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

In connection with this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Eclipsys Corporation (the Company) for the period ended March 31, 2010 (the
Report), the undersigned, Philip M. Pead, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, 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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: May 4, 2010



/s/ Philip M. PeadPhilip M. PeadPresident and Chief Executive Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                          20,948
<SECURITIES>                                    90,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                   37,848
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,400
<INVENTORY>                                        438
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               168,047
<PP&E>                                      15,582,384
<DEPRECIATION>                                  35,945
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              16,250,980
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       15,451,759
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    300,000
<COMMON>                                         9,798
<OTHER-SE>                                     465,506
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                16,250,980
<SALES>                                        269,649
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               269,649
<CGS>                                          117,924
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,744,701
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               214,710
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (1,807,686)
<INCOME-TAX>                                (1,807,686)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (1,807,686)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (1,807,686)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (0.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.03)


</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-2800

TINA D. SHAVER, Owner of Kwik Check Carry Out,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Parkersburg. Charles H. Haden II, Chief

District Judge. (CA-96-131-6)

Submitted: March 17, 1998 Decided: April 29, 1998

Before WILKINS and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William B. Richardson, Jr., Robert D. Campbell, RICHARDSON &

RICHARDSON, Parkersburg, West Virginia, for Appellant. Rebecca A.

Betts, United States Attorney, Gary L. Call, Assistant United

States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Tina Shaver appeals the district court's order granting the

Government's motion for summary judgment in this action challenging

the Department of Agriculture's order permanently disqualifying

Shaver and Kwik Check Carry Out from participation in the food

stamp program. We have reviewed the record and the district court's

opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the

reasoning of the district court. Shaver v. United States, No. CA96-131-6 (S.D.W. Va. Oct. 24, 1996). We grant Shaver's unopposed

motion to submit the case on the briefs without oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in

the materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

AFFIRMED
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-7278

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ANTHONY ANDREWS, a/k/a Wheat,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at 

Wilmington. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (7:01-cr-00027-BO-1; 7:18-cv00053-BO)

Submitted: March 8, 2019 Decided: March 28, 2019

Before KING and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Anthony Andrews, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Anthony Andrews seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 28 

U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion as an unauthorized successive motion. The order is not 

appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial 

showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When 

the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by 

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the 

constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 

(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). When the district court 

denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the 

dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of 

the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Andrews has not 

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny 

Andrews’ motions for a stay pending appeal and to appoint counsel, and dismiss the 

appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

DISMISSED
# C_2005256EN.01001201.xml

| 15.10.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 256/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.10.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 256/12

---

Publication of decisions by Member States to grant or revoke operating licenses pursuant to Article 13(4) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2407/92 on licensing of air carriers (1)
   (2)

1

2

(2005/C 256/06)

(Text with EEA relevance)

SWEDEN

Operating licences granted

Category A:   Operating licences without the restriction of Article 5(7)(a) of Regulation (EEC) No 2407/92

| Name of air carrier | Address of air carrier | Permitted to carry | Decision effective since |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Transwede Airways AB
  556577-8676 | Box 2011 |
| SE-432 Landvetter |

Name of air carrier

Address of air carrier

Permitted to carry

Decision effective since

Transwede Airways AB

556577-8676

Box 2011

SE-432 Landvetter

passengers, mail, cargo

29.3.2005

IBA International Business Airlines AB

| Rådhusgaran 2 |
| --- |
| SE-374 36 Karlshamn |

Rådhusgaran 2

SE-374 36 Karlshamn

passengers, mail, cargo

21.12.2004

Category B:   Operating licences including the restriction of Article 5(7)(a) of Regulation (EEC) No 2407/92

| Name of air carrier | Address of air carrier | Permitted to carry | Decision effective since |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Flygcentrum i Stockholm AB
  556623-0362 | Box 4146 |
| SE-181 04 Lindigö |

Name of air carrier

Address of air carrier

Permitted to carry

Decision effective since

Flygcentrum i Stockholm AB

556623-0362

Box 4146

SE-181 04 Lindigö

passengers, mail, cargo

18.1.2005

HeliNature AB

556644-6612

| Midsommarvägen 34 |
| --- |
| SE-126 35 Hägersten |

Midsommarvägen 34

SE-126 35 Hägersten

passengers, mail, cargo

16.6.2005

SOS Flygambulans AB

556061-5949

| Säve flygplatsväg 16 |
| --- |
| SE-423 3 Säve |

Säve flygplatsväg 16

SE-423 3 Säve

passengers, mail, cargo

4.10.2004

Operating licences revoked

Category A:   Operating licences without the restriction of Article 5(7)(a) of Regulation (EEC) No 2407/92

| Name of air carrier | Address of air carrier | Permitted to carry | Decision effective since |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| IBA International Business Air AB | Rådhusgatan 2 |
| SE-374 36 Karlshamn |

Name of air carrier

Address of air carrier

Permitted to carry

Decision effective since

IBA International Business Air AB

Rådhusgatan 2

SE-374 36 Karlshamn

passengers, mail, cargo

21.12.2004

---

(1)  OJ L 240, 24.8.1992, p. 1.

1

(2)  Communicated to the European Commission before 31.8.2005.

2

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-2154

In Re: US AIRWAYS, INCORPORATED,

Debtor.

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

FOUGERE HOLCOMBE,

Creditor – Appellant,

v.

US AIRWAYS, INCORPORATED,

Debtor - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior

District Judge. (1:11-cv-00747-CMH-IDD; 04-13819-SSM)

Submitted: August 20, 2012 Decided: September 10, 2012

Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Vladimir Matsiborchuk, New York, New York, for Appellant. Sarah 

Beckett Boehm, MCGUIREWOODS, LLP, Richmond, Virginia; Douglas 

Michael Foley, MCGUIREWOODS, LLP, Norfolk, Virginia, for 

Appellee.
2

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3

PER CURIAM:

Fougere Holcombe appeals the district court’s order 

affirming the bankruptcy court’s final order granting the 

Debtor’s motion for sanctions and disallowing her claim, as well 

as several prior bankruptcy orders entered in the underlying 

proceeding. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible 

error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the 

district court. See Holcombe v. US Airways, Inc., Nos. 1:11-cv00747-CMH-IDD; 04-13819-SSM (E.D. Va., filed Sept. 22, 2011;

entered Sept. 23, 2011). We deny Holcombe’s motion for 

reconsideration of a prior order denying her motion to 

consolidate this appeal with another appeal she has pending in 

this court, and we dispense with oral argument because the facts 

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

AFFIRMED
#### Epstein Engineering P.C., Respondent, v Thomas Cataldo et al., Appellants, et al., Defendant.

[943 NYS2d 887]—

Orders, Supreme Court, New York County (Judith J. Gische, J.), entered February 28, June 1, and June 14, 2011, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, decided defendants Thomas Cataldo and Cataldo Engineering, EC.’s motion for a protective order upon a determination that plaintiff is entitled to damages incurred after the date of Thomas Cataldo’s resignation from it arising from defendants’ work for clients obtained before Cataldo’s resignation, unanimously modified, on the law, to limit plaintiffs entitlement to lost profits after Cataldo’s resignation to those arising from defendants’ work for clients obtained before his resignation who had been clients of plaintiff, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

The evidence of record establishes that plaintiff is entitled to recover the compensation Cataldo received from plaintiff during the period of Cataldo’s disloyalty, i.e., from April 2007, when he *680formed Cataldo Engineering, to September 2, 2008, when he resigned from plaintiff *(see Maritime Fish Prods. v World-Wide Fish Prods.,*100 AD2d 81, 88, 91 [1984], *appeal dismissed*63 NY2d 675 [1984]). Additionally, plaintiff “is entitled to damages for the wrongful diversion of its business measured by the ‘opportunities for profit on the accounts diverted from it through defendants’ conduct’ ” *(Maritime Fish Prods.,*100 AD2d at 91). Finally, if defendants poached plaintiff’s clients, plaintiff may recover the profits that it would have made from those clients either through trial or judgment or for some reasonable period *(see e.g. Duane Jones Co. v Burke,*306 NY 172, 192 [1954]; *E. W. Bruno Co. v Friedberg,*21 AD2d 336, 339, 341 [1964]; *McRoberts Protective Agency v Lansdell Protective Agency,*61 AD2d 652, 655-656 [1978]). However, plaintiff is not entitled to lost profits after September 2, 2008 from individuals and entities who were never its clients *(see Town & Country House & Home Serv. v Newbery,*3 NY2d 554, 560 [1958]). The customers for Local Law 11 services were “readily ascertainable outside the employer’s business as prospective users or consumers of the employer’s services” *(see Leo Silfen, Inc. v Cream,*29 NY2d 387, 392-395 [1-972]). Thus, trade secret protection will not attach. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Friedman, Catterson, Richter and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.
#### Rodney Louis GARROTT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. R. ARCHER; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 09-35225.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted July 12, 2011.*

Filed July 22, 2011.

Rodney L. Garrott, Steilacoom, WA, pro se.

Before: 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 **

Washington state prisoner Rodney Louis Garrott appeals pro se from the *959district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 198B action alleging constitutional violations arising from an incident of verbal harassment. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), *Huftile v. Miccio-Fonseca,*410 F.3d 1136, 1138 (9th Cir.2005), and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, *Resnick v. Hayes,*213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir.2000). We may affirm on any basis supported by the record, *Thompson v. Paul,*547 F.3d 1055, 1058-59 (9th Cir.2008), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Garrott’s action, after twice giving him notice of the complaints’ deficiencies and providing leave to amend, because Garrott did not allege facts sufficient to show that defendants deprived him of any constitutional right. *See Oltarzewski v. Ruggiero,*830 F.2d 136, 139 (9th Cir.1987) (“Verbal harassment or abuse ... is not sufficient to state a constitutional deprivation under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.” (citation, internal quotation marks, and brackets omitted)).

Garrott’s remaining contentions, including, to the extent he properly raised it below, an equal protection claim, are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
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
 Range Sheep Production Efficiency Research: Dubois, ID
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    CareersSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Pacific West Area Dubois, Idaho Range Sheep Production Efficiency Research People & Locations







Harley  Kulow
                        Range Sheep Production Efficiency Research

                        




                        
                        Agricultural Science Research Technician (Animal Science)
                        Phone: (208) 374-5306
                        
                        
                        Fax: (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
IA

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1266

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

OCTOBER 24, 1997

Referred to the Committee on International Relations

AN ACT

To interpret the term ‘‘kidnaping’’ in extradition treaties

to which the United States is a party.

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 ‘‘Extradition Treaties

5 Interpretation Act of 1997’’.
2

S 1266 RFH

1 SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

2 Congress finds that—

3 (1) each year, several hundred children are kid4 napped by a parent in violation of law, court order,

5 or legally binding agreement and brought to, or

6 taken from, the United States;

7 (2) until the mid-1970’s, parental abduction

8 generally was not considered a criminal offense in

9 the United States;

10 (3) since the mid-1970’s, United States crimi11 nal law has evolved such that parental abduction is

12 now a criminal offense in each of the 50 States and

13 the District of Columbia;

14 (4) in enacting the International Parental Kid15 napping Crime Act of 1993 (Public Law 103–173;

16 107 Stat. 1998; 18 U.S.C. 1204), Congress recog17 nized the need to combat parental abduction by

18 making the act of international parental kidnapping

19 a Federal criminal offense;

20 (5) many of the extradition treaties to which

21 the United States is a party specifically list the of22 fenses that are extraditable and use the word ‘‘kid23 napping’’, but it has been the practice of the United

24 States not to consider the term to include parental

25 abduction because these treaties were negotiated by

26 the United States prior to the development in Unit-
3

S 1266 RFH

1 ed States criminal law described in paragraphs (3)

2 and (4);

3 (6) the more modern extradition treaties to

4 which the United States is a party contain dual

5 criminality provisions, which provide for extradition

6 where both parties make the offense a felony, and

7 therefore it is the practice of the United States to

8 consider such treaties to include parental abduction

9 if the other foreign state party also considers the act

10 of parental abduction to be a criminal offense; and

11 (7) this circumstance has resulted in a disparity

12 in United States extradition law which should be

13 rectified to better protect the interests of children

14 and their parents.

15 SEC. 3. INTERPRETATION OF EXTRADITION TREATIES.

16 For purposes of any extradition treaty to which the

17 United States is a party, Congress authorizes the interpre18 tation of the terms ‘‘kidnaping’’ and ‘‘kidnapping’’ to in19 clude parental kidnapping.

Passed the Senate October 23, 1997.

Attest: GARY SISCO,

Secretary.
corp8kbex10-2.htm


    
      

      

    

    Exhibit
No. 10.2

    Corporate
Outfitters, Inc.

    3327 West
Indian Trail Road Suite 152,

    Spokane,
WA 99208

     

    Gentlemen:

     

    I
herewith tender my resignation as an Officer and a Director of Corporate
Outfitters, Inc. to take affect as of the date this resignation document is
executed by my hand herein and/or upon the acceptance by the Board of Directors
and/or upon the Election of my Successor.

     

    As a
result of my resignation the Company agrees to indemnify me from any and all
corporate activities resulting from the actions of the forthcoming directors,
officers, and management of the Company.

     

    Very
truly yours,

    


    Dated
this 3rd day of November, 2008.

    By: /s/David
Taigen

    David
Taigen
Page 1 - SCOPE OF EMPLOYMENT CERTIFICATION

S. AMANDA MARSHALL, Oregon State Bar No. 95347 

United States Attorney

TIM SIMMONS, Oregon State Bar No. 92461

tim.simmons@usdoj.gov

Assistant U.S. Attorney

United States Attorney's Office

District of Oregon

405 E. 8th Ave., Suite 2400

Eugene, OR 97401

Telephone: (541) 465 -6740

Facsimile: (541) 465 -6917

Attorney for United States

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF OREGON

EUGENE DIVISION

LAURA L. BROWN,

Plaintiff,

v. 

WATERFALL CLINIC, 

INCORPORATED, 

Defendant.

 Case No.: 6:14-1292

SCOPE OF EMPLOYMENT 

CERTIFICATION 

(Coos County Circuit Court Case 

number: 14CV0493) 

I, S. Amanda Marshall, United States Attorney for the District of Oregon, hereby 

certify that I have reviewed the complaint filed in the above-captioned case and the acts 

or omissions alleged therein. I hereby find that, at the time of the incidents alleged in 

that complaint, Waterfall Clinic, Incorporated was an entity deemed by the Department of 

Health and Human Services to be an employee of the Public Health Service for purposes 

of 42 U.S.C. § 233(a). See 42 U.S.C. § 233(g). Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 233(c) and the 

Case 6:14-cv-01292-AA Document 1-1 Filed 08/12/14 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 - SCOPE OF EMPLOYMENT CERTIFICATION

authority delegated to me by the Attorney General for the United States pursuant to 28 

C.F.R. § 15.4, I hereby certify that Waterfall Clinic, Incorporated was acting within the 

course and scope of its employment as a “deemed” employee of the Public Health 

Service at the time of the incident out of which this claim arose. Accordingly, the United 

States should be substituted as the defendant in this action in place of Waterfall Clinic, 

Incorporated.

Dated this 12th day of August 2014.

Respectfully Submitted, 

 

S. AMANDA MARSHALL

United States Attorney

District of Oregon

Case 6:14-cv-01292-AA Document 1-1 Filed 08/12/14 Page 2 of 2