alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2


                  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 Annual Report of Wolverine Tube, Inc. on Form 10-K for
the period ending December 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, James E. Deason, Executive Vice
President, Chief Financial Officer of Wolverine Tube, Inc., certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge and belief:

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

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


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


/s/  James E. Deason



James E. Deason
Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer
March 26, 2003
‘Minute Order Form (06/97)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

Name of Assigned Jud; Sitting Judge if Other
ae May cloerate Jadge James F. Holderman than Astigned Sodge Morton Denlow
CASE NUMBER 01 C 8945 DATE 4/7/2003
CASE Garcia vs, City of Chicago
TITLE
[ln the following box (a) indicate the party filing the motion, e.g., plaintiff, defendant, 3rd party plaintiff, and (b) state briefly the nature

MOTION: of the motion being presented.)

DOCKET ENTRY:

qd) Q Filed motion of [ use listing in “Motion” box above.]

(2) a Brief in support of motion due

(3) Oo Answer brief to motion due. . Reply to answer brief due. .

(4) o Ruling/Hearing on set for at

(5) im Status hearing[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for] on set for at

(6) Oo Pretrial conference[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for] on set for at .

(7) Oo Trial{set for/re-set for] on at .

(8) Qo [Bench/Jury trial} [Hearing] held/continued to at

(9) o This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agreement/pursuant to]

OFRCP4(m) COLocal Rule 41.1 OOFRCP41(a)(1) 0 FRCP41(a)(2).

(io) =f [Other docket entry} Report and Recommendation: The Court recommends that Plaintiff's renewed
motion for judgment or other sanctions [155-1] be denied without prejudice to be renewed, if necessary, following
completion of the trial scheduld to begin before Judge Holderman on 4/21/03 because: 1) a ruling on this motion
may prejudice the parties’ right to a jury trial; 2) the issues involved in this motion are interrelated with the issues
at trial; 3) this motion has taken on a life of its own which is interfering with the parties’ trial preparation; 4)
Defendant Fivelson’s counsel has been unable to file timely briefs due to office issues which should not be allowed
to prejudice Defendant Fivelson; and 5) no prejudice occurs to the parties to see whether this issue becomes moot
as a result of the trial.

agli Oa [For further detail see order (on reverse side offattached to) the original minute order.]

No notices required, advised in open court.
No notices required.
~ | Notices mailed by judge’s staff.
Notified counsel by telephone.
Docketing to mail notices. 4¥noa 19) a
Mail AO 450 form. qsig sn
wo | Copy to judge/magistrate judge. .
G38 Wd L- Yay eu
courtroom
DK deputy's OT 03-03114
initials
Date/time received in
central Clerk's Office
#### Santiago Moran, Appellant, v Pavol Kollar, Respondent.

[947 NYS2d 133]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Slobod, J.), dated March 22, 2011, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that he did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) as a result of the subject accident

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendant met his prima facie burden of showing that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) as a result of the subject accident *(see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys.,*98 NY2d 345 [2002]; *Gaddy v Eyler,*79 NY2d 955, 956-957 [1992]). The defendant submitted competent medical evidence establishing, prima facie, that the alleged injuries to the plaintiffs left eye and the cervical region of his spine did not constitute serious injuries within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) *(see Staff v Yshua,*59 AD3d 614 [2009]; *Rodriguez v Huerfano,*46 AD3d 794, 795 [2007]; *Koppelmann v Lepler,*135 AD2d 507, 508 [1987]). The defendant also submitted evidence establishing, prima facie, that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury under the 90/180 day category of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) *(see Rivera v Bushwick Ridgewood Props., Inc.,*63 AD3d 712, 713-714 [2009]).

In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. The defendant was not required to address the plaintiffs shoulder injuries, since no claim for shoulder injuries appeared in the complaint or bill of particulars, and the plaintiff made no motion to amend the bill of particulars so as to include those injuries *(see Kreimerman v Stunis,*74 AD3d 753, 754 [2010]; *Felix v Wildred,*54 AD3d 891, 892 [2008]; *Ifrach v Neiman,*306 AD2d 380 [2003]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Rivera, J.P., Eng, Chambers, Sgroi and Miller, JJ., concur.
#### AK TOURNAMENT PLAY, INC., Al Otto, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. TOWN OF WALLKILL, Eugene Jacques, Individually and in His Capacity as Building Inspector for the Town of Wallkill, Walter Barrett, In*476dividually and in His Capacity as Assistant Building Inspector for the Town of Wallkill, John Ward, Individually and in His Capacity as Supervisor for the Town of Wallkill, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 11-0731-cv.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Oct. 28, 2011.

Jeffrey A. Hoerter, Law Offices of Thomas M. Gambino & Associates, P.C., Poughkeepsie, NY, for Appellants.

Steven C. Stern, Sokoloff Stern LLP, Westbury, NY, for Appellees.

PRESENT: RALPH K. WINTER, GERARD E. LYNCH, and SUSAN L. CARNEY, Circuit Judges.

SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiffs-appellants AK Tournament Play, Inc., and A1 Otto (“plaintiffs”) appeal from the district court’s dismissal of their complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. *See AK Tournament Play, Inc. v. Town of Wallkill,*No. 09 Civ. 10579(LAP), 2011 WL 197216 (S.D.N.Y. Jan.19, 2011). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history of the case.

We review a district court’s grant of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss de novo. *Chambers v. Time Warner, Inc.,*282 F.3d 147, 152 (2d Cir.2002). “In conducting this review, we draw all reasonable inferences in [pjlaintiffs’ favor, assume all well-pleaded factual allegations to be true, and determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief. We are not, however, bound to accept conclusory allegations or legal conclusions masquerading as factual conclusions.” *Faber v. Metro. Life Ins. Co.,*648 F.3d 98, 104 (2d Cir.2011) *477(internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

On appeal, plaintiffs argue that the district court erred in refusing to afford their poker games some level of First Amendment protection. Plaintiffs’ games of “tournament style Texas Hold-Em Poker,” they contend, amount to “a form of protected expression” and protected assembly.

At least on the record before us, we cannot agree. Even assuming arguendo that there might be *some*circumstances under which a poker club’s activities could involve sufficiently expressive or political content to merit protection under the First Amendment, plaintiffs’ conclusory and vague complaint fails to set out facts from which a court could draw that conclusion here. Plaintiffs allege no more than that they engaged in social gambling. Such activities, even if not violative of state law, are subject to regulation without the heightened scrutiny applied to governmental action affecting First Amendment-protected speech or assembly. Accordingly, the district court was correct to dismiss plaintiffs’ complaint for failure to state a claim.

We have considered plaintiffs’ other arguments and find them to be without merit. For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Case: 1:02-cr-00415 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/30/02 Page 1 of 7 PageID #:1
Case: 1:02-cr-00415 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/30/02 Page 2 of 7 PageID #:2
Case: 1:02-cr-00415 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/30/02 Page 3 of 7 PageID #:3
Case: 1:02-cr-00415 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/30/02 Page 4 of 7 PageID #:4
Case: 1:02-cr-00415 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/30/02 Page 5 of 7 PageID #:5
Case: 1:02-cr-00415 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/30/02 Page 6 of 7 PageID #:6
Case: 1:02-cr-00415 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/30/02 Page 7 of 7 PageID #:7
**Exhibit32.1**

**Certificationof the Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to18 U.S.C. Section 1350,as Adopted Pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of PRAECISPHARMACEUTICALS INCORPORATED (the “Company”) for the quarter ended September30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the datehereof (the “Report”), I, Kevin F. McLaughlin, as Chief Executive Officer ofthe Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuantto § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

 

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

 

2.  The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 
| /s/ Kevin F. McLaughlin |                    |
|-------------------------|-------------------------|
| Name:                   | Kevin F. McLaughlin     |
| Title:                  | Chief Executive Officer |
| Date:                   | November 9, 2006        |
|                         |                         |  |

 

----
Todd Bofferding, OSB #883720

Attorney at Law

P.O. Box 539

1215 B St.

Hood River, Oregon 97031

541.490.9012

tbofferding@gorge.net

Attorney for Defendant Raul Arcila

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

PORTLAND DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

 )

 Plaintiff, ) 3:14-CR-00267-BR-3

 ) 

vs. ) DEFENDANT'S UNOPPOSED

 ) MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL 

RAUL ARCILA, ) DATE 

 ) 

 Defendant. ) 

Raul Arcila, through his attorney, Todd Bofferding, moves this Court for an 

Order continuing the currently scheduled trial date of January 20, 2015 to a date no 

sooner than March 17, 2015.

 Defendant is in custody with Washington County, Oregon serving a sentence for 

Driving Under the Influence of Intoxicants, and then will be moved to Clackamas 

County, Oregon to address an outstanding Probation Violation. He was Arraigned on this 

case on July 1, 2014. This is Defendant's second request to continue the trial date.

 Counsel understands that Assistant United States Attorney Leah K. Bolstad and 

1 - UNOPPOSED MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE 

Case 3:14-cr-00267-BR Document 80 Filed 01/09/15 Page 1 of 2
counsels for the co-defendants do not object to this Motion. 

 Defendant has been consulted, and he agrees for the need to continue the trial 

date. Defendant also understands his rights provided by the Speedy Trial Act, and he 

agrees to waive those rights by this continuance. Defendant understands and agrees that 

this continuance constitutes excludable delay. 

 Grounds for this Motion and case description is contained in Defense Counsel's

Declaration, filed simultaneously herewith. 

 

 The period of delay resulting from the granting of this trial date continuance will 

be excludable, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3161(h)(7)(A),(B)(iv) because the ends of justice 

will be better served by the granting of the continuance, and a continuance will outweigh 

the best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedier trial. 

 

 RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 9th day of January, 2015.

 

 /s/ Todd Bofferding 

 Todd Bofferding, OSB #883720

 Attorney for Defendant Arcila 

2 - UNOPPOSED MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE 

Case 3:14-cr-00267-BR Document 80 Filed 01/09/15 Page 2 of 2
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Livestock Bio-Systems: Clay Center, NE
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    USMARC Home
                    USMARC Research Units
                        Genetics and Animal Breeding
                                    Meat Safety & Meat Quality
                                    Nutrition, Growth and Physiology
                                    Animal Health GenomicsSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Plains Area Clay Center, Nebraska U.S. Meat Animal Research Center Livestock Bio-Systems People & Locations







Shanda  Watts
                        Livestock Bio-Systems

                        




                        
                        Biological Science Technician
                        Phone: (402) 762-4327
                        
                        
                        Fax: (402) 762-4382(Employee information on this page comes from the REE Directory. Please contact your front office staff to update the REE Directory.)


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
Minuto Ordor Forgs (06/97)

S 4 United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

©

ssigned J
nevor Magra dude James B. Moran “than Asigned Judge
CASE NUMBER 01 C 9803 DATE 6/13/2002
CASE , “National Satellite Sports, Inc. Vs. Leroy Singleton etc.
TITLE we

[in the following box (a) indicate the party filing the motion, ¢.g,, plaintiff, defendant, 3rd party plaintiff, and (b) state briefly the nature

of the motion being presented.)

(11)

MOTION:
Memorandum Opinion and Order
DOCKET ENTRY:
(1) a] Filed motion of [ use listing in “Motion” box above.]
(2) oO Brief in support of motion due
(3) Oo Answer brief to motion due___. Reply to answer briefdue__.
(4) a Ruling/Hearingon___setfor___—_at
(5) Qo Status hearing{held/continued to] [set for/re-set for]on____setfor____at
(6) oO Pretrial conference[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for]on__——setfor__— se at__
(7) im Trial{set for/re-set for]on__—__sat
(8) oO (Bench/Jury trial] [Hearing] held/continued to__— at
(9) Oo This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agreement/pursuant to]
OOFRCP4(m) General Rule 21 OFRCP41(a)\(1) ( FRCP41(a)(2).
do [Other docket entry) | Enter Memorandum Opinion and Order. We award statutory damages of

$8,950, together with fees and costs of $1,092.

a [For further detail see order attached to the original minute order.]

No notices required, advised in open court.

No notices required,

number of notices.
Notices mailed by judge’s staff. 0;
Notified counsel by telephone. JUN 2 Aa t

Docketing to mail notices.
Mail AO 450 form. L4und9 datsia ‘sn CS hits

Copy to judge/magistrate judge.

courtroom 9074 Hd EL NNT 20
m ina OL 03-02N4

initials
Date/time received in
central Clerk’s Office sealing deputy inate

date mailed notice



IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION
NATIONAL SATELLITE SPORTS, INC., )
Plaintiff, }
vs. } No. 01 C 9803
LEROY SINGLETON, individually and d/b/a }
SANDPIPER LOUNGE, )
Defendant. }

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiff has claimed that defendant showed unauthorized closed-circuit telecasts of
boxing matches on three separate occasions — claims backed up by the affidavits of
investigators. Defendant has not contested these claims. Plaintiff would have received $1,790
in license fees if defendant had taken licenses. We think five times those fees is an appropriate
gauge for statutory damages. Defendant is not just a one-time offender, but the establishment
appears to be relatively small. The number of patrons on the three occasions was seven, thirty,

and six. We award statutory damages of $8,950, together with fees and costs of $1,092.

LB. Mora

JAMES B. MORAN
Senior Judge, U. S. District Court

pons J 3 , 2002.
# •f3/-/5'Y3WSCCA # 13-13-00544-CR 

## OFFENSE: Habeas Corpus 

# VM-/S
STYLE: Ex Parte Markus Antonius Green v. COUNTY: De Witt TRIAL COURT: 24th District Court MOTION 

### TRIAL COURT#: 90-1-7951 & 90-1-7951- FOR REHEARING IS: A 

### DATE: March 12, 2015 

### TRIAL COURTJUDGE: Hon. KemperStephen JUDGE: ChiefJustice Valdez Williams 

### DISPOSITION: Affirmed DATE: JUSTICE: PC S PUBLISH: DNP: CLK RECORD: X SUPP CLK RECORD X RPT RECORD: X SUPPRPTRECORD X STATE BR: SUPPBR APPBR: PROSE BR X



## IN THE COURTOF CRIMINALAPPEALS 

# V3JW5- V33-AT PRO SB Petition FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW IN CCA IS:
DATE JUDGE


### CCAIS:. JUDGE: MOTION FOR REHEARING IN ON 

### CCA# Disposition: DATE: JUDGE: SIGNED: PUBLISH: PC: DNP:
MOTION FOR STAY OF MANDATE IS: ON JUDGE:
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.                  

###### National Aeronautics and Space Administration

          - [Notice (21-054)]

# AGENCY:

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).

# ACTION:

Notice of Membership of SES Performance Review Board.

# SUMMARY:

                        The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, Public Law 95-454 (Section 405) requires that appointments of individual members to the Performance Review Board (PRB) be published in the                         **Federal Register**                        . The performance review function for the SES in NASA is being performed by the NASA PRB. The following individuals are serving on the Board:                    

## Performance Review Board

Chairperson, Associate Administrator, NASA Headquarters

Deputy Associate Administrator, NASA Headquarters

Chief Human Capital Officer, NASA Headquarters

Associate Administrator for the Office of Diversity and Equal Opportunity, NASA Headquarters

Associate Administrator for Human Exploration and Operations, NASA Headquarters

Chief Information Officer, NASA Headquarters

Center Director, NASA Glenn Research Center

Cheryl Parker,

Federal Register Liaison Officer.

[FR Doc. 2021-17017 Filed 8-9-21; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7510-13-P
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 June 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 August 11, 2006
#### Owens *et al. v.*Benton-Shingler Company *et al.*

July 13, 1915.

Equitable petition. Before Judge Cox. Decatur superior court. January 16, 1914.

*W. V. Ouster,*for plaintiffs. *E. M. Donalson,*for defendants.

Beck, J.

Under the evidence submitted by the plaintiffs, it was not error for the court to grant a nonsuit; and if the evidence the exclusion of which is the subject of an exception had been admitted, it should not have affected the result.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices eoncwi'.*