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

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT BY

                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


Pursuant to 10 U.S.C.  Section  1350 as adopted  pursuant to Section 1350 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,  in  connection  with the  annual  report of Evolve
Oncology,  Inc. on Form 10-KSB for the year  ending  February  28, 2005 as filed
with the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report")
for Evolve Oncology, Inc (the "Company"), the undersigned hereby certifies that:

1)    to  the  best  of  my  knowledge,  the  Report  fully  complies  with  the
      requirements  of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities  Exchange Act of
      1934; and

2)    to the best of my  knowledge,  the  information  contained  in the  Report
      fairly presents,  in all material  respects,  the financial  condition and
      result of operations of the Company.


      Dated: June 30, 2006

                                                              /S/ Nigel Rulewski
                                              ----------------------------------
                                                                  Nigel Rulewski
                                                                CEO and Director
                                                   (Principal Executive Officer)


A signed  original of this written  statement  required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the  electronic  version of this written  statement
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.
**Exhibit 32**

 

**CERTIFICATIONSPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

 

In connectionwith the Quarterly Report of Titan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the “Company”) onForm 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2003 as filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Louis R. Bucalo,M.D., Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

 

(1) The Report fully complieswith the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934; and

 

(2) The information containedin the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and result of operations of the Company for the period certified.

 

Signed at theCity of South San Francisco, in the State of California, this 14thday of November, 2003.

 

 
|   | /s/ Louis R.  Bucalo   |   |
|--------|------------------------|--------|
|   | Louis R.  Bucalo, M.D. |

 

 

In connectionwith the Quarterly Report of Titan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the “Company”) onForm 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2003 as filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Robert E.Farrell, J.D., Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of theCompany, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant tosection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of myknowledge:

 

(1) The Report fully complieswith the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934; and

 

(2) The information containedin the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and result of operations of the Company for the period certified.

 

Signed at theCity of South San Francisco, in the State of California, this 14thday of November, 2003.

 

 
|   | /s/ Robert  E. Farrell   |   |
|--------|--------------------------|--------|
|   | Robert E.  Farrell, J.D. |

 

----
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

LENS TOUSSAINT, )

)

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D17-2900 

)

STATE OF FLORIDA, )

)

Appellee. )

)

Opinion filed March 8, 2019. 

Appeal from the Circuit Court for 

Manatee County; Deno Economou, 

Judge.

Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, 

and J. Rafael Rodriguez, Special 

Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, 

for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, 

Tallahassee, and C. Suzanne Bechard, 

Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, 

for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. 

CASANUEVA, SILBERMAN, and MORRIS, JJ. Concur.
Jose Luis VIZCAINO-RAMOS, petitioner, v. Cherry LINDAMOOD, Warden.

No. 18-6944.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 19, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
Paul Ross EVANS, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-1103.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 1, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1403 Introduced in House (IH)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1403

   To nullify the effect of certain provisions of various Executive 
                                orders.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 14, 1999

 Mr. Barr of Georgia introduced the following bill; which was referred 
              to the Committee on International Relations

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To nullify the effect of certain provisions of various Executive 
                                orders.

    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 ``Terrorist Elimination Act of 1999''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

    Congress finds that--
            (1) past Presidents have issued Executive orders which 
        severely limit the use of the military when dealing with 
        potential threats against the United States of America;
            (2) these Executive orders limit the swift, sure, and 
        precise action needed by the United States to protect our 
        national security;
            (3) present strategy allows the military forces to bomb 
        large targets hoping to eliminate a terrorist leader, but 
        prevents our country from designing a limited action which 
        would specifically accomplish that purpose;
            (4) on several occasions the military has been ordered to 
        use a military strike hoping, in most cases unsuccessfully, to 
        remove a terrorist leader who has committed crimes against the 
        United State;
            (5) as the threat from terrorism grows, America must 
        continue to investigate effective ways to combat the menace 
        posed by those who would murder American citizens simply to 
        make a political point; and
            (6) actions by the United States Government to remove such 
        persons is a remedy which should be used sparingly and 
        considered only after all other reasonable options have failed 
        or are not available; however, this is an option our country 
        must maintain for cases in which international threats cannot 
        be eliminated by other means.

SEC. 3. NULLIFICATION OF EFFECT OF CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF VARIOUS 
              EXECUTIVE ORDERS.

    The following provisions of Executive orders shall have no further 
force or effect:
            (1) Section 5(g) of Executive Order 11905.
            (2) Section 2-305 of Executive Order 12036.
            (3) Section 2.11 of Executive Order 12333.
                                 <all>
```
Danny D. BISSONETTE, petitioner, v. Robert DOOLEY, Warden, et al.

No. 18-8791.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 28, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
```
 
 
CRUDE OIL, LIGHT SWEET - ICE FUTURES EUROPE                          Code-067411
OPTION AND FUTURES COMBINED POSITIONS AS OF 06/21/11          |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  Long  | Short  |Spreads |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(CONTRACTS OF 1,000 BARRELS)                         OPEN INTEREST:      485,741
COMMITMENTS
  56,640   14,708  107,958  289,568  337,241  454,166  459,907   31,576   25,834

CHANGES FROM 06/14/11 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:    -36,105)
  -8,604    1,498  -11,349  -14,653  -26,760  -34,606  -36,612   -1,498      507

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADER
    11.7      3.0     22.2     59.6     69.4     93.5     94.7      6.5      5.3

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:      134)
      41       17       47       70       64      130      113
```

----

Updated June 24, 2011
Lecephrus PIERCE, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-8411.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 15, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
<Page>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.2


            EXPLANATION CONCERNING ABSENCE OF CURRENT WRITTEN CONSENT
                             OF ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP


     On July 17, 2002, iParty Corp. (the "Company") announced that it had
appointed Ernst & Young LLP to replace Arthur Andersen LLP as its independent
public accountants. Subsequent to that date, Arthur Andersen LLP has ceased
operations. As a result, iParty Corp. has been unable to obtain Arthur Andersen
LLP's written consent to the incorporation by reference into the Registration
Statements of its audit report with respect to the Company's financial
statements as of December 29, 2001 and December 30, 2000, and for the years then
ended. Under these circumstances, Rule 437a under the Securities Act of 1933
permits the Company to omit Arthur Andersen LLP's updated written consent from
this filing, and permits us to incorporate by reference the financial
statements, supplementary data and financial statement schedule included herein
into present and future registration statements, without the written consent of
Arthur Andersen LLP.

     Section 11(a) of the Securities Act provides that if any part of a
registration statement at the time it becomes effective contains an untrue
statement of a material fact or an omission to state a material fact required to
be stated therein or necessary to make the statements therein not misleading,
any person acquiring a security pursuant to such registration statement (unless
it is proved that at the time of such acquisition such person knew of such
untruth or omission) may sue, among others, every accountant who has consented
to be named as having prepared or certified any part of the registration
statement or as having prepared or certified any report or valuation which is
used in connection with the registration statement with respect to the statement
in such registration statement, report or valuation which purports to have been
prepared or certified by the accountant.

As noted above, Arthur Andersen LLP has not consented to the incorporation by
reference of its audit reports in this filing. While the extent of any resulting
limitations on recovery is unclear, Arthur Andersen LLP may not be liable under
Section 11(a) of the Securities Act because it has not consented to being named
as an expert in any present or future registration statement into which this
Form 10-KSB may be incorporated by reference or the lack of a currently dated
consent could limit the time in which any such liability could be asserted. The
Company believes, however, that other persons who may be liable under Section
11(a) of the Securities Act, including the Company's officers and directors, may
still rely on Arthur Andersen LLP's audit reports as being made by an expert
under the due diligence defense provision of Section 11(b) of the Securities
Act.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-7095

VALETON PRATT, SR.,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director of the Virginia Department of 

Corrections,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, Chief 

District Judge. (2:10-cv-00599-RBS-FBS)

Submitted: January 31, 2012 Decided: February 2, 2012

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Valeton Pratt, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Eugene Paul Murphy, 

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, Richmond, Virginia, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Valeton Pratt, Sr., seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate 

judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006)

petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice 

or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not 

issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the 

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies 

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would 

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional 

claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 

484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 

(2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive 

procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a 

debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 

529 U.S. at 484-85. We have independently reviewed the record 

and conclude that Pratt has not made the requisite showing. 

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss 

the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts 

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 
3

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

DISMISSED
| i.   | The      Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  |
|----------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| ii.   | The      information contained in the Report fully presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company      as of the dates and for the periods expressed in the    Report. |
|-----------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| May      14, 2008 | By:      /s/ Ron Morgan                    |
|-------------------|--------------------------------------------|
|              | Ron      Morgan                            |
|              | Chief      Executive Officer and President |
|              |                                       |
| May      14, 2008 | By:      /s/ Shannon L.  Greene            |
|              | Shannon      L. Greene                     |
|              | Chief      Financial Officer andTreasurer  |
# 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 SkyBridge Wireless, Inc. (the company) on Form 10-KSB/A for the period
ending December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Report), I, James Wheeler, 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 the Report fairly presents, in all material
          respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the company.

|Date: February 14, 2005 |  | BY: /S/ James Wheeler
James WheelerChief Executive Officer
|----------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian COLBRY, et ux., petitioners, v. Lisa VON PIER, Director, New Jersey Division of Child Protection and Permanency, et al.

No. 18-62.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONS OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER ANDCHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICERPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I, Arthur Zafiropoulo, certify, pursuant to18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:

 

•      the Quarterly Report of Ultratech, Inc.on Form 10-Q for the period ended April 2, 2005 fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

 

•      the information contained in suchQuarterly Report fairly presents in all material respects the financialcondition and results of operations of Ultratech, Inc.

 
| By:                              | /s/ ARTHUR  ZAFIROPOULO |   |   |
|----------------------------------|-------------------------|--------|--------|
| Name: Arthur  Zafiropoulo        |                    |
| Title: *Chief Executive Officer* |                    |

 

I, Bruce Wright, certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:

 

•      the Quarterly Report of Ultratech, Inc.on Form 10-Q for the period ended April 2, 2005 fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

•      the information contained in suchQuarterly Report fairly presents in all material respects the financialcondition and results of operations of Ultratech, Inc.

 
| By:                              | /s/ BRUCE  WRIGHT |   |   |
|----------------------------------|-------------------|--------|--------|
| Name: Bruce  Wright              |              |
| Title: *Chief Financial Officer* |              |

 

----

*A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906has been provided to Ultratech, Inc. and will be retained by Ultratech, Inc.and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff uponrequest.

 

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                           1,619
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  129,501
<ALLOWANCES>                                     6,284
<INVENTORY>                                    107,715
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               252,912
<PP&E>                                         498,751
<DEPRECIATION>                                 163,531
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 678,544
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           91,057
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           262
<OTHER-SE>                                     235,293
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   678,544
<SALES>                                        560,268
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               560,268
<CGS>                                          436,456
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  436,456
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                70,380
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               9,065
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 43,367
<INCOME-TAX>                                    16,371
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             26,996
<DISCONTINUED>                                 (5,061)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    21,935
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.90
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.90


</TABLE>
Gary CLACK, petitioner, v. KENTUCKY.

No. 18-5348.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Kentucky denied.
Theresa JONES, et al., petitioners, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-981.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 20, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied. Justice THOMAS, dissenting from the denial of certiorari: I dissent for the reasons set out in *Daniel v. United States,* 587 U.S. ----, 139 S.Ct. 1713, --- L.Ed.2d ---- (2019) (Thomas, J., dissenting from denial of certiorari).
I

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1693

To amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to clarify the overtime

exemption for employees engaged in fire protection activities.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 5, 1999

Mr. EHRLICH (for himself, Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania, Mr. CUNNINGHAM,

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon, Mrs. MORELLA, and Mr. ENGLISH) introduced

the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Education and

the Workforce

A BILL

To amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to clarify

the overtime exemption for employees engaged in fire

protection activities.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. DEFINITION OF FIRE PROTECTION ACTIVITIES.

4 Section 3 of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938

5 (29 U.S.C. 203) is amended by adding at the end the fol6 lowing:

7 ‘‘(y) ‘Employee in fire protection activities’ means an

8 employee, including a firefighter, paramedic, emergency
2

•H 1693 IH

1 medical technician, rescue worker, ambulance personnel,

2 or hazardous materials worker, who—

3 ‘‘(1) is trained in fire suppression, has the legal

4 authority and responsibility to engage in fire sup5 pression, and is employed by a fire department of a

6 municipality, county, fire district, or State, and

7 ‘‘(2) is engaged in the prevention, control, and

8 extinguishment of fires or response to emergency sit9 uations where life, property, or the environment is at

10 risk.’’.

11 SEC. 2. CONSTRUCTION.

12 The amendment made by section 1 shall not be con13 strued to reduce or substitute for compensation standards

14 (1) contained in any existing or future agreement or

15 memorandum of understanding reached through collective

16 bargaining by a bona fide representative of employees in

17 accordance with the laws of a State or political subdivision

18 of a State, and (2) which result in compensation greater

19 than the compensation available to employees under the

20 overtime exemption under section 7(k) of the Fair Labor

21 Standards Act of 1938.

Æ