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

Exhibit 32 

CERTIFICATIONS 

I, Hai Yan Huang, certify, pursuantto 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of Getpokerrakeback.com onForm 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended November 30, 2008 fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934and that information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of Getpokerrakeback.com. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersignedhas executed this statement this 16th day of January 2009. 

/s/ Hai Yan Huang                                                           Hai Yan Huang *Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer*

A signed original of this written statement required bySection 906 has been provided to Getpokerrakeback.com and will be retained byGetpokerrakeback.com and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission orits staff upon request. 

The forgoing certification is being furnished to theSecurities and Exchange Commission pursuant to § 18 U.S.C. Section 1350. It isnot being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing ofthe Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of anygeneral incorporation language in such filing. 

----
Exhibit 10.32



 Exhibit 10.32 
 Summary of MeadWestvaco Corporation Annual Incentive Plan under 2005 Performance Incentive Plan, as amended 
 Under
the MeadWestvaco Corporation Annual Incentive Plan (the “Plan”), which is a part of the 2005 Performance Incentive Plan, the Compensation and Organization Development Committee (the “Committee”) of the Board of Directors annually
awards each executive an annual incentive award that is payable in cash. The size of each executive officer’s annual award is determined by application of his or her annual incentive target expressed as a percentage of base salary, which the
Committee examines annually to confirm that the target is reasonable when viewed against external competitive market data, peer group and general industry trends. 
 Prior to 2009, annual cash incentives are payable only if designated objectives for key financial and/or operational metrics are met, unless they are reduced at the discretion of the Committee. These objectives for executive officers are
set by the Committee, and generally include such targets as earnings before interest and taxes (“EBIT”), free cash flow, and EVA actions which include productivity, and general and administrative savings. Annual incentives are subject to a
maximum payout of 200% of target performance with a minimum threshold equal to 50% of target, generally. In the event of below target performance, the Committee shall reduce award values to reflect proportional progress made towards target
performance levels, except no awards are payable for performance below the threshold level. The company must generate sufficient cash flow from operations to cover dividends to shareholders and maintenance capital expenditures before annual cash
incentives can be paid. 
 For 2009, the Committee established a performance-based incentive pool for executive officers equal to a designated target
percentage of earnings before interest and taxes (“EBIT”). Assuming designated performance levels are achieved, funding of the pool will permit the Committee to pay annual cash incentives based on the attainment of additional key financial
and/or operational metrics. These additional metrics for executive officers are also set by the Committee, and generally include targets for free cash flow, EVA actions (such as planned revenue reductions, capacity rationalization, capital
expenditures and productivity) and also selling, general, administrative and other overhead savings. Individual annual incentives are subject to a maximum payout of 200% of target performance with a minimum threshold equal to 50% of target,
generally. The Committee may adjust award values to reflect progress made towards target performance levels, provided no awards are payable in the event the designated percentage for threshold EBIT (which funds the incentive pool) is not met. The
company must also generate sufficient cash flow from operations to cover dividends to shareholders and maintenance capital expenditures before annual cash incentives can be paid.
Case 4:18-mj-01455-N/A-BPV Document 2 Filed 01/18/18 Page 1 of 2
Case 4:18-mj-01455-N/A-BPV Document 2 Filed 01/18/18 Page 2 of 2
#### John Calvin NORMAN, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 6-92-023-CR.

Court of Appeals of Texas, Texarkana.

Dec. 29, 1992.

*904Fred L. Tinsley, Ross Teter, Dallas, for appellant.

April E. Smith, Asst. Dist. Atty., Dallas, for appellee.

Before CORNELIUS, C.J., and BLEIL and GRANT, JJ.

OPINION

BLEIL, Justice.

John Norman appeals, alleging that he was improperly sentenced. We find no error and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Norman had pleaded guilty to the crime of robbery and also to burglary of a building, receiving deferred adjudication on both charges. The State filed a motion to adjudicate his guilt, which was granted. The court then assessed his punishment in both cases upon Norman’s plea of true and stipulation of evidence, sentencing Norman to fifteen years’ confinement and a fine of $750.00 in this cause.

Norman contends that the trial court erred when, after adjudging Norman guilty of both crimes, the court failed to conduct a separate punishment hearing which would allow him the opportunity to present evidence. Norman’s argument rests upon his interpretation of *Issa v. State,*826 S.W.2d 159 (Tex.Crim.App.1992). In *Issa,*the court of criminal appeals held that a defendant who had received deferred adjudication is entitled to a separate punishment hearing after adjudication of guilt as provided by Tex.Code Crim.Proc.Ann. art. 42.-12, § 5(b) (Vernon Supp.1993). The court also allowed *Issa*to raise that complaint despite his failure to raise a contemporaneous objection to the court’s failure to hold such a hearing, as required by Tex.R.Ajpp.P. 52(a).

The court noted that the trial court had revoked probation and entered a finding sentencing Issa in a single proclamation and reasoned that Issa had no opportunity to object to the trial court’s action until after the action had been taken. Issa first raised this complaint twenty-six days later in his motion for new trial. The court of criminal appeals concluded that “raising his objection in his timely filed motion for new trial did preserve the error for appellate review.”

Although *Issa*arguably relaxed the requirement of a contemporaneous objection, the defendant was still required to bring his complaint to the attention of the trial court in some fashion before error was preserved for review. There is no motion for new trial in the present case. This complaint was not brought to the trial court’s attention. We are unwilling to extend Tex.R.App.P. 52(a) so far as to say that a complaint may be raised about a procedural action of the trial court for the first time in a point of error before the court of appeals. No error has been preserved for our review.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
#### Randall C. GEIGER, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. WD 50274.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

June 6, 1995.

Rose M. Wibbenmeyer, Office of the State Public Defender, Columbia, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Christine M. Kocot, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before HANNA, P.J., and BERREY and SPINDEN, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM:

Appeal from denial of Rule 24.035 motion.

Affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 1053 

AN ACT 

To amend the National Law Enforcement Museum Act to 

extend the termination date. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

†S 1053 ES

1 SECTION 1. NATIONAL LAW ENFORCEMENT MUSEUM ACT. 

2 Section 4(f) of the National Law Enforcement Mu3 seum Act (Public Law 106–492) is amended by striking 

4 ‘‘10 years’’ and inserting ‘‘13 years’’. 

Passed the Senate May 7, 2010. 

Attest: 

Secretary. 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 1053 

AN ACT 

To amend the National Law Enforcement Museum 

Act to extend the termination date.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

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

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Sally Holdings LLC and SallyCapital Inc. (the “Companies”) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period endedMarch 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on thedate hereof (the “Report”), I, Gary G. Winterhalter, President and ChiefExecutive Officer of each of the Companies, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)           The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)           The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and result of operations of the Companies.

 

 
|   | By:                                                     |   /s/ GARY G. WINTERHALTER |
|--------|---------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------|
|   | Gary G. Winterhalter                                    |
|   | President and Chief Executive Officer of Sally Holdings |
|   | LLC and Sally Capital Inc.                              |

 

May 8, 2008

 

----
<PAGE>
 
                                                                   EXHIBIT 23.1
 
                        CONSENT OF PANNELL KERR FORSTER
 
  We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statement of NewCom, Inc. on Form S-8 (File No. 333-46999) of our report dated
June 10, 1998, on our audits of the financial statements of NewCom, Inc. as of
February 28, 1998, February 28, 1997, and February 29, 1996, and for each of
the three years then ended, which report appears in the Form 10-K of NewCom,
Inc. for the fiscal year ended February 28, 1998.
 
                                          Pannell Kerr Forster
Los Angeles, California
June 15, 1998
**EXHIBIT
      13.1**





**Annual
      Certification**


**Pursuant
      to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**







Pursuant
      to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of
      Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), each of the
      undersigned officers of EDAP TMS S.A. (the " c ompany" ),
      does
      hereby certify, to such officer's knowledge, that:





The
      Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2005 of the Company
      fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
      Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the Form 20-F fairly presents,
      in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
      of
      the company.










Dated:
              June 5, 2006
            S/
                HUGUES DE BANTEL


Hugues
      de
      Bantel


Chief
      Executive Officer











Dated:
              June 5, 2006
            S/
                THIERRY TURBANT


Thierry
      Turbant


Chief
      Financial Officer







A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act has been provided to EDAP TMS S.A. and will be retained by EDAP TMS S.A.
      and
      furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
      request.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-4610

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ALLEN GREY BEASLEY,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of Virginia, at Abingdon. James P. Jones, District 

Judge. (1:11-cr-00037-JPJ-PMS-1)

Submitted: April 8, 2013 Decided: April 16, 2013

Before DAVIS, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael L. Dennis, GALUMBECK, DENNIS & KEGLEY, Tazewell, 

Virginia, for Appellant. Jean Barrett Hudson, Assistant United 

States Attorney, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Allen Grey Beasley appeals the 240-month, downward 

departure sentence he received on his conviction of conspiring 

to distribute and possess with intent to distribute 

methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C.A. §§ 841(b)(1)(A) and

846 (West 1999 & Supp. 2012). Although the Government has filed 

a motion to dismiss the appeal under United States v. Hill, 70 

F.3d 321, 324 (4th Cir. 1995), as challenging only the extent of 

the substantial assistance downward departure that Beasley 

received, we believe that Beasley’s appellate arguments are 

better read as essentially challenging his sentence as

procedurally and substantively unreasonable, as measured against

the sentence received by one of his codefendants who did not 

provide substantial assistance to the Government. We therefore 

deny the Government’s motion.

Nevertheless, we affirm the judgment of the district 

court. We discern no procedural error with the district court’s 

computation of the Guidelines range or its weighing of the 

various applicable factors — including the sentence received by 

Beasley’s codefendant — in determining the length of Beasley’s 

sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); 

see also 18 U.S.C. §§ 3553(a), (e) (2006); U.S. Sentencing 

Guidelines Manual § 5G1.1(b). Nor has Beasley identified any 

reason to disturb the presumptive substantive reasonableness of 
3

his below-Guidelines sentence. United States v. Susi, 674 F.3d 

278, 289 (4th Cir. 2012) (a sentence falling below the advisory 

Guidelines range is presumptively reasonable).

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district 

court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before this court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

AFFIRMED
##### 



Exhibit 32.2 CERTIFICATION Pursuant to the requirements set forth in Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code (18 U.S.C. § 1350, as
adopted, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act), Jane A. Freeman, the Chief Financial Officer of Scientific
Learning Corporation (the Company), hereby certifies that, to the best of her knowledge:  1.
    The Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the period ended December 31, 2004,
to which this Certification is attached as Exhibit 32.1 (the Periodic Report), fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended; and2.
    The information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. Dated: May 25, 2005 /s/ Jane A. FreemanJane A. Freeman
Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
 This certification accompanies and is being furnished with this Periodic Report, shall not be
deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended or otherwise subject to liability under that Section and shall not be deemed to be
incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, whether made before or after the date
of this Periodic Report, irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such
filing.
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1024 

To authorize appropriations for the design, acquisition, and construction of 

a combined buoy tender-icebreaker to replace icebreaking capacity on 

the Great Lakes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 12, 2009 

Mr. LEVIN (for himself, Mr. VOINOVICH, Ms. STABENOW, and Mr. SCHUMER) 

introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the 

Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 

A BILL 

To authorize appropriations for the design, acquisition, and 

construction of a combined buoy tender-icebreaker to 

replace icebreaking capacity on the Great Lakes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Great Lakes Ice5 breaker Replacement Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. FINDINGS. 

7 Congress finds that— 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
2 

•S 1024 IS

1 (1) 5 of the Great Lakes icebreakers of the 

2 Coast Guard are nearing the end of the useful lives 

3 of the icebreakers; 

4 (2) 2 other Coast Guard icebreaking assets 

5 have experienced difficulty in heavy ice conditions; 

6 (3) during the spring of 2008, United States7 flag vessels operating on the Great Lakes suffered 

8 more than $1,300,000 in damages to the hulls of the 

9 vessels because the Coast Guard did not have 

10 enough assets available to keep Great Lakes ship11 ping lanes open; 

12 (4) during the 2006–2007 ice season, ship13 ments of iron ore, coal, and limestone on the Great 

14 Lakes exceeded 20,000,000 tons; 

15 (5) during the 2006–2007 ice season, the trans16 portation of 10,400,000 tons of iron ore on the 

17 Great Lakes helped support approximately 100,000 

18 jobs at steel mills and approximately 300,000 jobs at 

19 supplier industries by keeping those industries work20 ing during the winter season; and 

21 (6) the 6,400,000 tons of coal shipped on the 

22 Great Lakes during the 2006–2007 ice season kept 

23 the Great Lakes region supplied with electricity. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
3 

•S 1024 IS

1 SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. 

2 There is authorized to be appropriated to the Sec3 retary of Homeland Security $153,000,000 for necessary 

4 expenses of the Coast Guard relating to the design, acqui5 sition, and construction of a combined buoy tender-ice6 breaker to replace icebreaking capacity on the Great 

7 Lakes, to remain available until expended. 

Æ 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
Exhibit 32.1




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




The undersigned hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to their knowledge, the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q /A for the period ended September 30, 2009 of UTEC, Inc. (the “Company”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and the information contained in such periodic report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of, and for, the periods presented in such report.




Very truly yours,


/s/ Fortunato VillamagnaFortunato VillamagnaChief Executive OfficerDecember 14, 2009/s/ Howard BuouchHoward BouchChief Financial OfficerDated: December 14, 2009




A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to UTEC, Inc. and will be furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A of Lightlake Therapeutics Inc. (the “Company") for the three month ended October 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Dr. Roger Crystal, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.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.








Date: November 10, 2011                              By: /s/ Dr. Roger Crystal


Dr. Roger Crystal


Chief Executive Officer





This certification accompanies each Report pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of ss.18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.





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.
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

18.
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the
Quarterly Report of NeurogesX, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2010 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Form
10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of NeurogesX, Inc.



|                       |  |  |  |     |  |                                                                              
|---------------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Dated: August 11, 2010 |  |  |  |     |  |                                                                              
|                       |  |  | 
|                       |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ Anthony A. DiTonno                                                       
|                       |  |  |  |     |  | Anthony A. DiTonno                                                           
|                       |  |  |  |     |  | President and Chief Executive Officer                                        
|                       |  |  |  |     |  | (Principal Executive Officer)                                                
|                       |  |  | 
|                       |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ Stephen F. Ghiglieri                                                     
|                       |  |  |  |     |  | Stephen F. Ghiglieri                                                         
|                       |  |  |  |     |  | Executive Vice President, Chief Operating Officer and Chief Financial Officer
|                       |  |  |  |     |  | (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)