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


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
            SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



Pursuant to Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned, as
chief executive officer of MacroChem Corporation (the "Company"), does hereby
certify that to the undersigned's knowledge:

     1) the Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June
        30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Form
        10-Q") 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 Company's Form 10-Q fairly presents, in
        all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
        of the Company.

                                    /s/  Robert J. DeLuccia
                                    -------------------------------------
                                    Robert J. DeLuccia
                                    President and Chief Executive Officer

Dated:    August 15, 2005
          ---------------


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














                                       29
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket No. PR05-17-006]

Take notice that on May 7, 2010, DCP Guadalupe Pipeline, LLC, (formerly Duke Energy Guadalupe Pipeline, Inc.) filed revised rates based on the Commission's Order on Rehearing issued on April 15, 2010, in Docket Nos. PR05-17-000 and PR05-17-005.

Any person desiring to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211). Protests to this filing will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Such protests must be filed on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Anyone filing a protest must serve a copy of that document on all the parties to the proceeding.

                    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at                     *http://www.ferc.gov.*                     Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.                

                    This filing is accessible on-line at                     *http://www.ferc.gov,*                     using the “eLibrary” link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail                     *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov,*                     or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.                

*Comment Date:*                     5 p.m. Eastern time on Tuesday, May 18, 2010.                

Kimberly D. Bose,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2010-11795 Filed 5-17-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
#### ANGELINE MALHEREK, Appellant, v. THE CITY OF FARGO, a Municipal Corporation, Respondent.

(190 N. W. 176.)

Appeal and error — appeal does not lie from order dismissing action.

An appeal does not lie from an order dismissing an action.

Opinion filed October 16, 1922.

Appeal and Error, 3 O. J. § 332 p. 499 n. 28 New.

Note. — On appeal from order dismissing action, see 2 R. C. L. 42; 1 R. O. L. Supp. 372; 5 R. C. L. Supp. 66.

*124Appeal from the District Court of .Cass County, *Gole,*«T.

Appeal dismissed.

*Taylor Orum,*for appellant.

*W. H. Shura*(B. *F. Spalding,*of counsel), for respondent.

Robinson, J.

In this action plaintiff sues the city of Fargo to recover damages for a personal injury sustained by plaintiff by reason of falling on a slippery sidewalk. The plaintiff appeals from an order dismissing the action and directing the entry of judgment accordingly.

Counsel for defendant objects that an appeal does not lie from such an order. He cites the statute, Comp. Laws, § 7481. Dibble v. Hanson, 17 N. D. 21, 114 N. W. 371, 16 Ann. Cas. 1210; Lough v. White, 13 N. D. 387, 100 N. W. 1084; Re Weber, 4 N. D. 119, 28 L.R.A. 621, 59 N. W. 523; Field v. Great Western Elevator Co. 5 N. D. 400, 67 N. W. 147.

Those cases are directly in point and show that according to the settled law an appeal does not lie from an order dismissing an action. Hence the appeal is dismissed and the case remanded forthwith.

Bibdzell, Ch. J., and Ci-ibistiaksoN, BeoNSON, and Gbace, *JJ.f*concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2499 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

106th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2499

     To extend the deadline for commencement of construction of a 
          hydroelectric project in the State of Pennsylvania.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 3, 2000

  Mr. Specter introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
       referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To extend the deadline for commencement of construction of a 
          hydroelectric project in the State of Pennsylvania.

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

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF DEADLINE AND REINSTATEMENT OF LICENSE.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding the time period specified in 
section 13 of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 806) that would 
otherwise apply to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission project 
numbered 7041, the Commission shall, at the request of the licensee for 
the project, extend the period required for commencement of 
construction of the project until December 31, 2001.
    (b) Effective Date.--Subsection (a) takes effect on the expiration 
of the period required for commencement of construction of the project 
described in subsection (a).
    (c) Reinstatement of Expired License.--If the license for the 
project described in subsection (a) has expired before the date of 
enactment of this Act, the Commission shall reinstate the license 
effective as of the date of its expiration and extend the time required 
for commencement of construction as provided in subsection (a).
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AT DECEMBER 31, 1998 AND THE CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT
OF OPERATIONS FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1998, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          19,389
<SECURITIES>                                    17,428
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,746
<ALLOWANCES>                                       152
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                45,477
<PP&E>                                          22,026
<DEPRECIATION>                                   9,741
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  79,940
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           17,543
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     46,101
<COMMON>                                             5
<OTHER-SE>                                      13,428
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    79,940
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                48,838
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   47,194
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                55,489
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   103
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 472
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (54,048)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (54,048)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (54,048)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.54)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.54)
        

</TABLE>
Order entered August 1, 2022

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-22-00445-CV

RICHMAN TRUSTS, A TEXAS GENERAL PARTNERSHIP, MARC H. 

RICHMAN, AND HARVEY A. RICHMAN, Appellants

V.

RALPH LUBINS TIME, INDIVIDUALLY, AND AS INDEPENDENT 

EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF JUDITH SHARON RICHMAN, 

DECEASED, AND AS TRUSTEE OF THE RICHMAN 2008, ET AL.,

Appellees

On Appeal from the 68th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-19-15404

ORDER

The reporter’s record in this case is past due. By postcard dated June 15, 

2022, we notified Antionette Reagor, Official Court Reporter for the 68th Judicial 

District Court, that the reporter’s record was overdue and directed her to file the 

reporter’s record within thirty days. To date, the reporter’s record has not been 
filed nor has Ms. Reagor corresponded with the Court regarding the status of the 

reporter’s record.

Accordingly, we ORDER Ms. Reagor to file, within TWENTY DAYS of 

the date of this order, either (1) the reporter’s record; (2) written verification that 

appellants have not requested the record; or (3) written verification that appellants

have not paid for or made arrangements to pay for the reporter’s record. We notify 

appellants that if we receive verification they have not paid for or made 

arrangements to pay for the reporter’s record, we will order the appeal submitted 

without the reporter’s record. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.3(c).

We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order to:

Honorable Martin Hoffman

Presiding Judge

68th Judicial District Court

Antoinette Reagor

Official Court Reporter

68th Judicial District Court

All parties

/s/ ROBERT D. BURNS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-6771

In Re: RANDY LEE HAMMITT,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Prohibition and Mandamus.

(3:04-cr-00142-MU)

Submitted: July 31, 2006 Decided: August 21, 2006

Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Randy Lee Hammitt, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Randy Lee Hammitt petitions for writ of prohibition and

mandamus seeking an order directing the district court to vacate

its prior orders and to cease further proceedings related to

Hammitt. We conclude that Hammitt is not entitled to relief.

Mandamus and prohibition relief are available only when

the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought. In re First

Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988); In re

Vargas, 723 F.2d 1461, 1468 (10th Cir. 1983). Further, mandamus

and prohibition are drastic remedies and should be used only in

extraordinary circumstances. Kerr v. United States Dist. Court,

426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976); Vargas, 723 F.2d at 1468; In re Beard,

811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir. 1987). It is well-established that

mandamus and prohibition may not be used as a substitute for

appeal. Vargas, 723 F.2d at 1461; In re United Steelworkers, 595

F.2d 958, 960 (4th Cir. 1979). 

A district court possesses jurisdiction to enforce its

orders with contempt proceedings. See 18 U.S.C.A. § 401 (West 2000

& Supp. 2005); Cromer v. Kraft Foods North America, 390 F.3d 812,

820 (4th Cir. 2004). A litigant who is aggrieved by a district

court’s exercise of its contempt authority may seek review of the

court’s final judgment by filing a timely notice of appeal.

Accordingly, because Hammitt may challenge any adverse final

judgment of the district court by direct appeal, the relief he
- 3 -

seeks in this proceeding is not available by way of mandamus or

prohibition. We therefore deny the petition. We dispense with

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument

would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
[Exhibit 32 - Section 1350 Certification]


                        STATEMENT FURNISHED PURSUANT TO
                 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

      The undersigned is the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
of MINGHUA GROUP INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS LIMITED. This Certification is made
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. This Certification
accompanies the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of MINGHUA GROUP INTERNATIONAL
HOLDINGS LIMITED for the year ended December 31, 2003.

      The undersigned certifies that such 10-KSB Report fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and that the information contained in such 10-KSB Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of MINGHUA
GROUP INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS LIMITED as of December 31, 2003.

This Certification is executed as of April 13, 2004.




                  By:    /s/Albert Wong
                     -----------------------------------------
                  Name:  Albert Wong
                  Title: Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
                  (Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial
                  and Accounting Officer)















A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to MINGHUA GROUP INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS LIMITED and will be retained by
MINGHUA and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.
98th Congress, 1st Session House Document No. 98-95

VETO OF H.R. 3564

MESSAGE

FROM

THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES

VETOING

H.R. 3564, A BILL TO REQUIRE THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE TO MAKE AN EARLIER ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE 1984

CROP FEED GRAIN PROGRAM AND OF THE 1985 CROP WHEAT

AND FEED GRAIN PROGRAMS

S e p t e m b e r 12, 1983.—Message and accompanying papers ordered

to be printed

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

11-011 O WASHINGTON : 1983
To the Home of Representatives:

I am returning herewith without my approval H.R. 3564, “To re­ quire the Secretary of Agriculture to make an earlier announcement of the 1984 crop feed grain program and of the 1985 crop wheat and feed grain programs.” H.R. 3564 directs the Secretary of Agriculture to annouce the 1984 and 1985 feed grain programs no later than September 30 of the pre­ ceding year and to announce the 1985 wheat program no later than July 1, 1984. Current law sets November 15 as the announcement date for feed grains; the wheat program announcement date in current law is August 15. Thus, in each case the announcements would have to be made approximately six weeks earlier than the current law now

requires. The main purpose of acreage adjustment programs is to assist pro­ ducers in adjusting supplies to meet demand. When projecting the supply/demand situation for the next crop year, it is essential to have the best possible information about the current crop year, while giving due consideration to producers’ planning needs. Sound estimates of production as well as timely announcements are a vital component for designing successful programs. Good program design ultimately serves the best interests of producers, consumers, and taxpayers. The Administration is sympathetic to the need for making acreage adjustment program announcements as early as possible. When condi­ tions warrant, the Secretary of Agriculture will continue the ongoing practice of announcing commodity programs before the statutory deadlines. However, when the appropriate program decision is not obvious, it is essential that the Secretary retain the discretion to announce wheat as late as August 15 and feed grains as late as November 15. This flexibility will enable the Secretary to respond quickly to unforeseen circumstances, such as drought or early frost. Without this flexibility, the mandate in H.R. 3564 could either exacerbate a surplus supply situation and needlessly increase budget outlays by substantial amounts or unnecessarily create a grain shortage and cause food prices to increase sharply. Ronald Reagan.

The White House, August 12, 1983.

(1)
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 Real Value Estates, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended November 30, 2009, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Marina Karpilovski, Principal 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, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

     (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 the
          operation of the Company.


/s/ Marina Karpilovski
-----------------------------------
Marina Karpilovski
Principal Financial Officer
December 21, 2009
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.1
 
                               USWEB CORPORATION
                       CALCULATION OF NET LOSS PER SHARE
                    (IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER SHARE AMOUNTS)
 
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                         HISTORICAL (1)       PRO FORMA (1)
                                        ------------------  ------------------
                                           YEAR ENDED          YEAR ENDED
                                          DECEMBER 31,        DECEMBER 31,
                                        ------------------  ------------------
                                          1997      1996      1997      1996
                                        --------  --------  --------  --------
<S>                                     <C>       <C>       <C>       <C>
Net loss............................... $(58,336) $(13,808) $(84,939) $(57,069)
                                        --------  --------  --------  --------
Weighted average common shares out-
 standing..............................    6,828     1,334     8,913     4,725
Shares deemed outstanding under stock
 bonus arrangements for employees of
 acquired companies....................      484       --      1,658     1,450
                                        --------  --------  --------  --------
Total weighted average common shares
 outstanding...........................    7,312     1,334    10,571     6,175
                                        ========  ========  ========  ========
Basic and diluted net loss per share... $  (7.98) $ (10.35) $  (8.04) $  (9.24)
                                        ========  ========  ========  ========
</TABLE>
---------------------
(1) See computations of historical and pro forma net loss per share in Note 2
    to the Consolidated Financial Statements.
<PAGE>
                                                               EXHIBIT 11.1

                                PHYSIOMETRIX, INC.

                STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS


                                                     Year Ended December 31,
                                                          1995          1996
                                                     -----------   ----------
 Average shares outstanding  . . . . . . . . . . .     108,034      4,936,433
 Assumed conversion of preferred stock upon
   initial public offering . . . . . . . . . . . .   3,222,130
 Assumed conversion of notes payable to
   stockholders upon initial public offering . . .      68,945
 Common stock equivalents issued during twelve
 month period prior to initial public offering . .     257,982
                                                   -----------     ----------
           Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3,657,091      4,936,433
                                                   -----------     ----------
                                                   -----------     ----------
 Net loss  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  (2,771,738)    (3,024,373)
                                                   -----------     ----------
                                                   -----------     ----------
 Per share amount  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .       (0.76)         (0.61)
                                                   -----------     ----------
                                                   -----------     ----------
 (Pro forma for 1995)
**Exhibit 32.2****CERTIFICATION**     Pursuant to 18 USC §1350, the undersigned officer of The St. Joe Company (the “Company”)hereby certifies that the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30,2007 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable,of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.                                          /s/ William S. McCalmont   William S. McCalmont   Chief Financial Officer   Dated:  August 9, 2007