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

 

SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION—CEO

 

In connection with the Annual Report of J.B. Poindexter & Co., Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, John B. Poindexter, Chief Executive 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:

 

To the best of my knowledge, after reasonable investigation:

 

(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 result of operations of the Company.

 

 
| Date:   April 13, 2011 | By                                           | /s/   John B. Poindexter |
|-----------------------------|----------------------------------------------|--------------------------|
|                        | John   B. Poindexter, Chairman of the Board, |
|                        | President   and Chief Executive Officer      |

 

 

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.

 

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 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.

 

----
Order entered May 9 , 2022

In The 

### Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas** No. 05 - 21 - 01152 - CR No. 05 - 21 - 0115 3 - CR ADRIAN GILLIAN , Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee On Appeal f rom the 265th Judic ial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No s . F 18 - 76363 - R & F19 - 53171 - R O RDER Before the Court is appointed counsel Julie Jones Woods ’ s May 6, 2022 motion to withdraw as counsel. We GRANT the motion

. We DIRECT the Cler k t o remove Ms. Woods as counsel of record for appellant

. Because appellant has already been found indigent for purposes of appeal,

w e ORDER the trial court to appoint new counsel to represent appellant in th ese app eal s and t o transmit a supplemental clerk = s record containing the orderappo inting ne w counsel to this Court within T WENTY DAYS of the date of this

or der. We DIRECT the Clerk to send copie s of this order to t he Honorable Jennifer Bennett , Presiding Judge, 265 th J udici al District Cou rt ; to Felicia Pi tre , Dallas County Distr ic t Cle rk ; to Christina O ’ Neil, Chief Judicial Staff C ounsel; to Julie Jones Woods ; and to the Dallas County District Attor ney’s Office , Appellate Divisi on . We ABATE th e appeal s to allow the trial court to comply with this order. W e will reinstat e the appeal s when we receive the order appointing new counsel or

w e deem it appropriate to do so

. /s/ LANA MYERS JUSTICE
Roxanne TORRES, Petitioner, v. Janice MADRID, et al.

No. 19-292

Supreme Court of the United States.

March 9, 2020

Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as *amicus curiae* and for divided argument granted.
```
  
 
VIX FUTURES - CBOE FUTURES EXCHANGE                                  Code-1170E1
OPTION AND FUTURES COMBINED POSITIONS AS OF 04/02/13          |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  Long  | Short  |Spreads |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
($1000 X INDEX)                                      OPEN INTEREST:      419,124
COMMITMENTS
 126,718  194,991   68,342  197,668  125,226  392,728  388,559   26,396   30,565

CHANGES FROM 03/26/13 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:      9,377)
   1,217    5,907    2,520    5,632      672    9,369    9,099        8      278

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADER
    30.2     46.5     16.3     47.2     29.9     93.7     92.7      6.3      7.3

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:      174)
      56       62       71       37       35      141      134
```

----

Updated April 5, 2013
Anthony Bernard JIMERSON, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-9796

Supreme Court of the United States.

March 2, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
Michael Thomas BALINT, Petitioner, v. Kelly SANTORO, Warden.

No. 19-5446

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
Raleigh D. WIGGINS, Petitioner v. Eddie PEARSON, Warden.

No. 19-5419

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
**
**Exhibit 8.1**

**Subsidiaries of Mereo BioPharma Group plc**

 
   
**Jurisdiction of**

**Organization**

**Legal Name of Subsidiary**
  
Mereo BioPharma 1 Limited
  United Kingdom
Mereo BioPharma 2 Limited
  United Kingdom
Mereo BioPharma 3 Limited
  United Kingdom
Mereo BioPharma 4 Limited
  United Kingdom
Mereo BioPharma Ireland Limited
  Ireland
Mereo US Holdings Inc.
  Delaware
OncoMed Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
  Delaware
NAVI Subsidiary, Inc.
  Delaware**
Vincent D. WHITE, Jr., Petitioner, v. Donnie MORGAN, Warden.

No. 19-8117.

Supreme Court of the United States.

June 1, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
John M. PAZ, Petitioner, v. DIRECTOR, NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF TAXATION.

No. 19-921.

Supreme Court of the United States.

March 23, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division denied.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MARSHALL DIVISION

CYBOENERGY, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v. 

HOYMILES POWER ELECTRONICS 

USA, INC.,

Defendant.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:23-CV-00311-JRG

ORDER

The Court issues this Order sua sponte. Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §§ 

636(b)(1) and (3) and the local rules of this District, the Court hereby REFERS the abovecaptioned case to the Honorable Roy S. Payne for the limited and sole purpose of conducting the 

Claim Construction hearing, issuing a resulting Claim Construction Opinion, and taking such other 

related steps as are deemed by Judge Payne as necessary to facilitate and expedite the Claim 

Construction process in this case.

.

____________________________________

RODNEY GILSTRAP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE So ORDERED and SIGNED this 27th day of September, 2024.

Case 2:23-cv-00311-JRG Document 36 Filed 09/27/24 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 1180
Lezmond C. MITCHELL v. UNITED STATES

No. 20A32

Supreme Court of the United States.

August 25, 2020

The application for stay of execution of sentence of death presented to Justice KAGAN and by her referred to the Court is denied.

Statement of Justice SOTOMAYOR respecting the denial of the application for stay.

The Federal Death Penalty Act of 1994 (FDPA) requires that the Federal Government implement death sentences "in the manner prescribed by the law of the State in which the sentence is imposed." 18 U.S.C. § 3596(a). Considerable uncertainty exists about the scope of this provision. In the most detailed analysis provided by a lower court to date, three judges offered three different views on how to define the "manner" of implementing a death sentence and where to locate the relevant "law of the State." See *In re Federal Bureau of Prisons' Execution Protocol Cases* , 955 F.3d 106, 108 (CADC 2020) (*per curiam* ) ("Each member of the panel takes a different view of what the FDPA requires"). Thus far, this Court has declined to provide definitive guidance on these important questions. See *Barr* v. *Roane* , 589 U. S. ----, 140 S.Ct. 353, 205 L.Ed.2d 379 (2019) (application for stay or vacatur denied);

*2625*Bourgeois* v. *Barr* , --- U.S. ----, --- S.Ct. ----, --- L.Ed.2d ---- (2020), *ante* , p. ----, 2020 WL 3492763 (cert. denied).

Because these questions are not adequately presented for our review in the pending case, I agree with this Court's decision to deny a stay. Here, the Ninth Circuit did not need to resolve the key issue on which the D. C. Circuit panel split because it assumed an answer favorable to Mitchell and still denied relief. See *United States* v. *Mitchell* , --- F. 3d ----, ---- - ----, 2020 WL 4815961 (C.A.9 2020) (*per curiam* ). This case, therefore, does not turn on the question most in need of this Court's guidance: whether the "manner prescribed by the law of the State" includes procedures set forth in a state agency's execution protocol. But with additional federal executions scheduled in the coming months, the importance of clarifying the FDPA's meaning remains. I believe that this Court should address this issue in an appropriate case.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ERIC CHARLES RODNEY K’NAPP, AKA 

Eric C.R. K’napp, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

EDMUND G. BROWN, Jr.; et al., 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 18-16959 

D.C. No. 2:17-cv-00742-KJMCMK 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Kimberly J. Mueller, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 11, 2019**

Before: CANBY, GRABER, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges. 

Eric Charles Rodney K’napp, aka Eric C.R. K’napp, appeals pro se from the 

district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging federal 

claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo 

questions of constitutional standing. Maya v. Centex Corp., 658 F.3d 1060, 1067 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

JUN 14 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 18-16959 

(9th Cir. 2011). We may affirm on any ground supported by the record. Kwan v. 

SanMedica Int’l, 854 F.3d 1088, 1093 (9th Cir. 2017). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed K’napp’s action on the ground that 

K’napp lacked constitutional standing because K’napp failed to allege facts 

sufficient to show that the threat to terminate K’napp’s single-cell accommodation 

resulted in a concrete and particularized injury to K’napp. See Lujan v. Defenders 

of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61 (1992) (setting forth elements of Article III 

standing); Krottner v. Starbucks Corp., 628 F.3d 1139, 1143 (9th Cir. 2010)

(explaining that a “credible threat” of future harm may confer Article III standing 

if it is “both real and immediate, not conjectural or hypothetical” (citation and 

internal quotation marks omitted)). 

To the extent that K’napp attempted to state claims for damages under the 

Americans with Disabilities Act or the Rehabilitation Act on the basis of past 

events, the dismissal of these claims was proper because K’napp’s complaint did 

not comply with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Fed. R. Civ.

P. 8(a)(2) (requiring that a pleading contain “a short and plain statement of the 

claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief”); McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 

1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 1996) (explaining that a complaint must set forth simple, 

concise, and direct averments indicating “which defendants are liable to plaintiffs 

for which wrongs”).
3 18-16959 

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying K’napp’s motion for 

reconsideration because K’napp failed to set forth any basis for relief. See Sch. 

Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir. 

1993) (setting forth standard of review and grounds for reconsideration under Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 59(e) and 60(b)). 

AFFIRMED.
IN RE Alonzo MAY, Petitioner

No. 19-5677

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

Petition for writ of habeas corpus denied.
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 104 (Tuesday, May 31, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 32432]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-11532]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of General Medical Sciences; Notice of Closed 
Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: NIGMS Initial Review Group; Training and 
Workforce Development Study Section--B TWD-B Review of T32 
Applications.
    Date: June 24, 2022.
    Time: 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institute of General Medical Science, Natcher 
Building, 45 Center Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).
    Contact Person: Latarsha J. Carithers, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Officer, Scientific Review Branch, National Institute of General 
Medical Sciences, National Institutes Health, 45 Center Drive, Room 
3AN12C, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 594-4859, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#741815001506071c155a1715061d001c110607341a1d1c5a131b02"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="80ece1f4e1f2f3e8e1aee3e1f2e9f4e8e5f2f3c0eee9e8aee7eff6">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.375, 
Minority Biomedical Research Support; 93.821, Cell Biology and 
Biophysics Research; 93.859, Pharmacology, Physiology, and 
Biological Chemistry Research; 93.862, Genetics and Developmental 
Biology Research; 93.88, Minority Access to Research Careers; 93.96, 
Special Minority Initiatives; 93.859, Biomedical Research and 
Research Training, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: May 24, 2022.
Miguelina Perez,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2022-11532 Filed 5-27-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
<PAGE>

                                 EXHIBIT (10)(b)

                         OPINION AND CONSENT OF ACTUARY

<PAGE>

                  [Western Reserve Life Assurance Co. of Ohio]

January 20, 2004

Western Reserve Life Assurance Co. of Ohio
4333 Edgewood Road NE
Cedar Rapids, Iowa 52499-0001

Re:  Flexible Premium Variable Annuity - F
     Separate Account VA V
     Registration on Form N-4

Dear Sir/Madam:

With regard to the above registration statement, I have examined such documents
and made such inquiries as I have deemed necessary and appropriate, and on the
basis of such examination, have the following opinions:

Fees and charges deducted under the Flexible Premium Variable Annuity - F
policies are those deemed necessary to appropriately reflect:

(1)    the expenses incurred in the acquisition and distribution of the
       policies;

(2)    the expenses associated with the development and servicing of the
       policies; and

(3)    the assumption of certain risks arising from the operation and management
       of the policies and/or riders to the policy and that provides for a
       reasonable margin of profit.

Fees and charges assessed against the policy values in the variable account
include:

(i)    Service Charge and Administrative Charge;

(ii)   Mortality and Expense Risk Fee (M & E);

(iii)  Taxes (including premium and other taxes if applicable);

(iv)   Surrender Charges; and

(v)    Any applicable rider fees or charges.

<PAGE>

Western Reserve Life Assurance Co. of Ohio
January 20, 2004
Page 2

The magnitude of each of the individual charges listed above in (i) through (v)
is established in the pricing of the Flexible Premium Variable Annuity - F, to
achieve a reasonable Return on Investment (ROI), which is within the range of
industry practice with respect to comparable variable annuity products.

Except by coincidence, it is not expected that actual charges assessed in a
given year would exactly offset actual expenses incurred. Acquisition expenses
(as well as major product and/or systems development expenses) are incurred "up
front" and recovered, with a reasonable profit margin, through future years'
charges. In addition, the company cannot increase certain charges under the
policies in the pricing process.

Therefore, in my opinion, the fees and charges deducted under the policies, in
the aggregate, are reasonable in relation to the services rendered, the expenses
expected to be incurred, and the risks assumed by the company.

I hereby consent to the use of this opinion, which is included as an Exhibit to
the registration statement.

/s/ Richard Greer
------------------------------------------
Richard Greer, FSA, MAAA
Managing Actuary
Western Reserve Life Assurance Co. of Ohio
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   OTHER
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-04-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-11-1996
<CASH>                                         488,740
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  111,011
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    198,189
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,665,361
<PP&E>                                      10,797,063
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              13,078,280
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,154,614
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        35,725
<OTHER-SE>                                   9,665,423
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                13,078,280
<SALES>                                     13,815,768
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            13,815,768
<CGS>                                        5,210,380
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               11,870,268
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,095,562
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              13,313
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                836,625
<INCOME-TAX>                                   167,300
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            669,325
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   669,325
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .19
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .19
        

</TABLE>
**Exhibit
      32.2**





**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 Performance Health Technologies, Inc.
      (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2007 as filed with
      the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
      James E. Bartolomei, 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:





1)           The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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
                20, 2007
            By:
            /s/ James
              E.
              BartolomeiJames
              E.
              BartolomeiChief
                Financial Officer(Principal
                Financial Officer)
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18
- 1419

MARGARET REAVES , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. AMERICAN HOME MORTGAGE SERVICING, INC., (AMHSI); OCWEN LOAN SERVICING LLC , Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Raleigh

. Louise W. Flanagan , District Judge. ( 5:15

- cv
- 00180

- FL )

Submitted : August 1 6, 2018 Decided: August 20, 2018

Before WYNN and DIAZ , Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Margaret Reaves, Appellant Pro Se. Dennis Kyle Deak, TROUTMAN SANDERS, LLP, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions ar e not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Margaret Reaves appeals the district court’s order granting Defendants’ motion for judgment as a matter of law as to several of Reaves’ claims, and the jury verdict in favor
of Defendants as to her rema ining claim . On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Reaves’ informal brief does not challenge the basis for the district court’s grant of the motion for judgment , Reaves has forfeit ed appellate review of the court’s judgment

. See Jackson v. Lightsey , 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) (“The informal brief is an important document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our review is limited to issues preserved in that brief.”)

. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. 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.
AFFIRMED
VIA EDGAR

August 29, 2001


Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20549


Re:	Smith Barney Oregon Municipals Fund Inc. (the
"Fund")
	File Nos. 33-52643 and 811-7149

Gentlemen:


Pursuant to Rule 497 (j) under the Securities Act of
1933, as amended, please accept this letter as
certification that the Prospectus and Statement of
Additional Information for the above referenced Fund
does not differ from that contained in Post-Effective
Amendment No. 11 filed on August 27, 2001.

Please return an electronic transmittal as evidence of
your receipt of this filing.

Very truly yours,

/s/ Michael Kocur
Michael Kocur
Assistant Secretary