alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual
Report of St. Jude Medical, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period
ended January 3, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
Report), I, Daniel J. Starks, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

| |    |                                                                                                                                                       
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | 1. | The Report
 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
 Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and                               
| |    |                                                                                                                                                       
| | 2. | The
 information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
 respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

| |                                | 
| | ------------------------------ | 
| | /s/   DANIEL  J. STARKS        | 
| | Daniel J.
 Starks              | 
| | Chairman,
 President and Chief | 
| | Executive
 Officer             | 
| | February 27,
 2009             | 

---
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

January Term 2014

JEWEL GRIER

, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

, Appellee

.

No. 4D 14

- 0947

[ July 2, 2014 ]

Appeal from order denying rule 3.800 motion the Circuit Court for the

Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County ; Barbara McCarthy , Judge;

L.T. Case No. 01

- 7886CF 10A

.

Jewel B. Grier, Okeechobee, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed. State v. Harris, 129 So. 3d 1166, 1168 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014).

S TEVENSON

, G ROSS and C ONNER

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 719 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 719

 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend relief from the 
                        alternative minimum tax.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 27, 2009

 Mr. Lee of New York introduced the following bill; which was referred 
                   to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend relief from the 
                        alternative minimum tax.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``AMT Relief Extension Act of 2009''.

SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF INCREASED ALTERNATIVE MINIMUM TAX EXEMPTION 
              AMOUNT.

    (a) In General.--Paragraph (1) of section 55(d) of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to exemption amount) is amended--
            (1) by striking ``($69,950 in the case of taxable years 
        beginning in 2008)'' in subparagraph (A) and inserting 
        ``($70,950 in the case of taxable years beginning in 2009)'', 
        and
            (2) by striking ``($46,200 in the case of taxable years 
        beginning in 2008)'' in subparagraph (B) and inserting 
        ``($46,700 in the case of taxable years beginning in 2009)''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2008.

SEC. 3. EXTENSION OF ALTERNATIVE MINIMUM TAX RELIEF FOR NONREFUNDABLE 
              PERSONAL CREDITS.

    (a) In General.--Paragraph (2) of section 26(a) of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to special rule for taxable years 2000 
through 2008) is amended--
            (1) by striking ``or 2008'' and inserting ``2008, or 
        2009'', and
            (2) by striking ``2008'' in the heading thereof and 
        inserting ``2009''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2008.
                                 <all>
```
- Home
- Media Center
- Press Releases

# USCP Statement on the Unlawful Demonstration outside the DNC

Press Release

Last night approximately 200 people gathered in front of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) headquarters to protest the conflict in the Middle East.

We have handled hundreds of peaceful protests, but last night's group was not peaceful. The crowd failed to obey our lawful orders to move back from the DNC, where Members of Congress were in the building.

When the group moved dumpsters in front of the exits, pepper sprayed our officers and attempted to pick up the bike rack, our teams quickly introduced consequences – pulling people off the building, pushing them back, and clearing them from the area, so we could safely evacuate the Members and staff.

Six officers were treated for injuries, from minor cuts to being pepper sprayed to being punched.

24-year old Ruben Arthur Camacho of Woodridge, NY, was arrested for Assault on a Police Officer after an officer witnessed Camacho slam another officer into a garage door and then punch the female officer in the face.

Last night our team was quick, decisive, courageous and in control. 

When demonstrations cross the line into illegal activity it is our responsibility to maintain order and ensure people's safety. 

## Media Center

              - Press Releases
              - USCP Arrests
              - USCP FAST FACTS

## Yearly Archive

                  - 2024               (4)          
                  - 2023               (26)          
                  - 2022               (36)          
                  - 2021               (73)          
                  - 2020               (9)          
                  - 2019               (15)          
                  - 2018               (14)          
                  - 2017               (28)          
                  - 2016               (18)          
                  - 2015               (10)          
                  - 2014               (14)          
                  - 2013               (10)          
                  - 2012               (10)          
                  - 2011               (13)          
                  - 2010               (10)          
                  - 2009               (18)          
                  - 2008               (11)          
                  - 2007               (14)          
                  - 2006               (23)          
                  - 2005               (18)          
                  - 2004               (24)          
                  - 2003               (15)
(9 Misc. Rep. 375.)

#### MARTIN v. BRONSVELD.

(Superior Court of New York City, General Term.

July 2, 1894.)

Appeal—When Case is Necessary.

An alleged error in dismissing the complaint before plaintiff has concluded his proof does not appear on the record, and can only be reviewed on appeal when incorporated in a case made and settled as required .by Code Civ. Proc. § 997.

Appeal from special term.

Action by Frank H. Martin against Edward Bronsveld. From an order refusing to set aside a nonsuit, or to allow an exception, plaintiff appeals.

Dismissed.

Argued before McADAM and GILDEBSLEEVE, JJ.

George A. Black, for appellant.

A. J. Westermayr, for. respondent.

McADAM, J.

The complaint was dismissed after a trial of the issues before a jury, and the appropriate method of reviewing errors committed on the trial is by appeal from the judgment entered on the dismissal. The alleged errors not appearing upon the record, a case should have been made and settled according to prescribed practice, that the general term might be properly informed of all that occurred upon the trial,—what proofs were received and rejected thereat, what rulings were made, and what exceptions were taken. Code, § 997. The matters urged against the nonsuit cannot be presented upon mere motion at special term to set aside the direction, as was done here. True, section 998 of the Code provides that it is not necessary to make a case for the purpose of moving for a new trial “upon an allegation of irregularity.” But the real ground upon which we are called upon to review the action of the trial judge is not for an “irregularity in practice,” within the proper meaning of the term, but substantial error committed at the trial, which must appear in and by a case settled by the trial judge

The plaintiff claims that the trial judge dismissed the plaintiff’s complaint before he had concluded his proof. If it was apparent to the trial judge that under no phase of the case could a recovery be had under the pleadings, he had the right, of his own motion, to so dismiss the complaint, and such a dismissal does not constitute an irregularity. If it was not such a case, the fact should be made to appear, not by affidavits upon mere motion, but on appeal *1119in the manner prescribed by section 997 of the Code. If a trial judge finally disposes of a cause pending before him, by directing the only result that could properly be reached, it is of no consequence whether the disposition made was of his own motion or at the request of counsel. For failure to observe the practice laid down, the appeal must be dismissed, with costs, but without prejudice to the plaintiff’s rights to review the action of the trial court upon compliance with prescribed practice.
##### 



Exhibit 32.1 CERTIFICATION OF THE 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 the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of GameTech
International, Inc. (the Company) for the quarterly period ended July 31,
2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the Report), I, John B. Furman, Chief Executive Officer and President of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:  (1)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); 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/ John B. FurmanJohn B. FurmanChief Executive Officer and President
 September 14, 2004
#### Holton *vs.*Hendley.

1. "Where a *certiorari*was taken from the trial of a case of forcible entry and detainer before a justice and jury, and the plaintiff in *certiorari*paid the costs which had accrued and gave bond for all future costs, this was a substantial compliance with the statute, and a motion to dismiss the *certiorari*was properly refused. In such a case there is no eventual condemnation money except the costs.

2. On the trial of a case of forcible entry and detainer, a party is entitled to purge the jury by putting them on their *voire dire,*in order to show that they are not fair and impartial jurors.

October 27, 1885.

Bonds. Forcible Entry and Detainer. *Certiorari.*Jury and Jurors. Before Judge Kibbee. Pulaski Superior Court. May Term, 1885.

Reported in the decision.

W. L. Grice ; L. 0. Ryan, for plaintiff in error.

J. H. Martin, for defendant

Blandeord, Justice.

This was a *certiorari*to the trial of a case of forcible entry and detainer before a justice of the peace. The plaintiff moved to dismiss the proceeding because no bond had been given by the petitioner in *certiorari*for the *848eventual condemnation money, the bond being for all future costs, all costs having been paid which had accrued. The court refused to dismiss the *certiorari*on this ground, and this is the first exception.

1. This is not now an open question in this court. In 15 Ga., 39, it was held that there is no eventual condemnation money in a case like the present; that there is nothing involved for the party to be condemned in but the costs, and a bond for all future costs is sufficient. My own opinion is that the eventual condemnation money in such a case is the costs, and that the bond given is in fact for the eventual condemnation money.

2. The court below sustained the *certiorari*upon two grounds, first, that the case was prematurely brought; and second, that the justice erred in not allowing the defendant to purge the jury by putting them upon their *voire dire,*to show that they were not fair and impartial jurors. We think the court did right to sustain the *certiorari*on this last ground. This was not an ordinary case before a justice’s court; here twelve jurors are required, the magic number; the justice could require the sheriff of the county to summon them, and if any legal objection should appear t§ any of them, the justice could require the jury to be completed by tales jurors, and if a jury could not be obtained in the district, he is empowered to draw a jury from an adjoining district in the county. Code, §4086. So it appears that a jury in this kind of a case before a justice stands upon the same footing as a jury in the superior court. The course proposed by the defendant to purge the jury was recognized by this‘court to be correct in 15 Ga., 39; 59 *Id.,*145. Let the judgment of the court below be affirmed.
# Minimize Firefighting Risks at Strip Mall Fires

**Posted: Oct. 12, 2023**

            -   Find similar articles:
            - Health and safety
            - Planning

            - Share on:
            - 
            - 
            - 

Strip mall fires are low-frequency, high-risk incidents for firefighters due in part to a variety of strip mall construction features that can result in:
            - Limited entry and egress.
            - High heat release rate.
            - Fuel loading.
            - Maze-like conditions.
            - High entanglement potential.

Additionally, operating in occupancies with a high volume of merchandise and furnishings in zero visibility creates additional hazards and contributes to firefighters becoming disoriented and losing directional awareness.

To minimize these risks, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) has released “Preventing Deaths and Injuries to Firefighters Working at Strip Mall Fires” featuring recommended precautions that fire departments should take. Along with characterizing the risks to firefighters at strip mall fires, this bulletin outlines considerations for developing the correct strategy and an effective incident action plan.

Also included is a case study of a 2016 North Carolina strip mall fire that resulted in the line-of-duty death of a volunteer firefighter. This case study describes multiple challenges encountered during this incident, providing support for many of the bulletin’s recommendations.

This 6-page bulletin from NIOSH is supported by key fire service community organizations, including the U.S. Fire Administration, International Association of Fire Fighters, International Association of Fire Chiefs, Underwriters Laboratories Fire Safety Research Institute and the National Volunteer Fire Council.

This article is based on content in theOct. 12, 2023 InfoGram.

 Subscribe to the InfoGram
EX-4.2





 Exhibit 4.2 

The BVI Business Companies Act 

(No. 16 of 2004) 

Share Certificate 
  

					
	Certificate Number [    ]	  		  	Number of Shares [    ]

 AnPac Bio-Medical Science Co., Ltd. 

The Company is authorised to issue 100,000,000 shares with a par value of US$0.01 each comprising (i) 70,000,000 Class A Ordinary Shares
with a par value of US$0.01 each; and (ii) 30,000,000 Class B Ordinary Shares with a par value of US$0.01 each 
 THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT
[    ] is the registered holder of [    ] Shares of US$0.01 each fully paid in the above named Company, subject to the Memorandum and Articles of Association of the
said Company and to the terms and conditions endorsed hereon. 
 Signed by a director of the Company 

this                day
of                                        

  

	
	    
	 Name:
 Director
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Todd RICKS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-51004

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

June 16, 2011.

Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Todd Ricks, Texarkana, TX, pro se,

Before JOLLY, GARZA and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Todd Ricks is serving a 300-month sentence for three drug and firearm crimes. He has moved this court for leave to appeal in forma pauperis and for appointment of counsel as he seeks to appeal the district court’s denial of two motions. In *455one motion, Ricks contended that a hung jury in a 2007 mistrial equated to an acquittal and that he was entitled to a nunc pro tunc order of acquittal. In the other motion, Ricks sought a formal written ruling that his motion for acquittal during the 2007 mistrial had been denied.

The motions filed by Ricks in the district court were meaningless, unauthorized, and without any jurisdictional basis. *See United States v. Early,*27 F.3d 140, 142 (5th Cir.1994) (addressing “a meaningless, unauthorized motion” that lacked any jurisdictional basis). Ricks has failed to show that his appeal from the denial of these frivolous motions involves “legal points arguable on their merits (and therefore not frivolous).” *Howard v. King,*707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir.1983) (internal quotation marks omitted). The appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous, and Ricks’s motions are DENIED. *See Baugh v. Taylor,*117 F.3d 197, 202 & n. 24 (5th Cir.1997); 5th Cir. Rule 42.2.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be *455published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

April 29, 2020

No. 04-18-00498-CV

MWM HELOTES RANCH, LTD. and Myfe Moore,

Appellants

v.

John H. WHITE Jr., Individually; John H. White III, Individually; John H. White Jr., John H. 

White III, and Molly C. White, in their capacities as Co-Trustees of the 1983 John H. White 

Long-Term Trust F/B/O John H. White Jr., and of the 1976B Partnership Trust; TCW Helotes 

Ranch Ltd; and Tuleta White,

Appellees

From the 73rd Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2018CI11563

Honorable David A. Canales, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

The Appellants Motion for Withdrawal of Counsel Ian M. McLin for Defendants MWM 

Helotes Ranch, Ltd., and Myfe Moore is hereby GRANTED.

_________________________________

Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 29th day of April, 2020.

___________________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ,

Clerk of Court
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 86 (Thursday, May 3, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 22261]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-11089]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

National Institute of Corrections


Advisory Board Meeting

Time and Date: 9 a.m. To 4:30 p.m. on Monday, June 4, 2001 & 8:30 a.m. 
To 12 noon on Tuesday, June 5, 2001.

Place: Raintree Plaza Hotel & Conference Center, 1900 Ken Pratt 
Boulevard, Longmont, Colorado 80501.

Status: Open.

Matters to be Considered: Update on Interstate Compact Activities; 
Presentations on Corrections Population Decline, Office of Victims of 
Crime Funding Allocations, and Publication on Impact of Job Stress on 
Corrections Officers; and Proposed Initiative to Collect Information on 
Federal Grants Available to Corrections Entities.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Larry Solomon, Deputy Director, 202-
307-3106, ext. 155.

Morris L. Thigpen,
Director.
[FR Doc. 01-11089 Filed 5-2-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-36-M
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM CONDENSED
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                          10,459
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  111,722
<ALLOWANCES>                                    20,390
<INVENTORY>                                      9,472
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               123,904
<PP&E>                                         233,432
<DEPRECIATION>                                  36,452
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 558,936
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           45,899
<BONDS>                                        205,100
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           203
<OTHER-SE>                                     264,073
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   558,936
<SALES>                                        224,228
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               226,936
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  208,176
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               179,212
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                19,554
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               9,410
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 18,760
<INCOME-TAX>                                     7,973
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             10,787
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    10,787
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.61
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.59


</TABLE>
[Cite as State v. Alsup, 128 Ohio St.3d 340, 2011-Ohio-227.]

T HE S TATE OF O HIO , A PPELLANT , v . A LSUP , A PPELLEE . [Cite as State v. Alsup, 128 Ohio St.3d 340, 2011-Ohio-227.] Discretionary appeal accepted, judgment of the court of appeals vacated, and cause remanded to the court of appe als for application of State v. Johnson. (No. 2010-1748

— Submitted January 4, 2011

— Decided January 25, 2011.) A PPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Montgomery County, No. 23641, 2010-Ohio-4038.

__________________ {¶ 1} The discretionary appeal is accepted. {¶ 2} The judgment of the court of appeal s is vacated on the authority of State v. Johnson , 128 Ohio St.3d 153, 2010-Ohio-6314, 942 N.E.2d 1061, and the cause is remanded to the court of appeals for application of our decision in State v. Johnson

. O’C ONNOR , C.J., and L UNDBERG S TRATTON , O’D ONNELL , C UPP , and M C G EE B ROWN , JJ., concur. P FEIFER and L ANZINGER , JJ., dissent and would not accept the discretionary appeal.

__________________ Mathias H. Heck Jr., Montgomery County Prosecuting Attorney, and R. Lynn Nothstine, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellant.

__________________