.3d 1049, 1067-68 (9th Cir.2009).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
EXHIBIT 31.2



CERTIFICATION



I, Jasmine Gregory, certify that:



(1) I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Premier Holding Corp. for the period ended September 30,. 2010;





(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 respects 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(s) 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 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, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;





(c) 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





(d) 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 (the Registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) 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(s) 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 the 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.



|Date:  November 2, 2010 | Jasmine Gregory
Chief Financial Officer
|----------------------- | ---------------------------------------
II

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1000

To designate the United States courthouse at 500 State Avenue in Kansas

City, Kansas, as the ‘‘Robert J. Dole United States Courthouse’’.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JULY 10, 1997

Mr. ROBERTS (for himself and Mr. BROWNBACK) introduced the following bill;

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and

Public Works

A BILL

To designate the United States courthouse at 500 State

Avenue in Kansas City, Kansas, as the ‘‘Robert J. Dole

United States Courthouse’’.

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

3 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF ROBERT J. DOLE UNITED

4 STATES COURTHOUSE.

5 The United States courthouse at 500 State Avenue

6 in Kansas City, Kansas, shall be known and designated

7 as the ‘‘Robert J. Dole United States Courthouse’’.
2

•S 1000 IS

1 SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

2 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document,

3 paper, or other record of the United States to the United

4 States courthouse referred to in section 1 shall be deemed

5 to be a reference to the ‘‘Robert J. Dole United States

6 Courthouse’’.

Æ
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM AHL
SERVICES, INC. CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET (UNAUDITED) AT JUNE 30, 1999
AND THE CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS (UNAUDITED) FOR THE SIX
MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 1999, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                          16,050
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  152,324
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,876
<INVENTORY>                                      2,781
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               197,827
<PP&E>                                          41,994
<DEPRECIATION>                                  15,544
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 492,042
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           91,979
<BONDS>                                        184,504
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           174
<OTHER-SE>                                     208,155
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   492,042
<SALES>                                        360,197
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               360,197
<CGS>                                          251,563
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  251,563
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                90,133
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   200
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,365
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 14,501
<INCOME-TAX>                                     5,438
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              9,063
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     9,063
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.54
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.52


</TABLE>