alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 32.2


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                               18 U.S.C. SS.1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Orphan Medical, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Timothy G. McGrath,
Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. ss.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/ Timothy G. McGrath
                                                    ----------------------------
                                                    Timothy G. McGrath
                                                    Vice President and
                                                    Chief Financial Officer
                                                    August 14, 2003


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














                                       37
STATE of North Carolina v. Waymon Arlington GODWYN.

No. 270P07.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 27, 2007.

Nora Henry Hargrove, for Godwyn.

Belinda A. Smith, Special Deputy Attorney General, Howard S. Boney, Jr., District Attorney, for State of NC.

*AMENDED ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 5th day of June 2007 by Defendant in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 27th day of June 2007."
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 31.3

                                  CERTIFICATION

         In connection with the periodic report of Glenborough Realty Trust
Incorporated (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2003 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Andrew
Batinovich, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify as of the
date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the
United States Code, that to the best of my knowledge:

         (1)      the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 at the dates and for the periods indicated.

         A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

Date: August 14, 2003                /s/ Andrew Batinovich
                                     -------------------------------------
                                     Andrew Batinovich
                                     Chief Executive Officer
                                     Glenborough Realty Trust Incorporated

                                       41
----

Exhibit      32.1

**CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO**

**18      U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

| (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. |
|-----------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | By:    | /s/                Kevin P. Knight     |
|--------|--------|----------------------------------------|
|   |   | Chief                Executive Officer |
|   |   | August                5, 2005          |

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

Back        to Form 10-Q
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS

- - - - - - - -

NO. 20-0541

CATHERINE ROSSI

v.

CAE INC. AND CAE SIMUFLITE, 

INC.

§

§

§

§

§

§

Dallas County,

5th District.

September 25, 2020

Petitioner's petition for review, filed herein in the above numbered and styled case, 

having been duly considered, is ordered, and hereby is, denied.



I, BLAKE A. HAWTHORNE, Clerk of the Supreme Court of Texas, do hereby certify 

that the above is a true and correct copy of the orders of the Supreme Court of Texas in the case 

numbered and styled as above, as the same appear of record in the minutes of said Court under 

the date shown.

It is further ordered that petitioner, CATHERINE ROSSI, pay all costs incurred on this 

petition.

WITNESS my hand and seal of the Supreme Court of Texas, at the City of Austin, this 

the 29th day of October, 2020.

Blake A. Hawthorne, Clerk

By Monica Zamarripa, Deputy Clerk

FILE COPY
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           1,017
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           6,002
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     15,349
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                         168,660
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                           168,201
<LOANS>                                        143,623
<ALLOWANCE>                                      1,450
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 346,214
<DEPOSITS>                                     253,244
<SHORT-TERM>                                    27,764
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              2,434
<LONG-TERM>                                     22,576
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           282
<OTHER-SE>                                      39,914
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 346,214
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  3,053
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                3,137
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 6,190
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               2,553
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,240
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            2,950
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                       30
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  1,733
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,337
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       1,337
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       821
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .33
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .33
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    3.56
<LOANS-NON>                                        406
<LOANS-PAST>                                     1,084
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 1,434
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                       29
<RECOVERIES>                                        15
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                1,450
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                               771
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                            679
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.1

                            Certification Pursuant To
                             18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
                             As Adopted Pursuant to
                  Section 906 Of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002


In connection with the Annual Report of Prime Group Realty Trust (the "Company")
on Form  10-K  for the  period  ending  December  31,  2004 as  filed  with  the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Jeffrey
A.  Patterson,  President and 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:

     (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  aspects,  the  financial  condition  and results of  operations of the
Company.



/s/ Jeffrey A. Patterson
------------------------
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

LINDA ROCHA, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTIONS AND 

REHABILITATION, 

Defendant-Appellee.

No. 15-16908

D.C. No. 

1:14-CV-00842-BAM

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Barbara A. McAuliffe, Magistrate Judge, Presiding

Submitted May 16, 2017**

San Francisco, California

Before: MURGUIA and CANBY, Circuit Judges, and RUFE,*** District Judge.

 

* 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). 

*** The Honorable Cynthia M. Rufe, United States District Judge for the 

Eastern District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation.

FILED

MAY 24 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2

Linda Rocha appeals the district court’s order granting California 

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s (“CDCR’s”) motion for judgment 

on the pleadings on res judicata grounds. We affirm.

1. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Rocha timely filed 

a notice of appeal within 30 days of the district court’s entry of judgment in favor 

of CDCR. ER 1-2. The district court’s earlier judgment in favor of Defendant 

Groves (who at that point was the only defendant who had been served) did not 

trigger the 30-day window to file a notice of appeal because the judgment resolved 

only the claims against Groves and the district court went on to adjudicate Rocha’s

claims against CDCR. See Disabled Rights Action Comm. v. Las Vegas Events, 

Inc., 375 F.3d 861, 872 (9th Cir. 2004). 

2. The district court correctly held that res judicata barred Rocha’s

claims, a decision we review de novo. United States v. Liquidators of European

Fed. Credit Bank, 630 F.3d 1139, 1144 (9th Cir. 2011). Res judicata requires: “(1) 

an identity of claims, (2) a final judgment on the merits, and (3) privity between 

parties.” Id. at 1150 (quoting Tahoe-Sierra Pres. Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Reg’l 

Planning Agency, 322 F.3d 1064, 1077 (9th Cir. 2003)).

3. Regarding the first requirement, we agree with the district court that 

there was an identity of claims between the two lawsuits because both stemmed 

from the same transactional nucleus of facts: an alleged pattern of retaliation that 
3

ultimately resulted in Rocha’s termination. Rocha failed to identify any barrier to

raising all of her claims during the first lawsuit. See Owens v. Kaiser Found. 

Health Plan, Inc., 244 F.3d 708, 713-14 (9th Cir. 2001). The final two elements are 

met because Rocha previously filed a lawsuit against CDCR that resulted in a Rule 

68 judgment, as Rocha acknowledges. 

AFFIRMED.
# OFTEXAS AUHTIN. TICXAS 

## 78711

July 21. 1975
Mrs. Charles (Betty) Cleland, Opinion No. 

## H-644 Executive Secretary Texas State Board ofExaminers Re: State Board ofExaminers of ofPsychologists 108 West 15th Street, Suite 103 Austin, Texas 78701 Psychologists use of employees to screen applicants for examination.
Dear Mrs. Cleland: You have requested our opinion regarding the authority ofthe State Board ofExaminers of Psychologists to employ persons, including former Board members, to screen applicants for examination. The State Board of Examiners of Psychologists was created in 1969 by article 4512c, V. T. C.S., to administer the Psychologists’ Certification Act. Itis the duty ofthe Board to certify as apsychologist those qualified applicants for certification who successfully pass the examination prescribed by the Board. Section 7ofarticle 4512c, V. T. C.S., provides inpart:

The Board may employ such other persons as itdeems necessary or desirable to carry out the provisions ofthis Act. Subject tothe limitations ofarticle 4512c, sec. 6, V. T.C.S., which concerns the Licensing Fund, and the General Appropriations Act, (63rd Leg. , 1973, HB 139 Ch.IIIp. 122), we believe the Board is authorized to employ persons to assist inthe performance of its duties, including the duty to determine that applicants for examination are qualified. But the Legislature delegated tothe Board alone the power to determine whether applicants are qualified or not qualified totake the exammation. That function requires quasi-judicial fact-finding by the Board and itmust exercise its own discretion andjudgment in such matters, guided by the legislatively set standards, and may not re-delegate that power to others. While it may utilize investigative assistance and advice of its employee.s, the Board must make the final decisions itself and itwill be legally responsible for the decisions made. See generally, Bloom v. Texas State Board of Examiners of Psychologists,

-

p. 2832Mrs. Charles (Betty) Cleland - Page 2

492 S.W. 2d 460 (Tex. Sup. 1973); Krug V. Lincoln National Life Insurance Co. , 245 F. 2d 848 (5th Cir. 1957); 2Am. Jur. 2d, Administrative Law, 5222; Attorney General Opinion H-386 (1974). SUMMARY The State Board ofExaminers of Psychologists may employ persons, including former Board members ifappropriate, to assist it in screening applicants for examination but itmay not delegate to such persons any quasi-judicial functions delegated tothe Board by the Legislature. Very truly yours,

Attorney General ofTexas
APPROVED:

Opinion Committee jad:

p. 2833
HARVEY v. EPES TRANSPORT SYSTEMS.

COA06-778.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed May 15, 2007.

Certification Date June 4, 2007.

Appeal from NC Industrial Commission (I.C. #279504).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM CONSOLIDATED
BALANCE SHEETS, CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0
<SALES>                                         36,959
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                36,959
<CGS>                                           22,755
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   22,755
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 7,718
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 839
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  5,656
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,688
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,968
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,968
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .35
        

</TABLE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

LIBERTY PHILADELPHIA REO, LP,

 Respondent

 v.

EFL PARTNERS V, L.P. AND EFL

PARTNERS X, L.P.,

 Petitioners

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 305 EAL 2014

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the

Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 16th day of June, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED.
STATE v. Hayden CALVERT.

No. 227P06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 5, 2006.

William B. Crumpler, Assistant Attorney General, Garry W. Frank, District Attorney, for State.

*814The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 25th day of April 2006 by Defendant for Petition for Discretionary Review:

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference this the 5th day of October 2006."
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5736 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
110th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5736

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the Department of Veterans Affairs outpatient clinic in 
     Gadsden, Alabama, as the Colonel Ola Lee Mize Veterans Clinic.

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

SECTION 1. FINDING.

    Congress finds that Colonel Ola Lee Mize, a Medal of Honor 
recipient, is a highly decorated veteran from the State of Alabama.

SEC. 2. DESIGNATION OF DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS OUTPATIENT CLINIC 
              IN GADSDEN, ALABAMA.

    The Department of Veterans Affairs community based outpatient 
clinic in Gadsden, Alabama, shall be known and designated as the 
``Colonel Ola Lee Mize Veterans Clinic''. Any reference to such 
community based outpatient clinic in any law, regulation, map, 
document, record, or other paper of the United States shall be 
considered to be a reference to the Colonel Ola Lee Mize Veterans 
Clinic.

            Passed the House of Representatives September 17, 2008.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
110th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 5736

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To designate the Department of Veterans Affairs outpatient clinic in 
     Gadsden, Alabama, as the Colonel Ola Lee Mize Veterans Clinic.
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 7
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
financial statements of the Travelers Life and Annuity Company and is qualified
in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000929498
<NAME> THE TRAVELERS LIFE AND ANNUITY COMPANY
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                                 0
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                                0
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                                  0
<EQUITIES>                                           0
<MORTGAGE>                                           0
<REAL-ESTATE>                                        0
<TOTAL-INVEST>                               2,459,140
<CASH>                                              17
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                                   0
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                         157,511
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,226,353
<POLICY-LOSSES>                                965,445
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                                  0
<POLICY-OTHER>                                       0
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                        2,462,560
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                      0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         3,000
<OTHER-SE>                                     550,809
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,226,353
<PREMIUMS>                                      17,989
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                            126,047
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                              15,773
<OTHER-INCOME>                                  20,232
<BENEFITS>                                      98,595
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                     11,543
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                             5,058
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 64,845
<INCOME-TAX>                                    22,541
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             42,304
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    42,304
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                       0
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                                  0
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                                    0
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                                   0
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                                     0
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                      0
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                              0
        

</TABLE>
STATE v. JOHNSON

No. COA06-1503.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed June 5, 2007.

Certification Date June 25, 2007.

Appeal from Cleveland (05CRS52766, 05CRS52769).

Cases reported without published opinion. No prejudicial error.