alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**EXHIBIT 99.1**

 

**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 of Vyrex Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-KSB for theperiod ended December 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, G. Dale Garlow, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adoptedpursuant 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; and 

 

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.
{"agency":"CFTC","generated":"2020-01-17 10:11:30","items":[{"id":"1","parent":null,"text":"Reporting Quarter","due":null,"due_date":"2012\/10\/15","fields":[{"type":"select","name":"2-1-year","label":"Reporting Year","options":[{"label":"2011","value":"2011"},{"label":"2012","value":"2012"},{"label":"2013","value":"2013"},{"label":"2014","value":"2014"},{"label":"2015","value":"2015"},{"label":"2016","value":"2016"},{"label":"2017","value":"2017"},{"label":"2018","value":"2018"},{"label":"2019","value":"2019"}],"value":"2020"},{"type":"select","name":"2-1-quarter","label":"Reporting Quarter","options":[{"label":"Q1","value":"Q1"},{"label":"Q2","value":"Q2"},{"label":"Q3","value":"Q3"},{"label":"Q4","value":"Q4"}],"value":"Q1"}],"multiple":false},{"id":"1-1","parent":"1","text":"Ten Oldest Requests","due":null,"due_date":"2012\/10\/15","fields":[{"type":"select","name":"2-1-1-oldest","label":"Ten Oldest","options":[{"label":"0","value":"0"},{"label":"1","value":"1"},{"label":"2","value":"2"},{"label":"3","value":"3"},{"label":"4","value":"4"},{"label":"5","value":"5"},{"label":"6","value":"6"},{"label":"7","value":"7"},{"label":"8","value":"8"},{"label":"9","value":"9"},{"label":"10","value":"10"}],"value":"10"}],"multiple":false},{"id":"1-3","parent":"1","text":"","due":null,"due_date":"2012\/10\/15","fields":[{"type":"select","name":"2-1-3-closed","label":"Ten Oldest Closed","options":[{"label":"0","value":"0"},{"label":"1","value":"1"},{"label":"2","value":"2"},{"label":"3","value":"3"},{"label":"4","value":"4"},{"label":"5","value":"5"},{"label":"6","value":"6"},{"label":"7","value":"7"},{"label":"8","value":"8"},{"label":"9","value":"9"},{"label":"10","value":"10"}],"value":"6"}],"multiple":false},{"id":"1-2","parent":"1","text":"FOIA Requests Information","due":null,"due_date":"2012\/08\/21","fields":[{"type":"text","name":"2-1-2-component","label":"Component","options":[],"value":["CFTC"]},{"type":"text","name":"2-1-2-received","label":"Received","options":[],"value":["41"]},{"type":"text","name":"2-1-2-processed","label":"Processed","options":[],"value":["38"]},{"type":"text","name":"2-1-2-backlog","label":"Backlog","options":[],"value":["8"]}],"multiple":true}],"year":"2020","quarter":"Q1"}
Page 1 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

CEA CASES 

NAME: CORN PRODUCTS REFINING COMPANY 

CITATION: 15 Agric. Dec. 795 

DOCKET NUMBER: 55 

DATE: JULY 6, 1956 

DOCUMENT TYPE: SUPPLEMENTAL ORDER 

(No. 4731) 

In re CORN PRODUCTS REFINING COMPANY. CEA Docket No. 55. Decided July 6, 1956. 

Supplemental Order -- Stay Order Vacated -- Previous Order Held in Abeyance 

for a Year

Where a decision and order, 13 Agric. Dec. 1117 (13 A.D. 1117) (1954), was 

stayed pending the outcome of an appeal and the court upheld the determination, 

the stay order is vacated and the decision and order, previously issued, is held 

in abeyance for one year and shall not become effective unless within that time 

the respondent is found to have exceeded the trading limits. 

Decision by Thomas J. Flavin, Judicial Officer

SUPPLEMENTAL ORDER

In this proceeding under the Commodity Exchange Act (7 U.S.C. Chapter 1) a 

decision was entered on December 8, 1954, finding that corn futures purchases of 

the respondent exceeding 

the trading limits under the act and an order was entered ordering all contract 

markets to refuse trading privileges to the respondent for one day (13 Agric. 

Dec. 1117 (13 A.D. 1117)). A stay order was entered on December 28, 1954, 

pending the outcome of an appeal by the respondent to the United States Court of 

Appeals for the Second Circuit. The Court has upheld the decision and order of 

December 8, 1954 (232 F.2d 554), and the court appeal has terminated. 

The stay order of December 28, 1954, is vacated. However, as pointed out in 

the decision and order of December 8, 1954, the questions involved were of such 

nature that reasonable differences of opinion might exist and we do not believe 

it necessary in the public interest to make effective at this time the order 

refusing trading privileges to the respondent. Consequently, the order of 

December 8, 1954, is held in abeyance for one year and shall not become 

effective unless within that time the respondent is found after notice and 

opportunity for a hearing to have exceeded the trading limits under the act. 

LOAD-DATE: June 8, 2008 
Page 2
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellee v. Hector SANTIAGO, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 07-1890-cr.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit,

Sept. 11, 2008.

*126Charles F. Willson, Nevins & Nevins LLP, East Hartford, CT, for Appellant,

Christopher M. Mattei, Assistant United States Attorney, (Kevin J. O’Connor, United States Attorney, on the brief, Robert M. Spector, Assistant United States Attorney, of counsel), United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Connecticut, New Haven, CT, for Appellee.

*,*PRESENT: ROGER J. MINER, JOSÉ A. CABRANES and DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, Circuit Judges.

SUMMARY ORDER

Defendant-appellant Hector Santiago appeals from the March 4, 2003 judgment of conviction of the District Court. Following a jury trial, defendant was convicted of unlawful possession of a firearm as a convicted felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). Defendant was sentenced principally to a term of 96 months’ incarceration. Our Court subsegently affirmed the judgment of convic^ion an<^ remanded the case for resentenc*n§ *n *United States v. Booker,*543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). The District Court imposed the same sentence on remand. Before our Court, defendant now challenges his sentence on the ground that the District Court committed a procedural error by refusing to consider the disparity between the defendant’s federal sentence and the sentence he would have received in state court for the same offense. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts and , ,, . . procedural history of the case.

We have previously held that a District Court is not required to consider the disparities between the federal and state penalties for his offense of conviction when determining the appropriate sentence. See *United States v. Johnson,*505 F.3d 120, 124 (2d Cir.2007). The District Court’s reasons for refusing to consider ¿pg federal-state sentencing disparity were similar to those given in *Johnson,*namely that such a consideration “would make federal sentences dependent on the law of the state in which the sentencing court was located, resulting in federal sentencing that would vary from state to state [contrary to the intent of the Guidelines].” *Id.*at 123 (quoting *United States v. Haynes,*985 F 2d 65, 70 (2d Cir.1993)). We con-elude that the District Court properly considered the relevant § 3553(a) factors and that the defendant’s sentence was not otherwise pr0cedurally unreasonable. *See United States v. Fernandez,*443 F.3d 19, 26 (2d Cir.2006).

*127For the reasons stated above, the judgment is AFFIRMED.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 1014 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 1014

   Recognizing and supporting the goals and ideals of North American 
                            Inclusion Month.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 13, 2010

Mr. Towns submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 
              Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
   Recognizing and supporting the goals and ideals of North American 
                            Inclusion Month.

Whereas one in every five Americans struggles with some sort of disability, be 
        it intellectual, physical or otherwise, and the need for inclusion of 
        individuals with disabilities is a family, community, and national 
        priority;
Whereas a similar ratio exists in the Jewish community, with over one million 
        Jewish individuals living with a form of disability;
Whereas individuals with disabilities face significant disadvantages in 
        educational and employment opportunities;
Whereas 70 percent of individuals with disabilities are unemployed or 
        significantly underemployed;
Whereas special education and related programming do not address underlying 
        needs for appropriate training to lead to greater independence and 
        employment;
Whereas Yachad, the National Jewish Council for Disabilities, and its parent 
        organization, the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America, is 
        dedicated to addressing the needs of all individuals with disabilities 
        and including them in the Jewish community;
Whereas Yachad provides programming for individuals with disabilities and their 
        families to foster inclusion in communal happenings and assists in 
        placing individuals with disabilities in employment; and
Whereas Yachad and the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America are 
        cosponsoring North American Inclusion Month in February to increase 
        public awareness of the life circumstances of individuals with 
        disabilities, and the need for increased employment opportunities, 
        better special education and increased inclusion of these individuals on 
        the family, communal, and national levels: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives recognizes and supports 
the goals and ideals of North American Inclusion Month.
                                 <all>
```
**FIDELITY ADVISOR**®**EUROPE CAPITAL APPRECIATION FUND**
No. 271.

#### Evans *v.*Missouri State Life Insurance Co.

November 11, 1935.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATE 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 IPC The Hospitalist Company, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), the undersigned, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, 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 the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/S/    ADAM D. SINGER,
M.D.Adam D. Singer, M.D. Chief Executive
Officer


May 14, 2008
Page 1 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

CEA CASES 

NAME: TIME TRADING CO. 

DOCKET NUMBER: 184 

DATE: NOVEMBER 22, 1971 

DOCUMENT TYPE: CEASE AND DESIST ORDER 

Docket No. 184 

Name: Time Trading Co. 

Effective On or about November 22, 1971 

Effective upon the date of service of this order upon respondents Robert E. 

O'Grady, Carl D. Leaven, Leonard B. Feldman and Time Trading Co., they shall 

cease and desist from: (1) entering into, or offering to enter into, any futures 

transaction subject to the Commodity Exchange Act if such transaction is, is of 

the character of, or is commonly known to the trade as, a "wash sale"; and (2) 

executing any futures transaction subject to the Commodity Exchange Act if such 

transaction is not executed openly and competitively in accordance with section 

1.38 of the regulations issued under the Commodity Exchange Act (17 CFR 1.38). 

Done at Washington, D. C. 

NOV 18 1971 

[SEE SIGNATURE IN ORIGINAL] 

Thomas J. Flavin 

Judicial Officer 

LOAD-DATE: June 16, 2008 
Page 2 
Page 3
#### Carol L. PIZZUTO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Rebecca RANDOLPH; Richard Lucas; Main Street Financial Services Corporation, (Holding Co. for) Main Street Bank; William Criswell; Kevin Gessler; Shawn R. Turak; The Honorable Scott R. Smith; City of Wheeling; Joe Doe, I, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 10-1663.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Oct. 19, 2010.

Decided: Oct. 25, 2010.

Carol L. Pizzuto, Appellant Pro Se. Keith C. Gamble, Pullin, Fowler, Flanagan, Brown & Poe, P.L.L.C., Morgantown, West Virginia; Nathanial Adam Kuratomi, Jenkins Fenstermaker, P.L.L.C., Huntington, West Virginia; David Lee Wyant, Bailey & Wyant, P.L.L.C., Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellees.

Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Carol L. Pizzuto appeals the district court’s orders staying discovery, denying her motion to remand, and granting Defendants’ motions to dismiss. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Pizzuto v. Randolph,*No. 5:10-cv-00017-FPS, 2010 WL 2402861 (N.D.W. Va. June 3, 2010; June 10, 2010). 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.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS DATED DECEMBER 31, 1999 (AUDITED) AND DECEMBER
31, 1998 (AUDITED) AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                              25
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       29
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                        139
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   193
<PP&E>                                             625
<DEPRECIATION>                                   (175)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   2,140
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              192
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                       1,948
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     2,140
<SALES>                                            796
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   796
<CGS>                                            (596)
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    (596)
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (3,705)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                (16)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (4,758)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (4,754)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (.55)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.55)


</TABLE>
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A22A1707. MASTROM v. THE STATE.

Appellant Matthew Mastrom moves pro se to supplement the appellate record

in this case, asserting that numerous documents were improperly omitted from the

record that the trial court transmitted to this court. He states in his motion that he has

also filed with the trial court a motion to complete or supplement the record under

OCGA § 5-6-41 (f), and we have confirmed with the Clerk of the Superior Court of

Bartow County that such a motion is pending before that court. Having reviewed the

motion that Mastrom filed with this court, we believe that the trial court is in the

better position to determine the scope of the record that was before that court when

it made the ruling at issue in this appeal.

Accordingly, we hereby ORDER that this case be remanded to the trial court

for that court to rule on Mastrom’s pending motion to complete or supplement the

record. Once the trial court has ruled on that motion and established the scope of the

record, the Clerk of the Superior Court of Bartow County shall, within thirty days,

transmit the full record to this court for re-docketing in this court.

August 18, 2022
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

08/18/2022
```

[Federal Register: November 4, 1998 (Volume 63, Number 213)]
[Notices]
[Page 59549]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr04no98-42]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting

AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING: Commodity futures Trading Commission.

TIME AND DATE: 10:00 a.m., Thursday, November 19, 1998.

PLACE: 1155 21st St., N.W., Washington, D.C., 9th Floor Conference
Room.

STATUS: Closed.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Enforcement Matters.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Jean A. Webb, 202-418-5100.
Jean A. Webb,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 98-29651 Filed 11-2-98; 2:39 pm]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-M
```

----

**======== RETURN TO INDEX    ========**

----
No. 590, Misc.

#### Garner et al. *v.*United States.

United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

*T. Emmett McKenzie*for petitioners.

*Solicitor General Perlman,*Assistant *Attorney General Campbell, Robert S. Erdahl*and *Harold D. Cohen*for the United States.

Certiorari denied.
Page 1 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

CEA CASES 

NAME: WILLIAM J. MALLERS 

DOCKET NUMBER: 86 

DATE: DECEMBER 12, 1958 

DOCUMENT TYPE: ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT 

NOTE: ANOTHER VERSION OF THIS DOCUMENT IS REPORTED IN THE AGRICULTURAL DECISIONS 

AT 17 AGRIC. DEC. 1197 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

BEFORE THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE 

In re William J. Mallers, Respondent 

CEA Docket No. 86 

Order Dismissing Complaint 

This proceeding was instituted by the issuance of a complaint as provided 

under Section 6(b) of the Commodity Exchange Act September 2, 1958. The 

complaint charged that the respondent became the buyer with respect to selling 

orders of his principals and the seller with respect to buying orders of his 

principals and executed orders of different principals against each other, all 

in violation of Sections 4b(B) and 4c(A) of the Commodity Exchange Act and 

section 1.38 of the regulations promulgated under the act. 

On December 9, 1958, the complainant filed a motion to dismiss stating: "In 

the light of all the information now available, and after consideration of all 

facts and representations made by the respondent, the complainant is of the 

opinion that further proceedings are not warranted, and therefore moves that the 

complaint be dismissed." 

Accordingly, the complaint is dismissed. 

Done at Washington, D. C. 

Dec. 12, 1958 

/s/ Thomas J. Flavin 

Judicial Officer 

LOAD-DATE: June 12, 2008 
Page 2
No. 106.

#### Lucky Tiger Combination Gold Mining Co. *v.*Commissioner of Internal Revenue.

October 14, 1935.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit *585Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.

*Mr. George E. H. Goodner*for petitioner.

*Solicitor General Reed, Assistant Attorney General Wideman,*and *Messrs. David E. Hudson*and *James W. Morris*for respondent.