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



STATEMENT OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
OF

TG THERAPEUTICS, INC.

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY
ACT OF 2002



In
connection with Amendment No. 1 to the quarterly report of TG Therapeutics, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the
period ended March 31, 2012 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Sean A. Power,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that, based on 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.



|Date:May 15, 2012 | /s/ Sean A. Power                          | 
|----------------- | ------------------------------------------ | 
|                  | Sean A. Power                             
|                  | Chief Financial Officer                   
|                  | Principal Financial and Accounting Officer
Listen

# The Civil Rights Implications of Cash Bail

January 20, 2022

This report examines current approaches to reforming the pre-trial and bail systems in the U.S. criminal justice system. The report reveals that between 1970 and 2015, there was a 433% increase in the number of individuals who have been detained pre-trial, and pre-trial detainees represent a larger proportion of the total incarcerated population.

Report

Report

Press Release

Briefing February 26, 2021

-  All Reports 
-  Annual Statutory Enforcement 
-  Briefing Reports 
-  Advisory Committees Reports 
-  Budget and Performance 
-  FOIA Reports 
-  Data Inventory Program 
-  Civil Rights Complaints 
-  Historical Publications 
-  Archives
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF OREGON

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

v. 

AMMON BUNDY, et al., 

Defendants.

3:16-CR-00051-BR

PROTECTIVE ORDER 

Upon motion of the United States, the Court being advised as to the nature of this case, 

and good cause being shown, it is hereby 

ORDERED that, pursuant to Rule 16(d)(1) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, 

defense counsel may provide copies of discovery only to the following individuals: 

(1) The defendants in this case; 

(2) Persons employed by the attorney of record who are necessary to assist counsel of 

record in preparation for trial or other proceedings in this case; and 

(3) Persons who defense counsel deems necessary to further legitimate investigation and 

preparation of this case. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defense counsel shall provide a copy of this Protective 

Order to any person above who receives copies of discovery. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any person above who receives copies of discovery 

from defense counsel shall use the discovery only to assist the defense in the investigation and 

preparation of this case and shall not reproduce or disseminate the discovery material to any 

other person or entity. 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 342 Filed 03/24/16 Page 1 of 2
Protective Order Page 2

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Protective Order applies only to: 

(1) Statements by witnesses and defendants to government officials; 

(2) Sealed documents; and 

(3) Evidence received from searches of electronic media. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if there is specific discovery material that defense 

counsel believes should be an exception to this Protective Order, the parties shall confer before 

seeking guidance from this Court. The parties shall advise the Court by letter of any exceptions 

made to the Protective Order. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any materials subject to this Protective Order may be 

filed by a party under seal without prior approval of the Court. 

The parties shall continue to confer regarding the efficacy of this Protective Order. Any 

outstanding issues between the parties related to this Protective Order shall be addressed by the 

Court at the status conference on June 15, 2016.

Dated this 24th day of March 2016. 

___s/ Anna J. Brown__________________

THE HONORABLE ANNA J. BROWN 

United States District Judge 

Presented by: 

BILLY J. WILLIAMS, OSB #901366 

United States Attorney 

District of Oregon 

s/ Craig J. Gabriel

ETHAN D. KNIGHT, OSB #99298 

GEOFFREY A. BARROW 

CRAIG J. GABRIEL, OSB #01257 

Assistant United States Attorneys 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 342 Filed 03/24/16 Page 2 of 2
735 A.2d 73

#### In the Matter of James E. CONLEY, III.

No. 525 Disciplinary Docket No. 3.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

July 15, 1999.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM:

AND NOW, this 15th day of July, 1999, James E. Conley, III, having been suspended from the practice of law in the State of Texas for a period of three months by Order of the State Bar of Texas dated June 15, 1998; the said James E. Conley, III, having been directed on May 20, 1999, to inform this Court of any claim he has that the imposition of the identical or comparable discipline in this Commonwealth would be unwarranted and the reasons therefor; and no response having been filed, it is

ORDERED that James E. Conley, III, is suspended from the practice of law in this Commonwealth for a period of three months, and he shall comply with all the provisions of Rule 217, Pa.R.D.E.
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

August 9, 2006

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 06-11191

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 05-01069-CV-T-N

GEORGE HOEY MORRIS, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

versus 

THOMAS M. GOGGANS, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Alabama

_________________________

(August 9, 2006)

Before DUBINA, HULL and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

George Hoey Morris, a pro se federal detainee, appeals the dismissal,
2

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), of his complaint against his former

attorney, Thomas M. Goggans. 

According to the complaint, Goggans represented Morris in a civil suit and a

subsequent criminal prosecution. Morris alleged that Goggans refused to

communicate with him despite Morris’s repeated attempts to contact Goggans and

improperly dismissed the appeal.

Morris claimed that Goggans’s failures amounted to legal malpractice and

ineffective assistance of counsel. Morris hired new counsel and asked the court to

(1) remove Goggans as counsel; (2) require that Goggans return all documents in

Morris’s file and refund $5,000 paid to Goggans in attorney’s fees; and (3) award

punitive damages. Morris also alleged governmental misconduct in the form of

illegal searches of his home, but did not name a government agency or employee

as a party.

The allegations in Morris’s complaint do not state a cause of action arising

under federal law. Nor do his allegations establish that the district court had

diversity jurisdiction over his suit. Although Morris alleges violations of his

constitutional rights arising out of allegedly unlawful searches, he did not bring

any claim against a governmental entity and thus has not brought a valid claim

pursuant to either 42 U.S.C. § 1983 or Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of
3

Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 395-97 (1971). 

To the extent that Morris’s complaint states a claim against Goggans for

legal malpractice, that claim is governed by state law and must be brought in state

court. See Diaz v. Sheppard, 85 F.3d 1502, 1505 (11th Cir. 1996). To the extent

that Morris’s claim is based on ineffective assistance of counsel, it is appropriate in

a motion to vacate a sentence, brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. See Massaro

v. United States, 538 U.S. 500, 505 (2003). Here, Morris has not been sentenced.

Because the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over Morris’s

claims, his complaint was properly dismissed. We therefore AFFIRM.
EXHIBIT 21.1

Subsidiaries of Edgewater Technology, Inc. as of December 31, 2009. Edgewater Technology, Inc. owns one hundred percent (100%) of the issued and outstanding shares of each of the following
subsidiaries.



|                                      |  |                           
|------------------------------------- |  | --------------------------
|Subsidiary                            |  | State or Country of Origin
|                                      | 
|Edgewater Technology (Delaware), Inc. |  | Delaware, USA             
|                                      | 
|Edgewater Technology (Europe) Limited |  | United Kingdom            
|                                      | 
|Edgewater Technology-Lynx, Inc.*      |  | Delaware, USA             
|                                      | 
|Edgewater Technology-Ranzal, Inc.     |  | Delaware, USA             
|                                      | 
|Edgewater Technology Securities Corp. |  | Massachusetts, USA        
|                                      | 
|Fullscope, Inc.                       |  | Delaware, USA             

*  Edgewater
Technology-Lynx, Inc. was legally merged into Edgewater Technology (Delaware), Inc. as of December 31, 2009.
# C_2021367EN.01000201.xml

| 13.9.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 367/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.9.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 367/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.10315 — BCI/ABP/TIG/Certain assets of Arauco)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 367/02)

On 30 June 2021, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32021M10315. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32021M10315. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---
UNITED STATES OF ANIERICA

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

UNITED STATES COAST GUARI)

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD.

Complainant,

KRISTOPHER PATRICK GUTHRIE,

Respondent.

Docket Number 2023 -0036

Enforcement Activity No. 7608987

CONSI,NT ORDER

Issued Bv: Honorable George J. Jordan, Administrative Law Judge

Issued: February 24, 2023

Appearances:

Mr. Hector Pacheco

USCG Sector North Carolina

For the Coast Guard

Kristopher Patrick Guthrie, pro se

For Respondent

vs
CONSENI' ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

On February 2,2023, the Coast Guard filed a Complaint against K,ristopher

Patrick Guthrie (Respondent) alleging one count of Use of, or addiction to the Use of, or

Addiction to the Use of Dangerous Drugs, in violation of 46 C.F.R. $ 16.201(b) and 46

U.S.C. S 7704(b). The Coast Guard alleged that Respondent failed a chemical test for

dangerous drugs, raising the presumption ofuse.

On or about Febru ary 2,2023, the parties in this case submitted a Motion for

Approval of Settlement Agreement and Entry ofConsent Order to be approved as a

settlement of the case under 33 C.F.R. S 20.502.

After carefully reviewing the terms of the Settlement Agreement, I find that it is

fair, reasonable, and in substantial compliance with the requirements of33 C.F.R. $

20.502.
_--/ L:,ftr--

Done and dated February 24, 2023,

at Seattle, WA

l

ORDER

Upon consideration of the record, it is hereby ORDERED that the Settlement

Agreement is APPROVED in full and incorporated herein by reference.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent's Merchant Mariner Credential is

REVOKED. However, the revocation is stayed until May 2,,2024. to permit

Respondent to complete a rehabilitation program and prove cure in accordance with the

Settlement Agreement.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent must complete the terms of the

Settlement Agreement prior to the termination of the stay. If Respondent satisfies the

requirements, this order will reflect an outright suspension for the period ofdeposit.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Consent Order shall constitute full, final,

and complete adjudication ofthis proceeding.

HON. GEORGE J. JORDAN

LTNITED STATES COAST GUARD

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF**

**THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACTOF 2002**

 

 

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Blount International, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, James S.Osterman, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 ofthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

 

(ii)           The information contained in the Report fairly presents,in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations ofthe Company as of the dates and for the periods expressed in the report.

 

A signed original of this written statementrequired by Section 906 has been provided to Blount International, Inc. andwill be retained by Blount International, Inc. and furnished to the Securitiesand Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

Date: May10, 2005

 

 
| /s/ James S. Osterman     |   |
|---------------------------|--------|
| James S. Osterman         |   |
| Chairman of the Board and |   |
| Chief Executive Officer   |   |

 

 

----
# C_2021201EN.01000101.xml

| 28.5.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 201/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.5.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 201/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.8881 — Bergé/GEFCO/JV)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 201/01)

On 11 December 2018, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32018M8881. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32018M8881. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.2

                   CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

    We hereby consent to the incorporation of our report, relating to the
consolidated financial statements of Entravision Communications Corporation,
dated February 5, 2001, included in this Form 10-K of Univision Communications
Inc., into the previously filed Registration Statements of Univision
Communications Inc. on Form S-8 (File Nos. 333-34559, 333-47017, 333-56595 and
333-56794) and Form S-3 (File No. 333-57712).

                                          /s/ McGLADREY & PULLEN, LLP

Pasadena, California
March 28, 2001
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                                 <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                      3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                             DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                  MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                            147,515
<SECURITIES>                                        1,414
<RECEIVABLES>                                     736,282
<ALLOWANCES>                                       51,828
<INVENTORY>                                        51,630
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                1,151,921
<PP&E>                                          9,811,633
<DEPRECIATION>                                  3,699,428
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  9,447,018
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           2,659,319
<BONDS>                                                 0
<COMMON>                                           32,933
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                   0
<PREFERRED>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      4,773,242
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    9,447,018
<SALES>                                           208,868
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                4,009,072
<CGS>                                             131,999
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     131,999
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                3,986,409
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     (679)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 96,858
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (176,004)
<INCOME-TAX>                                            0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (176,004)
<DISCONTINUED>                                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                         0
<CHANGES>                                               0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (176,004)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        (.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        (.05)
        


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

[946 NYS2d 894]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Berkowitz, J.), rendered September 7, *10792010, as amended September 20, 2010, convicting him of assault in the first degree (two counts) and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment, as amended, is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, certain statements made by a prospective juror which were the subject of the defendant’s for-cause challenge to that prospective juror did not “rise to the level of actual bias or otherwise indicate that [he] would be unable to render an impartial verdict” *(People v Archer,*210 AD2d 241, 241 [1994]; *see*CPL 270.20 [1] [b]; *People v Glover,*69 AD3d 877, 878 [2010]; *People v Forino,*65 AD3d 1259, 1260 [2009]; *People v Smith,*48 AD3d 489 [2008]). Thus, the trial court properly denied the defendant’s for-cause challenge to the juror.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution *(see People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant committed assault in the first degree *(see*Penal Law § 120.10 [2]; *People v Lausane,*16 AD3d 523 [2005]; *People v Rivera,*268 AD2d 538, 539 [2000]; *People v Wade,*187 AD2d 687 [1992]). Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence *(see*CPL 470.15 [5]; *People v Danielson,*9 NY3d 342 [2007]), we nevertheless accord great deference to the jury’s opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor *(see People v Mateo,*2 NY3d 383, 410 [2004], *cert denied*542 US 946 [2004]; *People v Bleakley,*69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt as to assault in the first degree was not against the weight of the evidence *(see People v Romero,*7 NY3d 633 [2006]).

The defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his contention that the trial court erred in permitting the physician who treated the victim at the emergency room, and sutured the 10-inch laceration to the victim’s face, to opine as to the origin of a “divot” in the victim’s skull *(see*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Gray,*86 NY2d 10, 19 [1995]). In any event, the contention is without merit, as the Supreme Court properly permitted the testimony *(see People v West,*86 AD3d 583 [2011]; *People v Prowse,*60 AD3d 703, 704 [2009]). Skelos, J.P., Dickerson, Leventhal and Roman, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                           7,045
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   92,008
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     41,780
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               146,665
<PP&E>                                         249,652
<DEPRECIATION>                                  89,595
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 347,087
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          500,486
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        13,094
<OTHER-SE>                                   (268,493)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   347,087
<SALES>                                         23,963
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                77,505
<CGS>                                           19,895
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   19,895
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                73,200
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,907
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (15,580)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (15,580)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (15,580)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (.001)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (.001)
        

</TABLE>