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

SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

I, Friedhelm Blobel, Chief Executive
Officer of SciClone Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the Registrant), do hereby certify in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, based on my knowledge:



|(1) | the Amendment to Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of the Registrant, to which this certification is attached as an exhibit (the Report), fully complies with the
requirements of section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); and
|--- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|(2) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.
|--- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                  |  |                                                
|----------------- |  | -----------------------------------------------
|Date: May 2, 2011 |  | /S/    FRIEDHELM BLOBEL, PH.D.                 
|                  |  | Friedhelm Blobel, Ph.D. Chief 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 required by Section 906, has been
provided to SciClone Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and will be retained by SciClone Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Long-range 

actuarial 

balance

Annual 

balance in 

75th year

Long-range 

actuarial 

balance

Annual 

balance in 

75th year

Long-range 

actuarial 

balance

Annual 

balance in 

75th year

-3.61 -4.35 -0.00 -0.27 -0% -6%

Estimates based on the intermediate assumptions of the 2023 Trustees Report Office of the Chief Actuary

Social Security Administration

September 15, 2023

Summary Measures and Graphs

Category of Change: Level of Monthly Benefits

Current law

[percent of payroll]

Change from current law

[percent of payroll] Shortfall eliminated

Proposed Provision: B7.9. Beginning for newly eligible retired workers and spouses in 2030, all claimants 

who are married would receive a specified joint-and-survivor annuity benefit (i.e., surviving spouses would 

receive 75 percent of the decedents' benefits, in addition to their own) that would be payable if both were 

still alive. Initial benefits would be actuarially adjusted to keep the expected value of benefits equivalent to 

what would otherwise be current law.

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

16.0

18.0

20.0

2023 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090

Percent

Year

OASDI Cost Rates and Income Rates

(as a percentage of taxable payroll)

Income rates under current law

Income rates with this provision

Cost rates under current law

Cost rates with this provision

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

2023 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090

Percent

Year

OASDI Trust Fund Ratio

(assets as a percentage of annual expenditures)

Current law With this provision
Order entered May 27, 2014

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**

No. 05
- 13
- 00468
- CV
IN THE MATTER OF T.P ., A CHILD On Appeal from the 305th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. JD
- 77361
- X 

### O RDER
The reporter = s record is overdue in this appeal. In an order dated April 10, 2014, we ordered Pamela Sumler, Official Court Reporter for the 305th Judicial District Court of Dallas County, Texas, to file , within ten days, either (1) the reporter = s record , or (2) written verification that the reporter’s record has not been requested

. On April 18, 2014, the Court received a letter from Pamela Sumler stating that counsel for appellant had not contacted her regarding either designation of the record or payment arrangements. However, on May 9, 2014, counsel for ap pellant informed us that he has requested the reporter’s record. Appellant has been found indigent and is, therefore, allowed to proceed with the appeal without advance payment of costs. Accordingly, o n the Court’s own motion, we ORDER , Pamela Sumler to file the reporter’s record by JUNE 26, 2014

. We CAUTION Pamela Sumlerthat failure to comply with this order may result in an order that she not sit as a court reporter until she complies.
We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order, by electronic transmission, to The Honorable Cheryl Lee Shannon, Presiding Judge of the 305th Judicial District Court of Dallas County, Texas, Pamela Sumler, and counsel for all parties

.
/s/ ADA BROWN JUSTICE
## Detailed Single Year Tables

- Individual Provisions
- Cost-of-Living Adjustment

### **Description of Proposed Provision:						A2: Starting December 2024, reduce the annual COLA by 0.5 percentage point.**

### Financial Estimates for the OASDI Trust Fund Program

### Summarized Estimates
#### J. W. PLESS v. SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY.

(Filed 11 December, 1929.)

Appeal by plaintiff from *Hanvood, Special Judge,*at July Term, 1929, of McDowell.

Civil action to recover damages for an alleged negligent injury to plaintiff’s automobile when it struck defendant’s train on 10 May, 1926, at a crossing near the village of Tate Springs, Tenn.

The usual issues of negligence, contributory negligence and damages were submitted to the jury, the first of which was answered in favor of the defendant, and from the judgment entered thereon, the plaintiff appeals, assigning errors.

*W. T. Morgan and Pless <6 Pless for plainiiff.*

*Sidney S. Alderman, Winborne & Proctor and Ervin & Enin for defendant.*

Peb Curiam.

A careful perusal of the record leaves us with the impression that the case has been tried substantially in accord with the principles of law applicable, and that the verdict and judgment should be upheld. *Herman v. R. R.,*197 N. C., 718.

No error.
INTERTAPE POLYMER GROUP INC.

                 110E Montee de Liesse, Montreal, Quebec, H4T 1N4

            NOTICE OF THE ANNUAL AND SPECIAL MEETING OF SHAREHOLDERS

     NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Annual and Special Meeting (the "Meeting")
 of Shareholders of INTERTAPE POLYMER GROUP INC. (the "Corporation") will be
held at the Hilton Montreal Bonaventure Hotel, 1 Place Bonaventure, Montreal,
Quebec, on June 2, 2004, at 4:00 o'clock in the afternoon, for the purposes of:

     (1)  receiving the consolidated financial statements for the year ended
          December 31, 2003, together with the auditors' report thereon;

     (2)  electing a board of seven directors to serve until the next annual
          meeting of shareholders;

     (3)  appointing auditors and authorizing the directors to fix their
          remuneration;

     (4)  considering and, if deemed advisable, approving, ratifying and
          confirming amendments to the Corporation's Executive Stock Option
          Plan; and

     (5)  transacting such other business as may properly be brought before
          the Meeting.

The specific details of all matters proposed to be put before the Meeting are
set forth in the accompanying Management Proxy Circular.

Only holders of record of common shares of the Corporation at the close of
business on April 26, 2004 will be entitled to vote at the Meeting.


                            By Order of the Board of Directors,
                            (signed) ANDREW M. ARCHIBALD, C.A.
                            Chief Financial Officer,
                            Secretary,
                            Vice President, Administration

Montreal, Quebec - April 26, 2004


     SHAREHOLDERS WHO ARE UNABLE TO BE PRESENT AT THE MEETING ARE REQUESTED TO
COMPLETE AND RETURN THE ENCLOSED FORM OF PROXY IN THE ENVELOPE PROVIDED FOR
THAT PURPOSE. PROXIES MUST BE RECEIVED AT THE REGISTERED OFFICE OF THE
TRANSFER AGENT OF THE CORPORATION NOT LESS THAN 48 HOURS PRIOR TO THE MEETING.
Exhibit 23.1

Consent of Ernst & Young LLP, Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Form S-8 Nos. 333-13203, 333-61705,
333-71814, 333-92973, and 333-98633) of Unify Corporation of our report dated June 3, 2004, with respect to the 2003 and 2004 consolidated financial
statements of Unify Corporation included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended April 30, 2004.

/s/
Ernst & Young LLP

Sacramento,
California
July 19, 2004

---



QuickLinks
Long-range 

actuarial 

balance

Annual 

balance in 

75th year

Long-range 

actuarial 

balance

Annual 

balance in 

75th year

Long-range 

actuarial 

balance

Annual 

balance in 

75th year

-3.61 -4.35 2.87 7.51 80% 173%

Estimates based on the intermediate assumptions of the 2023 Trustees Report Office of the Chief Actuary

Social Security Administration

September 15, 2023

Summary Measures and Graphs

Category of Change: Level of Monthly Benefits

Current law

[percent of payroll]

Change from current law

[percent of payroll] Shortfall eliminated

Proposed Provision: B1.1. Price indexing of PIA factors beginning with those newly eligible for OASDI 

benefits in 2030: Reduce factors so that initial benefits grow by inflation rather than by the SSA average 

wage index.

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

16.0

18.0

20.0

2023 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090

Percent

Year

OASDI Cost Rates and Income Rates

(as a percentage of taxable payroll)

Income rates under current law

Income rates with this provision

Cost rates under current law

Cost rates with this provision

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

2023 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090

Percent

Year

OASDI Trust Fund Ratio

(assets as a percentage of annual expenditures)

Current law With this provision
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3604 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3604

 To prohibit Federal funds from being made available to any preschool, 
 kindergarten, elementary school, or secondary school that has a face 
                             mask mandate.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            February 9, 2022

  Mr. Cotton introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
  referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To prohibit Federal funds from being made available to any preschool, 
 kindergarten, elementary school, or secondary school that has a face 
                             mask mandate.

    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 ``Unmask Our Kids Act of 2022''.

SEC. 2. REQUIREMENT TO RESCIND SCHOOL FACE MASK MANDATES TO RECEIVE 
              FEDERAL FUNDING.

    (a) Definitions.--In this section, the terms ``elementary school'', 
``local educational agency'', ``Secretary'', and ``State educational 
agency'' have the meanings given the terms in section 8101 of the 
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7801).
    (b) Requirement To Rescind School Mask Mandates To Receive Federal 
Funding.--No Federal funds shall be made available to any preschool, 
kindergarten, elementary school, or secondary school that--
            (1) mandates that students wear face masks while on school 
        grounds or engaged in school-sponsored activities; or
            (2) limits participation in school activities for students 
        who voluntarily elect not to wear a face mask on school grounds 
        or while engaged in school-sponsored activities.
    (c) Ensuring Compliance.--The Secretary shall require each 
application for Federal assistance submitted to the Secretary by a 
State educational agency or local educational agency to attest that all 
preschools, kindergartens, elementary schools, and secondary schools 
receiving Federal funds served by the agency have rescinded any face 
mask mandate.
                                 <all>
```
#### DELMA C. GRAY, Administrator of the Estate of EVELYN GRAY SNUGGS, Deceased, v. THE CAROLINA AND NORTHWESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY.

(Filed 9 November, 1955.)

1. Railroads § 4—

Though a traveler and the railroad have equal rights to cross at a grade crossing, the traveler must yield the right of way to the railway company in the ordinary course of its business.

*108a. Same: Pleadings § 31—

In an action against a railroad company to recover for tlie wrongful death of a passenger in an automobile fatally injured in a railroad crossing accident, allegations in the complaint to the effect that before entering the crossing, defendant was under duty to stop its train to ascertain whether the running of the train across the highway would endanger the life of any person thereon, are properly stricken on motion.

3. Death § 6: Pleadings § 31—

In this action for wrongful death, allegations in respect to damages *held,*properly stricken in the light of the established rule for the admeasurement of damages in such cases. G.S. 28-174.

Appeal by plaintiff from *Gwyn, J.,*at 16 May, 1965 Civil Term, of STANLY.

Civil action to recover damages for alleged wrongful death of intestate of plaintiff (G.S. 28-173) from injuries sustained in a collision between an automobile in which she was riding as a passenger along a public highway between Badin and New London, and a train operated by defendant on its railroad track where it crosses the highway about five miles from Badin.

The case was heard upon motion of defendant to strike certain allegations from the amended complaint on the grounds that same are conclusions of the pleader, and are redundant, irrelevant, immaterial, argumentative and evidentiary. The court allowed the motion in the respect indicated. Plaintiff excepted to the order entered in accordance therewith and appeals to Supreme Court, and assigns error.

*Henry C. Doby, Jr., and Edward Jerome for Plaintiff, Appellant.*

*W. T. Joyner, Wiley F. Mitchell, Jr., and R. L. Smith & Sons for Defendant, Appellee.*

PER Cueiam.

First: The gravamen of certain of the allegations ordered stricken is that before entering the crossing defendant was under duty to stop its train to ascertain whether running the train across the highway “then and there, would endanger the life of any person thereon,” and that failure of defendant to do so was negligence. In the light of the settled principle of law long prevailing in this State that where a railroad track crosses a public highway, though a traveler and the railroad have equal rights to cross, the traveler must yield the right of way to the railroad company in the ordinary course of its business, *Johnson v. R. R.,*163 N.C. 431, 79 S.E. 690, the rulings of the court in striking the allegations so specified were proper.

*109And, second, in the light of the established rule for the admeasurement of damages in cases of wrongful death, G.S. 28-174, the portions of the allegations in respect thereto were properly stricken.

Hence the judgment from which appeal is taken is

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE SMARTDISK
CORPORATION CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET (UNAUDITED) FOR SEPTEMBER 30,
2000 AND CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS (UNAUDITED) FOR THE NINE
MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                         10,242
<SECURITIES>                                   12,827
<RECEIVABLES>                                  18,850
<ALLOWANCES>                                   645
<INVENTORY>                                    15,312
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               62,005
<PP&E>                                         6,994
<DEPRECIATION>                                 3,177
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 148,383
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          22,474
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       18
<OTHER-SE>                                     115,829
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   148,383
<SALES>                                        79,278
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               81,020
<CGS>                                          55,473
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  55,473
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               37,228
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             97
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (10,386)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (1,700)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (8,686)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (8,686)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (.52)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.52)


</TABLE>
#### BANK OF WAKE v. CLAUD SANDERS, and EDGAR DUNSTON, Administrator of C. D. DUNSTON, Deceased.

(Filed 12 October, 1932.)

Appeal by plaintiff from *Devin, J.,*at May Term, 1932, of Wake.

Affirmed.

This is an action on a note for $175.00, executed by defendant, Claud Sanders, and 0. D. Dunston, intestate of the defendant, Edgar Dunston, administrator. The note is payable to the order of J. W. Mangum, and was negotiated to the plaintiff, by the endorsement of the payee, prior to its maturity. The allegation in the complaint that plaintiff is the holder in due course of the note is denied in the answer.

At the close of the evidence the court instructed the jury as follows:

“Gentlemen of the jury, if you believe all the evidence as has been testified in this ease, you will answer the issue, ‘$175.00 with interest from 26 April, 1929.’ ” The defendants excepted to this instruction.

The jury answered the issue, to wit: “In what amount, if any, are the defendants indebted to the plaintiff,” as follows: “$175.00 with interest.”

On motion of defendants, the judge, in his discretion, set aside the verdict, and ordered a new trial. Plaintiff appealed to the Supreme Court.

J. *Beverly Lake for plaintiff.*

*J. B. Saintsing, Jr., and Clyde A. Douglass for defendants.*

Per Curiam.

The question as to whether there was error in the instruction of the court to the jury, to which defendants duly excepted, is not presented on this appeal by plaintiff.

The power of the judge to set aside the verdict and order a new trial, in his discretion, is expressly recognized by statute. C. S., 591. The exercise of this power in the instant case is not subject to review by this Court.

“The discretion of the judge to set aside a verdict is not an arbitrary one to be exercised capriciously or according to his absolute will, but reasonably and with the object solely of preventing what may seem to him an inequitable result. The power is an inherent one, and is regarded as essential to the proper administration of the law. It is not limited to cases where the verdict is found to be against the weight of the evidence, but extends to many others. While the necessity for exercising this discretion, in any given case, is not to be determined by the *848mere inclination of the judge, but by a sound and enlightened judgment in an effort to attain tbe end of all law, namely, the doing of even and exact justice, we will yet not supervise it, except, perhaps, in extreme circumstances, not at all likely to arise; and it is therefore practically unlimited.” *Settee v. R. R.,*170 N. C., 365, 86 S. E., 1050, and quoted with approval in *Wolf v. Goldstein,*192 N. C., 818, 135 S. E., 39. The order is

Affirmed.
#### STATE v. JOE STAFFORD.

(Filed 7 December, 1932.)

Criminal Daw L a — Motion to reinstate api>eal will not be allowed where appeal, although dismissed, was considered on its merits.

Where an appeal, dismissed for a defect in the record, is considered on its merits notwithstanding the defect, the prisoner’s motion to reinstate his appeal will be disallowed, since reinstatement could serve no useful purpose.

MotioN by prisoner to reinstate appeal, to the end that record may be completed and case considered on its merits.

*Walter*6?. *Sheppard and John D. Langston for movant.*

Stacy, C. J.

Even if it were permissible for the prisoner to supply the defect in the record by filing affidavit of insolvency here, which it is not *(S. v. Parish,*151 N. C., 659, 65 S. E., 762), or if we should regard the present motion as an application for writ of *certiorari*to bring up the appeal, it would avail the prisoner nothing, for, as previously stated, the case was considered on its merits, notwithstanding the defects in the record, and no reversible error discovered.

The reasons assigned by counsel for the condition of the record are quite sufficient to acquit them of any neglect, but it would serve no useful purpose to redoeket the case only to affirm it again.

Motion disallowed.
### Proposed Provision: D9. Provide for pro-rata benefit payment for the month of death of a beneficiary, rather than no payment for month of death. For situations where an auxiliary beneficiary is changed from one type of benefit to another upon the death of the worker, benefits for the month of the worker's death would be determined on a pro-rata basis. This provision would apply for deaths in 2024 or later.

back