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

                                                                    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 Annual Report on Form 10-K of Applix, Inc. (the
"Company") for the period ended December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned,
David C. Mahoney, 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.



                                       /s/ David C. Mahoney
                                       -----------------------------------------
Dated: March 29, 2004                  David C. Mahoney
                                       President and Chief Executive Officer
# C_2019288EN.01003802.xml

| 26.8.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 288/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.8.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 288/38

---

Order of the President of the Court of 12 April 2019 — European Commission v Republic of Slovenia, supported by: Kingdom of Belgium, French Republic

(Case C-188/18) (1)

(2019/C 288/47)

Language of the case: Slovenian

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 152, 30.4.2018.

---
#### In the Matter of Michael Lesher, Appellant, v Charles J. Hynes, as District Attorney of Kings County, New York, et al., Respondents.

Submitted January 23, 2012;

decided February 9, 2012

Reported below, 80 AD3d 611.

Motion by New York Civil Liberties Union for leave to appear amicus curiae on the appeal herein granted only to the extent that the proposed brief is accepted as filed.
#### STATE TAX COMMISSION OF MISSISSIPPI et al. *v.*INTERSTATE NATURAL GAS CO., INC.

No. 40.

Argued October 26, 1931. —

Decided November 23, 1931.

*Mr. Edward R. Holmes, Jr.,*argued the cause for appellants, appearing *pro- hae vice*by leave of Court; and *Messrs. George T. Mitchell,*Attorney General of Mississippi, and *J. A. Lauderdale,*Assistant Attorney General, were on the brief.

*43
      *Mr. David Clay Bramlette*for appellee.

Mr. Justice Holmes

delivered the opinion of the Court.

.This is an appeal from a decree of three Judges sitting according to statute in the District Court, by which the íax Commission of the State of Mississippi is permanently enjoined from enforcing a Privilege Tax Law of that State, being c. 88 of the laws of 1930, against the Interstate Natural Gas Company, the plaintiff in this suit.

The facts are agreed. The plaintiff has a trunk line of pipe extending from gas fields in Louisiana through Mississippi and back to Louisiana; 72.42 miles having a diameter of 22 inches, 8.11 miles having a diameter of 12 inches and 4.99 miles a diameter of 10 inches. It sells daily to distributors in Louisiana about 70,000,000 cubic feet of natural gas in summer and'about 75,000,000 feet in winter. In Mississippi it sells as will be explained from 204,000 to 520,000 feet according to the season. The gas flows continuously from the gas fields in Louisiana and obviously, for much the greater part at least, in interstate commerce. But the appellants rely upon business done under two' similar contracts made in New York to show that there was intrastate commerce in Mississippi that may be taxed without burdening the main activity that the State cannot touch. *Ozark Pipe Line Corp.*v. *Monier,*266 U. S. 555, 563. *East Ohio Gas Co.*v. *Tax Commission,*283 U. S. 465, 470. Distributing companies tap the plaintiff’s pipes near Natchez and the town of Woodville. The gas withdrawn by the distributors is measured by a thermometer and a metér furnished by the plaintiff which is the only way in which it can be measured. The pressure of the gas is reduced by the plaintiff *44before it passes into the purchaser’s hands. The work done by the. plaintiff is done upon the flowing gas to help the delivery and seems to us plainly to be incident to the interstate commerce between Louisiana and Mississippi. The plaintiff simply transports the gas and delivers it yyholésale not otherwise worked over than to make it ready for delivery to the independent parties that dispose of it by retail. *Missouri*v. *Kansas Gas Co.,*265 U. S. 298. *Public Utilities Comm.*v. *Landon,*249 U. S. 236, 245. *Ozark Pipe Line Corp.*v. *Monier,*266 U. S. 555.

*Decree affirmed.*
Exhibit 99.8  DEGOLYER AND MACNAUGHTON 5001 SPRING VALLEY ROAD SUITE 800 EAST DALLAS, TEXAS 75244  February 22, 2008  EnCana Corporation. 855 - 2 Street SW Suite 1800
Calgary, Alberta T2P2S5  Ladies and
Gentlemen:  We hereby consent to the use of the name DeGolyer
and MacNaughton and reference to our name and our Appraisal Report as of December 31,
2007 on Certain Properties owned by EnCana Oil & Gas (USA) Inc. SEC
Case (our Report) evaluating a portion of EnCana Corporations petroleum and
natural gas reserves as of December 31, 2007, and the information
contained in our Report, as described or incorporated by reference in: (i) EnCana
Corporations Annual Report on Form 40-F for the year ended December 31,
2007; (ii) EnCana Corporations and EnCana Holdings Finance Corp.s
registration statement on Form F-9 (File Nos. 333-133648-01 and
333-133648); (iii) EnCana Corporations registration statement on Form F-9
(File No. 333-137182); and (iv) EnCana Corporations registration
statements on Form S-8 (File Nos. 333-124218, 333-13956, 333-140856 and
333-85598), filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission
pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the Securities
Act of 1933, as amended as applicable.  Very truly yours,/s/ De Golyer and MacNaughtonDeGOLYER and
  MacNAUGHTON
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NOS. AP-75,920, AP-75,921, AP-75,922 & AP-75,923

EX PARTE KELAN BOUGERE, Applicant

ON APPLICATIONS FOR WRITS OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NOS. W04-57034-R(A), W04-32975-R(A), W04-57168-R(A) & 

W04-57081-R(A)

IN THE 265 JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT TH

FROM DALLAS COUNTY

Per curiam.

O P I N I O N

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the

clerk of the trial court transmitted to this Court these applications for writs of habeas corpus. Ex

parte Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of four

charges of aggravated robbery and sentenced to forty years’ imprisonment. 

Applicant contends that his counsel rendered ineffective assistance because he failed to

timely file a notice of appeal or a motion to withdraw from the representation, and failed to advise

Applicant of his right to appeal. 
The trial court has determined that trial counsel failed to timely file a notice of appeal. We

find, therefore, that Applicant is entitled to the opportunity to file out-of-time appeals of the

judgments of conviction in Cause Nos. W04-57034-R(A), W04-32975-R(A), W04-57168-R(A) and

W04-57081-R(A) from the 265th Judicial District Court of Dallas County. Applicant is ordered

returned to that time at which he may give a written notice of appeal so that he may then, with the

aid of counsel, obtain a meaningful appeal. All time limits shall be calculated as if the sentence had

been imposed on the date on which the mandate of this Court issues. We hold that, should Applicant

desire to prosecute an appeal, he must take affirmative steps to file a written notice of appeal in the

trial court within 30 days after the mandate of this Court issues.

Delivered: May 21, 2008

Do Not Publish
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 987 Engrossed in House (EH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 987

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
    at 601 8th Street in Freedom, Pennsylvania, as the ``John Scott 
                      Challis, Jr. Post Office''.

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

SECTION 1. JOHN SCOTT CHALLIS, JR. POST OFFICE.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 601 8th Street in Freedom, Pennsylvania, shall be known and 
designated as the ``John Scott Challis, Jr. Post Office''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``John Scott 
Challis, Jr. Post Office''.

            Passed the House of Representatives March 16, 2009.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
111th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 987

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
    at 601 8th Street in Freedom, Pennsylvania, as the ``John Scott 
                      Challis, Jr. Post Office''.
```
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

CHRISTOPHER REY HERRERA,

 Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

 State.

'

'

'

'

'

'

No. 08-13-00016-CR

Appeal from the

112th District Court

of Pecos County, Texas 

(TC# P-3139-112-CR)

O R D E R

The Court GRANTS the Court Reporter=s third request for an extension of time within 

which to file the Reporter=s Record until June 7, 2013. NO FURTHER REQUESTS 

FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE THE REPORTER=S RECORD WILL BE

CONSIDERED BY THIS COURT.

It is further ORDERED that Mel Power, Court Reporter for the 112th District 

Court, for Pecos County, Texas, prepare the Reporter=s Record for the above styled and 

numbered cause, and forward the same to this Court on or before June 7, 2013.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 8th day of May, 2013.

PER CURIAM

Before McClure, C.J., Rivera and Rodriguez, JJ.
#### PACESETTER, INC., a Delaware corporation, DBA St. Jude Medical CRMD, Plaintiff-counter-defendant-Appellee, v. SURMODICS, INC., a Minnesota corporation, Defendant-counter-claimant-Appellant.

No. 12-55564.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted May 8, 2013.

Filed May 23, 2013.

James Anthony Gale, Esquire, Feldman Gale, PA, Miami, FL, Todd Malynn, Feld-man Gale, PA, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-counter-defendant-Appellee.

Jacob M. Holdreith, Jamie R. Kurtz, Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi, LLP, Minneapolis, MN, David Martinez, Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi L.L.P., Los Ange-les, CA, for Defendant-counter-claimant-Appellant.

Before: NOONAN, WARDLAW, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM *

In this diversity action arising under Minnesota law, SurModics, Inc. appeals the district court’s summary judgment order denying its claims for additional royalties under its licensing agreement with Pacesetter, Inc. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and review de novo a district court’s summary judgment. *Universal Health Servs., Inc. v. Thompson,*363 F.3d 1013, 1019 (9th Cir.2004). We affirm. Our reasoning tracks that of the district court.

The parties are familiar with the facts and prior proceedings. Remarkably, both parties urge us to conclude that the language of the licensing agreement is unambiguous as to whether SurModics was entitled to royalties on products manufactured before, but sold after, the agreement’s expired. Paragraph five states that “royalties” must be paid “for each quarter of each calendar year during the term of [the] Agreement.” “Term” is defined by paragraph eight to “extend ... until expiration of the last-to-expire patent ... that covers that product.” Attachment B2 provides that quarterly royalties are based on the greater of a specified minimum or a percentage of net sales. We agree with the district court that the contract’s language limits Pacesetter’s obligation to pay royalties to those products it sold during the term of the agreement. No other obligation to pay exists.

AFFIRMED.

*

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
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 of KOKO, LTD. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date here of (the “report”), I, Gregory Ruff, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Dated this 12th day of August, 2009.








GREGORY RUFFGregory RuffChief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2466 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2466

   To extend the State Opioid Response Grants program, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 1, 2019

Mr. Trone (for himself, Mr. Armstrong, Ms. Sherrill, and Mr. Riggleman) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                          Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To extend the State Opioid Response Grants program, and for other 
                               purposes.

    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 ``State Opioid Response Grant 
Authorization Act''.

SEC. 2. EXTENDING STATE OPIOID RESPONSE GRANTS PROGRAM.

    (a) In General.--For each of fiscal years 2020 through 2024, the 
Secretary shall continue to award the State Opioid Response Grants 
funded by the heading ``Substance Abuse And Mental Health Services 
Administration--Substance Abuse Treatment'' in title II of the 
Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and 
Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2018 (Public Law 115-141) in the 
same manner and subject to the same conditions as were applicable to 
such grants for fiscal year 2018.
    (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--
            (1) In general.--To carry out this Act, there is authorized 
        to be appropriated $1,000,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2020 
        through 2024.
            (2) Reservation of funds.--Of the amount made available 
        under paragraph (1), not less than $50,000,000 shall be 
        reserved to make grants to Indian Tribes or tribal 
        organizations.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. §1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Vascular Solutions, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Howard Root, 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, to the best of 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/ Howard RootHoward RootChief Executive OfficerFebruary 3, 2009






---
H. R. 955 

One Hundred Eleventh Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE FIRST SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday, 

the sixth day of January, two thousand and nine 

An Act 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 10355 

Northeast Valley Road in Rollingbay, Washington, as the ‘‘John ‘Bud’ Hawk 

Post Office’’. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. JOHN ‘‘BUD’’ HAWK POST OFFICE. 

(a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States Postal 

Service located at 10355 Northeast Valley Road in Rollingbay, 

Washington, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘John ‘Bud’ 

Hawk Post Office’’. 

(b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 

document, paper, or other record of the United States to the facility 

referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference 

to the ‘‘John ‘Bud’ Hawk Post Office’’. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
Certification of CFO 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 of Orion Energy Systems, Inc., a Wisconsin corporation (the Company), on Form
10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Scott R. Jensen, Chief Financial 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, 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: August 9, 2010 /s/ Scott R. Jensen
Scott R. Jensen
Chief Financial Officer A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be
retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
September 30, 2022

VIA Portal

Commodity Futures Trading Commission

Attention: Chris Kirkpatrick, Secretary

Three Lafayette Centre

1155 21st Street, NW

Washington, DC 20581

Re: CFTC Regulation 40.6(d) Notification: Nodal Exchange Weekly Notification of Rule 

Amendments

Dear Mr. Kirkpatrick:

Pursuant to Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC” or “Commission”) Regulation 

40.6(d), Nodal Exchange submits this weekly notification of non-substantive revisions made, during 

the week of September 19, 2022, to the Nodal Exchange Rulebook Appendix A (Contract 

Specifications). For all Nodal contracts, the Position Limit field has been amended to provide a link 

to Nodal Exchange Rulebook Appendix C (Contract Reporting Levels, Position Accountability Levels 

and Position Limits), which provides the position limits for all Nodal contracts. The revisions to the 

Contract Specifications are cosmetic and do not change the position limit of any contract. These 

revisions have no effect on the economic characteristics of these contracts in accordance with CFTC 

Regulation 40.6(d)(i).

If you have any question or need additional information regarding this submission, please contact 

me at 703-962-9853 or markotic@nodalexchange.com. 

Sincerely,

/s/ Max Markotic

Senior Director Compliance
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

October 31, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice 128747 & (21) Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

v SC: 128747 COA: 258877 Oakland CC: 1980-044539-FY ALBERT JOSEPH HARTFORD, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the motion to amend the application is GRANTED. The application for leave to appe al the April 7, 2005 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to re lief under MCR 6.508(D).

s1023 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

October 31, 2006

Clerk
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 97-60851 Summary Calendar

__________________
MAJAED BATARSEH, Petitioner,

versus IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent.

- - - - - - - - - - - Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A29 608 501 (A29-608-501)

- - - - - - - - - - - November 18, 1998 Before EMILIO M. GARZA, DeMOSS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Majaed Batarseh petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision dismissing his appeal from the immigration judge’s decision to deny his application for asylum and withholding of deportation. We have reviewed the record, the briefs, and the applicable law and determine that the Board was qualified to apply the correct standard of law to the facts of the case upon a determination that the Immigration Judge hadNo. 97-60851 -2- imposed an incorrect burden of proof. The Board has de novo review authority to make factual findings on appeal. CastilloRodriguez v. INS , 929 F.2d 181, 183 (5th Cir. 1991). This also applies to the application of facts to the correct standard of law. We also determine that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioner’s application for asylum because the Board found that he did not meet the standards to qualify for asylum. The petition for review is DENIED.