alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 32





Certifications of Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002








I, Liang Qiao, Principal Executive Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(a) The quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2010 of Bio-Bridge Science, Inc. (the “Company”), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





(b) Information contained in such Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Date: May 23, 2011





/s/  Dr. Liang QiaoBy: Dr. Liang Qiao

Chief Executive Officer

(Principal Executive Officer)





I, Meng Zhen, Principal Financial Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(c) The quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2010 of Bio-Bridge Science, Inc. (the “Company”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





(d) Information contained in such Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Date: May 23, 2011





/s/  Meng ZhenBy: Meng Zhen

Controller

(Principal Financial Officer)
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Robert P. Akins, certify that:

 

1.     I have reviewedthis annual report on Form 10-K of Cymer, Inc.;

 

2.     Based on myknowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

 

3.     Based on myknowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

 

4.     The registrant’sother certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

 

a)     designed suchdisclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

 

b)    evaluated theeffectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

 

c)     disclosed in thisreport any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reportingthat occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

 

5.     The registrant’sother certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (orpersons performing the equivalent functions):

 

a)     all significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and

 

b)    any fraud, whetheror not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significantrole in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

 
| Date:   March 11, 2004  |
|-----------------------------------|
|                              |
|                              |
|                              | /s/ ROBERT P. AKINS |   |
| Robert P. Akins                   |
| Chairman, Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICERPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

I, Dennis C. Fairchild, certifyfor purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge, theQuarterly Report of TROY Group, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the quarterly periodended August 31, 2004 fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that informationcontained in such Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of Troy Group, Inc.

 

 
| Date:   October 15, 2004 |                                                      |                    |
|-------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------|
|                          |                                                      |                    |
|                          |                                                      |                    |
|                          | By:                                                       | /s/Dennis C.  Fairchild |   |
|                          | Name: Dennis  C. Fairchild                                |
|                          | Title:  Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |

 

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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM SAFETY 1ST
FORM 10-K FOR THE YEAR ENDED JANUARY 1, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FORM 10-K.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-03-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-01-2000
<CASH>                                             987
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   26,437
<ALLOWANCES>                                     6,332
<INVENTORY>                                     20,165
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                55,088
<PP&E>                                          35,586
<DEPRECIATION>                                (17,671)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  89,281
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           42,321
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            85
<OTHER-SE>                                      14,494
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    89,281
<SALES>                                        157,957
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               157,957
<CGS>                                           96,828
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   96,828
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                46,197
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,330
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 10,602
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,727
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              6,875
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  (851)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,216
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.54
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.47


</TABLE>
#### Dennis R. REID, Movant-Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. 16729.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District, Division One.

Aug. 20, 1990.

Brad B. Baker, Columbia, for movant-ap-pellant.

William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., Christine A. Alsop, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

MAUS, Judge.

On October 14, 1987, movant Dennis R. Reid entered pleas of guilty to five counts of selling controlled substances in violation of § 195.020 RSMo 1986. On November 23, 1987, he was sentenced to concurrent terms of twenty years on each count. On July 6, 1988, movant filed a motion under Rule 24.035 to set aside those sentences and withdraw his pleas of guilty. The movant alleged he was denied effective assistance of counsel. At a hearing the motion court dismissed the motion because it was filed after June 30,1988, and therefore was untimely filed under the provisions of that Rule.

On appeal the movant contends the motion court erred because the time limit imposed by Rule 24.035(0 is constitutionally invalid and the Rule is an unconstitutional suspension of the writ of habeas corpus. He presents the same points and arguments as the movant presented in *Dayringer v. State,*790 S.W.2d 522 (Mo.App.1990). His points and arguments are denied for the reasons set forth in *Dayringer.*The movant’s failure to file a timely motion was a procedural default and the judgment of the trial court and this court rests on a state procedural bar. *Harris v. Reed,*489 U.S. 255, 109 S.Ct. 1038, 103 L.Ed.2d 308 (1989).

The judgment is affirmed.

PREWITT and CROW, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                           7
<LEGEND>
     (Replace this text with the legend)
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                                          0000897430
<NAME>                                         TIG Holdings, Inc. 
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000,000
<CURRENCY>                                     US Dollars              
       
<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Dec-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 Jan-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   Dec-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1.00
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                           0
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                          3,874
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                            3,874
<EQUITIES>                                     0
<MORTGAGE>                                     0
<REAL-ESTATE>                                  0
<TOTAL-INVEST>                                 4,192
<CASH>                                         18
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                             125
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                         155
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 6,867
<POLICY-LOSSES>                                3,935
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                            738
<POLICY-OTHER>                                 0
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                          0
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                122
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          25
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       1,257
<OTHER-SE>                                     349
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   6,867
<PREMIUMS>                                     1,466
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                            290
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                             1
<OTHER-INCOME>                                 0
<BENEFITS>                                     1,151
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                    391
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                           119
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                62
<INCOME-TAX>                                   10
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            52
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   52
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0.97
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0.94
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                 2,634
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                            1,076
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                              75
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                             417
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                               837
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                2,531
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                        0
        

</TABLE>
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

February 4, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-6356

Diebold Nixdorf Incorporated:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20.

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request failed to show that this particular product is available 

only from China.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

November 13, 2018

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-4934

Duravant LLC and FMH Conveyors Americas:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20. 

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request failed to show that the imposition of additional duties on 

the particular product would cause severe economic harm to you or other U.S. interests and the 

request failed to show that this particular product is available only from China.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 8 (Thursday, January 12, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 2875]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-807]



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


DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

9 CFR Part 78

[Docket No. 94-009-3]


Brucellosis in Cattle; State and Area Classifications; California

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.

ACTION: Affirmation of interim rule as final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting as a final rule, without change, an interim 
rule that amended the brucellosis regulations concerning the interstate 
movement of cattle by changing the classification of California from 
Class Free to Class A. We have determined that California no longer 
meets the standards for Class Free status. The interim rule was 
necessary to impose certain restrictions on the interstate movement of 
cattle from California.

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 13, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Michael J. Gilsdorf, Senior Staff 
Veterinarian, Cattle Diseases and Surveillance Staff, Veterinary 
Services, APHIS, USDA, P.O. Drawer 810, Riverdale, MD 20738. The 
telephone number for the agency contact will change when agency offices 
in Hyattsville, MD, move to Riverdale, MD, during January. Telephone: 
(301) 436-4918 (Hyattsville); (301) 734-4918 (Riverdale).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    In an interim rule effective and published in the Federal Register 
on September 16, 1994 (59 FR 47533-47534, Docket No. 94-009-2), we 
amended the brucellosis regulations in 9 CFR part 78 by removing 
California from the list of Class Free States in Sec. 78.41(a) and 
adding it to the list of Class A States in Sec. 78.41(b).
    Comments on the interim rule were required to be received on or 
before November 15, 1994. We did not receive any comments. The facts 
presented in the interim rule still provide a basis for the rule.
    This action also affirms the information contained in the interim 
rule concerning Executive Order 12866 and the Regulatory Flexibility 
Act, Executive Orders 12372 and 12778, and the Paperwork Reduction Act.
    Further, for this action, the Office of Management and Budget has 
waived the review process required by Executive Order 12866.

List of Subjects in 9 CFR Part 78

    Animal diseases, Bison, Cattle, Hogs, Quarantine, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.

PART 78--BRUCELLOSIS

    Accordingly, we are adopting as a final rule, without change, the 
interim rule that amended 9 CFR 78.41 and that was published at 59 FR 
47533-47534 on September 16, 1994.

    Authority: 21 U.S.C. 111-114a-1, 114g, 115, 117, 120, 121, 123-
126, 134b, 134f; 7 CFR 2.17, 2.51, and 371.2(d).

    Done in Washington, DC, this 6th day of January 1995.
Lonnie J. King,
Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
[FR Doc. 95-807 Filed 1-11-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-34-P
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17
- 6282

DARRELL J. MICKELL , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. B RYAN STIRLING; C. REYNOLDS; MR. DAVIS; MR. SHARPE; MR. GRAHAM; MR. NOLAN; MR. WILLIAMS; MS. SHAW; MS. SMITH , Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Greenville

. R. Bryan Harwell , District Judge. ( 6:15

- cv
- 04656

- RBH )

Submitted : September 29, 2017 Decided: October 12, 2017

Before KEENAN, DIAZ, and FLOYD , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Darrell J. Mickell, Appellant Pro Se. David Cornwell Holler, LEE ERTER WILSON HOLLER & SMITH, LLC, Sumter, South Carolina, for Appellee s
.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Darrell J. Mickell appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and granting defendants’ motion for summary judgment in
Mickell’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) acti on and the magistrate judge ’s orders denying his motions to appoint counsel and to compel . We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court.
Mickell v. Stirling , No. 6:15

- cv
- 04 656

- RBH (D.S.C. Dec. 29, 2015; Jan

. 25, 2016; Sept. 13, 2016; Feb. 15, 2017) . 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 proc ess.

AFFIRMED
Exhibit 31.1



SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION



I, Jon P. Stonehouse, certify that:



| | 1. | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 on Form 10-K/A to the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2017
of BioCryst Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
| | -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact
necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with
respect to the period covered by this report.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Date: March 27, 2018



/s/ Jon P. Stonehouse

Jon P. Stonehouse

Chief Executive Officer
#### Craig A. ARNOLD, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. 56943.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Five.

May 15, 1990.

*526Henry B. Robertson, Asst. Public Defender, St. Louis, for appellant.

William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., Christine A. Alsop, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

DOWD, Presiding Judge.

Appellant, Craig Anthony Arnold, was convicted by a jury of rape and sodomy. § 566.030 and § 566.060 RSMo 1978. The appellant was sentenced to 15 years in prison on each count to be served consecutively. Appellant’s conviction was affirmed in *State v. Arnold,*674 S.W.2d 141 (Mo.App.1984). In August of 1985, movant filed a *■pro se*Rule 27.26 motion for post-conviction relief. Later, counsel appointed to represent movant filed an amended motion. Appellant’s Rule 27.26 motion was denied after an evidentiary hearing. This appeal followed.

Having the burden of demonstrating error, the appellant has the ultimate responsibility for the preparation and filing of the transcript. *State v. Clark,*671 S.W.2d 1, 3 (Mo.App.1983); *Jackson v. State,*514 S.W.2d 532, 533 (Mo.1974). The transcript on appeal must contain all the necessary material to make a determination of the issues raised, and where such information is not included, there is nothing for the appellate court to review because the appellate court is unable to determine if the trial court erred. *Burns v. State,*601 S.W.2d 633, 635 (Mo.App.1980); *Garrett v. State,*486 S.W.2d 272, 274 (Mo.1972).

In his first point relied on, appellant claims that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object when the prosecutor, during closing argument, improperly vouched for the victim’s credibility by stating that the victim is a “truth teller.” In his second point relied on, appellant contends that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to make a timely objection to an in-court demonstration by the state as to the effects of lighting conditions on complexion color. Because the trial transcript was not filed on appeal, the appellant has failed to supply a proper record. Without the transcript, we cannot rule on the validity of his claims. Thus, both of his points must be denied.

The appeal is dismissed.

SIMON, C.J., and JOSEPH J. SIMEONE, Senior Judge, concur.