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



CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,



I, Francis E. Wilde, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that
the Quarterly Report of Tarantella, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2004 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Tarantella, Inc.



By:

/s/ Francis E. WildeName:

Francis E. WildeTitle:

Chief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)August 16, 2004
Deondre Cordell HIGGINS, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-6066.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 31, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
COMPANY'S  FOR 10-KSB FOR THE YEAR ENDED  DECEMBER  31, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                                   <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                         12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                     DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                        JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                          DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                                    239,096
<SECURITIES>                                                    0
<RECEIVABLES>                                           1,549,047
<ALLOWANCES>                                                    0
<INVENTORY>                                             5,240,152
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                        7,563,534
<PP&E>                                                    913,255
<DEPRECIATION>                                            493,301
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                          8,274,198
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                   1,713,470
<BONDS>                                                         0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                           0
<PREFERRED>                                                     0
<COMMON>                                                    5,333
<OTHER-SE>                                                  1,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                            8,274,198
<SALES>                                                24,464,139
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                       24,464,139
<CGS>                                                  14,578,376
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                          14,578,376
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                        8,453,917
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                        279,804
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                         1,431,847
<INCOME-TAX>                                              615,694
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                     1,431,846
<DISCONTINUED>                                                  0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                 0
<CHANGES>                                                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                              816,152
<EPS-BASIC>                                                 .31
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                 .31


</TABLE>
Cordney SMITH, petitioner, v. Sherman CAMPBELL, Warden.

No. 16-6117.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 7, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>

                          SCHEDULE 27.2

This schedule contains summary financial  information extracted from the May 31,
1998 Financial  Statements  included in the Company's Form 10-K and is qualified
in its entirety by reference to such Form 10-K. </LEGEND>

<CIK>      0000934799
<NAME>     IHF Holdings Inc

<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAY-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAY-31-1998
<CASH>                                            3892
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   131188
<ALLOWANCES>                                      6887
<INVENTORY>                                     121466
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                267819
<PP&E>                                           89398
<DEPRECIATION>                                   40579
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  378094
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           114951
<BONDS>                                         360413
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        127769
<OTHER-SE>                                    (225039)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    378094
<SALES>                                         749313
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                749313
<CGS>                                           535976
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   189441
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               47406
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (29188)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (10034)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (19154)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (19154)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0

        

</TABLE>
UN PUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23

- 1165

EFRAIN A. HERRERA GUEVARA,

Petitioner,

v.

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,

Respondent

.

On Petition for Review of a n Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

.

Submitted : November 30, 2023 Decided: December 29, 2023

Before THACKER and RICHARDSON , Circuit Judges , and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by un published per curiam opinion

.

ON BRIEF: Anser Ahmad, AHMAD AND ASSOCIATES, McLean, Virginia, for Petitioner. Brian M. Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Anthony C. Payne, Assistant Director, Jeffery R. Leist, Senior Litigation Counsel, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-1165 Doc: 27 Filed: 12/29/2023 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM:

Efrain Herrera Guevara , a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of

an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing h is appeal from the Immigration

Judge’s denial of h is applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under

the Convention Against Torture. We have reviewed the record and Herrera Guevara ’s

claims and conclude that the evidence does not compel a ruling contrary to any of the

administrative factual findings, see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B), and that subst antial evidence

supports the denial of relief, see INS v. Elias

- Zacarias , 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992).

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. In re Herrera Guevara (B.I.A. Feb. 1 , 202 3 ).

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

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

process.

PETITION DENIED USCA4 Appeal: 23-1165 Doc: 27 Filed: 12/29/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
# C_2011311EN.01000701.xml

| 22.10.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 311/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.10.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 311/7

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 6 September 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret (Denmark)) — Lady & Kid A/S, Direct Nyt ApS, A/S Harald Nyborg Isenkram- og Sportsforretning, KID-Holding A/S v Skatteministeriet

(Case C-398/09) (1)

1

(Refusal to reimburse a tax paid in error - Unjust enrichment arising from the link between the introduction of that tax and the abolition of other taxes)

2011/C 311/08

Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Referring court

Østre Landsret

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Lady & Kid A/S, Direct Nyt ApS, A/S Harald Nyborg Isenkram- og Sportsforretning, KID-Holding A/S

Applicants:

Defendant: Skatteministeriet

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Reference for preliminary ruling — Østre Landsret — Interpretation of the judgment of the Court in Joined Cases C-192/95 to C-218/95 Comateb and Others and of the principles of Community law governing unjust enrichment — Refusal to reimburse a national tax held to be incompatible with Community law, on grounds of unjust enrichment arising from the direct link between the introduction of the unlawful tax and the abolishment of other taxes charged on another basis — Non-reimbursement having the effect of placing product importers at a disadvantage in relation to purchasers of similar domestic products due to the proportionally greater payment of the unlawful tax by the former as compared to the latter.

Comateb and Others

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The rules of European Union law on recovery of sums wrongly paid must be interpreted to the effect that recovery of sums wrongly paid can give rise to unjust enrichment only when the amounts wrongly paid by a taxpayer under a tax levied in a Member State in breach of European Union law have been passed on direct to the purchaser. Consequently, European Union law precludes a Member State from refusing reimbursement of a tax wrongfully levied on the ground that the amounts wrongly paid by the taxpayer have been set off by a saving made as a result of the concomitant abolition of other levies, since such a set-off cannot be regarded, from the point of view of European Union law, as an unjust enrichment as regards that tax.

---

(1)  OJ C 312, 19.12.2009.

1

---
Kevin Patrick SMITH, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-5336.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 28, 2016.

Petition for rehearing denied.
# C_2011055EN.01001401.xml

| 19.2.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 55/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.2.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 55/14

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 22 December 2010 — European Commission v Republic of Austria

(Case C-433/09) (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Taxation - Directive 2006/112/EC - VAT - Taxable amount - Tax on the delivery of vehicles not yet registered in the Member State based on their value and their average consumption - ‘Normverbrauchsabgabe’)

2011/C 55/24

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: D. Triantafyllou, Agent)

Applicant:

Defendant: Republic of Austria (represented by: E. Riedl and C. Pesendorfer, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Failure of Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 78 and 79 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — Sale of a motor vehicle — Inclusion in the taxable amount of a tax on the delivery of vehicles not yet registered in the Member State concerned on the basis of their value and their average consumption (‘Normverbrauschasbgage’)

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by including the standard consumption tax (‘Normverbrauchsabgabe’) in the taxable amount of value added tax levied in Austria on the delivery of a motor vehicle, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 78 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by including the standard consumption tax (‘Normverbrauchsabgabe’) in the taxable amount of value added tax levied in Austria on the delivery of a motor vehicle, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 78 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax.

| 2. | Dismisses the action for the remainder. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the action for the remainder.

| 3. | Orders the Commission and the Republic of Austria to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Commission and the Republic of Austria to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 24 of 30.1.2010.

1

---
# C_2009113EN.01001903.xml

| 16.5.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 113/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.5.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 113/19

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany), lodged on 11 February 2009 — Leo-Libera GmbH v Finanzamt Buchholz in der Nordheide

(Case C-58/09)

2009/C 113/39

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Claimant: Leo-Libera GmbH

Claimant:

Defendant: Finanzamt Buchholz in der Nordheide

Defendant:

Question referred

Question referred

Is Article 135(1)(i) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (1) of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax to be interpreted as meaning that Member States are permitted to have a rule under which only specified forms of (race) betting and lotteries are exempt from tax, and all ‘other forms of gambling’ are excluded from the tax exemption?

1

---

(1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.

1

---
No. —, original.

#### Ex parte Scalese.

November 25, 1935.

*Mr. Francis Scalese, pro se.*

The motion for leave to file petition for writ of mandamus is denied.
Exhibit 23.1

               Consent of Ernst & Young LLP, Independent Auditors

We consent to the  incorporation  by  reference in the  Registration  Statements
(Form S-8 No. 333-29413)  pertaining to the Miravant Medical Technologies 401(k)
-  Employee  Stock  Ownership  Plan,  (Form S-8 No.  333-34953  and Form S-8 No.
333-93385)  pertaining to the Miravant  Medical  Technologies  1989 Stock Option
Plan,  the Miravant  Medical  Technologies  1992 Stock Option Plan, the Miravant
Medical  Technologies 1994 Stock Option Plan, the Miravant Medical  Technologies
Non-Employee  Directors' Stock Option Plan and the Miravant Medical Technologies
1996 Stock  Compensation  Plan and (Form S-8 No.  333-44728)  pertaining  to the
Miravant  Medical   Technologies  2000  Stock   Compensation  Plan  and  to  the
incorporation  by  reference  in the  Registration  Statements  (Form S-3/A2 No.
333-60251 and Form S-3 No.  333-84003)  and in the related  Prospectuses  of our
report  dated  March  5,  2002,  with  respect  to  the  consolidated  financial
statements of Miravant Medical Technologies  included in its Annual Report (Form
10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2001.


                                                        /S/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP


March 27, 2002
Woodland Hills, California
Nathanael Lenard REYNOLDS, petitioner, v. Michael JOHNSON, Sheriff, Williamsburg, County, South Carolina, et al.

No. 16-5977.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 28, 2016.

Petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment denied.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 1669 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 1669

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                      December 1, 2010.
Whereas the National Air Transportation Association (NATA) was founded 70 years 
        ago on December 28, 1940, with 83 charter member companies who were 
        instrumental in supporting the Civilian Pilot Training Program (CPTP);
Whereas on December 27, 1938, the CPTP was formed by President Franklin D. 
        Roosevelt who approved a Civil Aeronautics Authority plan to boost the 
        private flying industry by annually teaching 20,000 college students to 
        fly;
Whereas the CPTP trained thousands of new pilots;
Whereas in 1940, NATA was instrumental in working with Congress to support the 
        CPTP;
Whereas the current general aviation industry owes much to the foresight and 
        resiliency of the founders of NATA, William A. Ong and Leslie H. Bowman, 
        the association's first two presidents, as well as George E. Haddaway, 
        John L. Gaylord, and others who played a strong role in the 
        organization's formation;
Whereas the general aviation industry accounts for hundreds of thousands of 
        American jobs and contributes approximately $90 billion to the United 
        States economy;
Whereas today NATA represents over 2,000 member companies that own, operate, or 
        service aircraft and provide for the needs of the traveling public by 
        offering services and products to aircraft operators and others such as 
        fuel sales, aircraft maintenance, parts sales, storage, rental airline 
        servicing, flight training, Part 135 on-demand air charter, fractional 
        aircraft program management, and scheduled commuter operations for 
        smaller aircraft;
Whereas NATA continues to represent the legislative, regulatory, and business 
        interests of general aviation businesses;
Whereas NATA provides education, services, and benefits to its members to ensure 
        their long-term economic success;
Whereas NATA is dedicated to establishing programs to improve general aviation 
        safety; and
Whereas NATA established the Air Charter Safety Foundation to continuously 
        enhance the safety and security practices of charter and shared aircraft 
        owners and operators in the United States and worldwide: Now, therefore, 
        be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
            (1) congratulates the National Air Transportation Association for 
        celebrating its 70th anniversary;
            (2) applauds the National Air Transportation Association for 
        creating programs and resources to enhance the safety of general 
        aviation operators; and
            (3) commends the National Air Transportation Association for being 
        instrumental in bolstering the general aviation industry during a time 
        of turmoil in the 1940s.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
EXHIBIT 32.1



SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATIONS



In connection with the Annual Report of Digital Generation Systems, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K/A for the annual period ended December 31, 2004, as
filed with the SEC on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, in the capacities and dates indicated below, hereby 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 the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company.



|                   |  |     |  |                                                               
|------------------ |  | --- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------
|Dated: May 2, 2005 |  | By: |  | /s/ SCOTT K. GINSBURG                                         
|                   |  |     |  | Scott K. Ginsburg                                             
|                   |  |     |  | Chairman of the Board of Directors and Chief Executive Officer
|                   |  |    
|Dated: May 2, 2005 |  | By: |  | /s/ OMAR A. CHOUCAIR                                          
|                   |  |     |  | Omar A. Choucair                                              
|                   |  |     |  | Chief Financial Officer
Matthew HALE, petitioner, v. Stephen JULIAN, Warden.

No. 16-6511.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied.
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

Present: Judges Baker, Elder and Bumgardner

MEADOW GREEN MINUTE MARKET, INC. AND VIRGINIA FARM BUREAU FIRE & CASUALTY INSURANCE MEMORANDUM OPINION * v. Record No. 0098-98-3 PER CURIAM MAY 26, 1998 REBECCA B. BOWLES

FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION (Cathie W. Howard; Pierce & Howard, on brief), for appellants. (Rhonda L. Overstreet; Lumsden, Overstreet & Hansen, on brief), for appellee.

Meadow Green Minute Market, Inc. and its insurer (hereinafter referred to as "employer") contend that the Workers' Compensation Commission ("commission") erred in granting the application of Rebecca B. Bowles ("claimant") requesting that employer provide her with a new panel of physicians. Upon reviewing the record and the briefs of the parties, we conclude that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we summarily

affirm the commission's decision. See Rule 5A:27. On appeal, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party below. See R.G. Moore Bldg. Corp. v.

Mullins , 10 Va. App. 211, 212, 390 S.E.2d 788, 788 (1990). Factual findings made by the commission will be upheld on appeal if supported by credible evidence. See James v. Capitol Steel

* Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not designated for publication.2 Constr. Co. , 8 Va. App. 512, 515, 382 S.E.2d 487, 488 (1989). In granting claimant's application, the commission found as

follows: In this case, the treating neurosurgeon has declined to make a referral to a physician who might address the claimant's ongoing pain complaints. Dr. [Edgar N.] Weaver[, Jr.] has instead determined that the claimant needs no further treatment despite the pain and presence of significant scar tissue. Although the claimant may not have need of further neurosurgical intervention, we find that Dr. [John] Wilson's suggestion of a pain clinic is a reasonable approach which Dr. Weaver evidently finds unnecessary. In view of the fact that Dr. Weaver has no plan of treatment or referral for the claimant's post-operative pain complaints, we find that she is entitled to a new panel of physicians.

Whether a treating physician has released or abandoned his patient generally is determined by the express intent of the physician. In some cases, the total circumstances must be analyzed in order to determine whether discharge, release, or abandonment of the patient was intended. This determination is a factual one which must be proved by clear and convincing

evidence. See Jensen Press v. Ale , 1 Va. App. 153, 157, 336 S.E.2d 522, 524 (1985). Claimant's testimony and the medical records provide clear, convincing and credible evidence to support the commission's findings that Dr. Weaver refused to provide further treatment to claimant or to refer her to another physician although she continued to complain of post-operative pain. Where, as here, the commission's factual findings are supported by credible3 evidence they will not be disturbed on appeal. Based upon these findings, the commission did not err in granting claimant's request for a new panel of physicians. For these reasons, we affirm the commission's decision.

Affirmed

.