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

Certification
of Chief Executive Officer underSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I
hereby certify that the Annual Report on Form 10-K of OSullivan Industries Holdings, Inc.
for the year ended June 30, 2003, 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 annual report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of OSullivan Industries Holdings, Inc.

|Date:   September 29, 2003 |  |  | /s/ Richard D. Davidson              
|-------------------------- |  |  | -------------------------------------
|                           |  |  |                                      
|                           |  |  | Richard D. Davidson                  
|                           |  |  | President and Chief Executive Officer
|                           |  |  |                                      

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

Exhibit 32.2

Certification
of Chief Financial Officer underSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I
hereby certify that the Annual Report on Form 10-K of OSullivan Industries Holdings, Inc.
for the year ended June 30, 2003, 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 annual report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of OSullivan Industries Holdings, Inc.

|Date:   September 29, 2003 |  |  | /s/ Phillip J. Pacey       
|-------------------------- |  |  | ---------------------------
|                           |  |  |                            
|                           |  |  | Phillip J. Pacey           
|                           |  |  | Senior Vice President      
|                           |  |  | and Chief Financial Officer

A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 has been provided to OSullivan Industries Holdings, Inc.
and will be retained by OSullivan Industries Holdings, Inc. and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<PAGE>   1




                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1




                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Forms S-8, No. 33-80938, No. 33-97206 and No. 333-34515) pertaining to the 
NeXagen, Inc. 1993 Incentive Stock Plan, the Registration Statements (Forms S-8,
No. 33-88074 and No. 333-07887) pertaining to the NeXstar Pharmaceuticals, Inc. 
1994 Stock Purchase Plan, the Registration Statement (Form S-8, No. 333-07889) 
pertaining to the NeXstar Pharmaceuticals, Inc. 1995 Director Option Plan, the 
Registration Statement (Form S-8, No. 33-90994) pertaining to the Vestar, Inc.
1988 Stock Option Plan and the Vestar, Inc. 1992 Deferred Compensation Plan for
Non-Employee Directors, the Registration Statement (Form S-3, No. 333-00758) of
NeXstar Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and in the related Prospectus, and the
Registration Statement (Form S-3, No. 333-35827) of NeXstar Pharmaceuticals,
Inc. and in the related Prospectus of our report dated February 27, 1998, with
respect to the consolidated financial statements of NeXstar Pharmaceuticals,
Inc. included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31,
1997.






                                                  ERNST & YOUNG LLP


Denver, Colorado
March 25, 1998
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-7187
BERNARD RAY RICHARDSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus BARBARA J. WHEELER; R. K. WHITE; DAVID K. SMITH; BOBBY W. SOLES; JAMES KEELING; ELEANORL. STOCKDALE; L. W. HUFFMAN; CAPTAIN BARKSDALE; COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA; COUNSELOR SPICER; MICHAEL A. SHUPE, Grievance Coordinator, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge. (CA-93-872-R) Submitted: December 14, 1995 Decided: January 16, 1996 Before ERVIN, Chief Judge, and WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Bernard Ray Richardson, Appellant Pro Se. Susan Campbell Alexander, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* In light of this disposition, Richardson's motions for discovery and for appointment of counsel are hereby denied. 2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's orders denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinions and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Richardson v. Wheeler , No. CA-93-872-R (W.D. Va. July 10, 1995; Oct. 7, 1994). We dispense with oral argument because thefacts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. *

AFFIRMED
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 Homeland Security

###### Federal Emergency Management Agency 

          - [FEMA-1771-DR] 

# AGENCY:

Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS. 

# ACTION:

Notice. 

# SUMMARY:

This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Illinois (FEMA-1771-DR), dated June 24, 2008, and related determinations. 

# DATES:

*Effective Date:*                         July 30, 2008.                     

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Peggy Miller, Disaster Assistance Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-3886. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Illinois is hereby amended to include the following area among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the catastrophe declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of June 24, 2008. 

Greene County for Public Assistance. 

The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidential Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidential Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidential Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.)

R. David Paulison, 

Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.

[FR Doc. E8-18437 Filed 8-8-08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110-10-P
#### LIBERTY SHOP, Limited, v. COLSTON.

No. 14274.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Orleans.

June 27, 1932.

Arthur B. Leopold, of New Orleans, for appellant. ■ :

L. R. Wertheimer, of New Orleans, for ap-pellee.

JANVIER, J.

The Liberty Shop, Limited, obtained judgment against Mrs. Colston, and, in an effort to collect the amount thereof, provoked the issuance of a writ of fieri facias and the seizure under that writ of a judgment rendered in favor of plaintiff in a suit entitled Robert Haynes Tarrant, Inc., v. Mr. & Mrs. H. S. Holden (La. App.) 141 So. 100. Thereupon the corporation, Robert Haynes Tarrant, Inc., by affidavit, claimed to be the owner of the said judgment against Mr. and Mrs. Holden, and sought to have the seizure thereof released.

The Liberty Shop, Limited, then proceeded to traverse the said affidavit, and by rule nisi called upon all parties to show cause why the said judgment nominally in favor of Robert Haynes Tarrant, Inc., should not be declared to be the property of Mrs. Colston and, as such, subject to the payment of the judgment which the Liberty Shop was attempting to satisfy.

On the said rule, judgment.was rendered in favor of the Liberty Shop, Limited, and from that judgment Mrs. Colston has appealed.

Liberty Shop, Limited, now moves to dismiss the appeal contending that Mrs. Colston has no interest in the matter, since she claims to have assigned all of her. interest in the property seized to Robert Haynes Tarrant, Inc. Mover thus asserts that in any event Mrs. Colston, appellant, cannot benefit by a reversal of the judgment below; the argument being that if the judgment is reversed then the judgment against Mr. and Mrs. Holden will be the property of Robert Haynes Tarrant, Inc., whereas if it is not reversed the judgment will be subjected to the claim of Liberty Shop, Limited, and in neither event will Mrs. Colston be interested therein. But this argument overlooks the fact that Mrs. Colston contends that the assignment by her of the claim against Mr. and Mrs. Holden to Robert Haynes Tarrant, Inc., was made in *116payment of a claim which that corporation had against her, and it may well be that she is more interested in satisfying that claim than in paying the judgment of the Liberty Shop. What her reasons may be are immaterial at this time. Her desire to pay the one rather than the other gives her an appealable interest in the matter in controversy. It is true that in no event can she later on claim to be the owner of the judgment against Mr. and Mrs. Holden, but she is certainly interested in seeing that her assignment of her right to that claim be made effective. She therefore has an appealable interest.

The motion to dismiss the appeal is denied.

Motion to dismiss denied.
#### Ex Parte Marion Milina

No. 25614.

December 12, 1951.

*Harris Toler,*Austin, for relator.

*George P. Blackburn,*State’s Attorney, Austin, for the state.

MORRISON, Judge.

This is a proceeding brought by an inmate of the penitentiary seeking his release on the ground that the judgment authorizing his confinement is void.

The record reflects that relator was, on April 26, 1946, in Cause No. 25,571, convicted of the offense of Attempt to Commit Burglary in the district court of Galveston County and given a five-year suspended sentence. On January 17, 1947, the suspension in the above cause was set aside, relator having been convicted of another offense in that court on that day, and he was sentenced in the above cause to serve not less than two nor more than five years. This sentence was made cumulative with a two-year sentence imposed in Cause No. 25,635, in the same court on the same day.

*512Relator claims that, since the maximum punishment for the offense of Attempt to Commit Burglary, charged in Cause No. 25,571, is four years, the judgment set forth above is void; and that he, having served the sentence in Cause No. 25,635, is entitled to be released.

In Ex parte Erwin, 145 Tex. Cr. R. 504, 170 S. W. (2d) 226, we had occasion to rule on the identical question. There, we held that one confined by means of an excessive maximum verdict can only be allowed to invoke the writ of habeas corpus after he had served the minimum portion of his sentence.

Since relator has not served the minimum time required by both sentences, the relief prayed for is denied.
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. PD-0228-15

ALAN OMAR RODRIGUEZ, Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

ON APPELLANT’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

FROM THE FIRST COURT OF APPEALS

HARRIS COUNTY

Per curiam. Keasler, and Hervey, JJ., dissent.

O R D E R

The petition for discretionary review violates Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.3(b)(1)

and 68.4(j) because the original petition is not accompanied by 11 copies and the petition

does not contain a copy of the opinion of the court of appeals.

The petition is struck. See Rule of Appellate Procedure 68.6.

The petitioner may redraw the petition. The redrawn petition and copies must be filed

in the Court of Criminal Appeals within thirty days after the date of this Order.

Filed: April 29, 2015

Do Not Publish
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 ofFLM Minerals Inc.(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended May 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date here of (the "report"), I, George Heard, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

|1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and                                
|-- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|  
|2. | The information contained in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|  

Dated this 16thday of July, 2007.

GEORGE HEARDGeorge HeardChief Executive Officer



























---
#### Jacque C. MORRELL, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. Edwin F. NELSON, Petitioner, v. SAME. Frank J. MACK, Petitioner, v. SAME. Bernard G. LENSKE, Petitioner, v. SAME. E. M. MATSON, Petitioner, v. SAME. George A. BOCKMAN, Petitioner, v. SAME. Macauley CARTER, Petitioner, v. SAME. Donald J. BERGMAN, Petitioner, v. SAME. James v. WILLETT, Petitioner, v. SAME. Maurice S. BEYT, Petitioner, v. SAME. Jean DELATTRE-SEQUY, Petitioner, v. SAME. Lyman C. HUFF, Petitioner, v. SAME.

Nos. 6478-6489.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

Dec. 11, 1937.

Arthur M. Cox, of Chicago, Ill., for petitioners.

James W. Morris, Department of Justice, and James P. Wenchel, Bureau of Internal Revenue, both of Washington, D. G, for respondent.

Before EVANS, SPARKS, and MAJOR, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

On motion of counsel" for petitioners, counsel for respondent not objecting thereto, and on consideration of the certificate of the clerk of the United States Board of Tax Appeals, it is ordered that these causes be docketed in this court.

It is further ordered and adjudged by this court that the decision entered in these causes on April 30, 1936, by the United States Board of Tax Appeals be, *1011and the same are hereby, reversed, and that these causes be, arid the same are hereby, remanded to the United States Board of Tax Appeals.
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 Defense

###### Office of the Secretary

          - [Transmittal Nos. 08-91]

# AGENCY:

Department of Defense, Defense Security Cooperation Agency.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text of a section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification. This is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated 21 July 1996.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ms. B. English, DSCA/DBO/CFM, (703) 601-3740.

The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Transmittals 08-91 with attached transmittal, and policy justification.

Dated: August 5, 2008.

Patricia L. Toppings,

OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.

      ( print page 47923)          ( print page 47924)          ( print page 47925)          ( print page 47926)    

BILLING CODE 5001-06-M

[FR Doc. E8-18652 Filed 8-14-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5001-06-C
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-6578

In Re: ALFRED F. WORLEY,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-00-13-1-MU)

Submitted: May 31, 2001 Decided: June 11, 2001

Before WILKINS, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Alfred F. Worley, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Alfred F. Worley petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging

undue delay by the district court in ruling on his pending 28

U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 2000) petition and asking that

this court rule on the petition. A writ of mandamus is a drastic

remedy and should be granted only in those extraordinary situations

when no other remedy is available. See In re: Beard, 811 F.2d 818,

826 (4th Cir. 1987). We recently vacated the district court’s

original decision denying Worley’s § 2254 petition and remanded for

further proceedings. Worley v. O’Dell, No. 00-6381 (4th Cir. Mar.

15, 2001) (unpublished). The district court must be afforded a

reasonable amount of time to comply with our remand instructions.

We find that there has been no undue delay, and Worley is not entitled to the relief he seeks. Accordingly, although we grant

Worley’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny

mandamus relief. We dispense with oral argument because the facts

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials

before the court and argument wold not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.15



                                      2000
                           CERTIFICATE OF REINSURANCE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                    FOR THE

                            AGREEMENT OF REINSURANCE

                                  BETWEEN THE

                 WORKERS' COMPENSATION REINSURANCE ASSOCIATION

                                      AND



                    AMERICAN COMPENSATION INSURANCE COMPANY














January 1, 2000-December 31, 2000                     Retention Limit: $310,000




This certifies that the entity named above is a Member of the Workers'
Compensation Reinsurance Association (Association) as of the date indicated
below, and that the Association reinsures the Member's liability for benefits
pursuant to Minn. Stat. Ch. 176 in excess of the Member's retention limit for
the period indicated above.  This certificate shall not be valid for any portion
of the indicated period during which the entity is not a Member of the
Association.



                                           Workers' Compensation
                                           Reinsurance Association



                                           /s/ Jay Y. Benanav
                                           ------------------------
                                           Jay Y. Benanav
                                           President and Chief Executive Officer
                                           Dated January 10, 2000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

         WCRA, 445 Minnesota Street, Suite 600 St. Paul, MN 55101-2125 Phone:
(651) 293-0999 Fax: (651) 229-1848, E-mail: wcra@wcra-mn.com, Website:
www.wcra-mn.com
18444.

#### HIERS *v.*STRIPLIN *et al.*

Argued January 12, 1954

Decided January 15, 1954.

*294
      *P. Q. Bryan,*for plaintiff in error.

*Iloyt II. Whelchel, Iloyt II. Whelchel, Jr.,*contra.

Worrill, Justice.

“Where property is set apart as a year’s support for the benefit of the widow alone, she shall thereafter own the same in fee, without restriction as to use, encumbrance or disposition.” Ga. L. 1937, p. 861; Code (Ann. Supp.) § 113-1023. Title to property so set apart to the widow alone vests absolutely in her (Code § 113-1006; *Smith*v. *Smith,*187 *Ga.*743, 745, 2 S. E. 2d 417), and her right to a year’s support survives her death. *Smith*v. *Sanders,*208 *Ga.*405 (67 S. E. 2d 229).

Counsel for the plaintiff in error recognizes the above principles, but insists that a.widow can not devise her unconsumed portion of a year’s support, because the whole theory of the statute is based on the Biblical injunction to protect the widow while in life; and that after her death the general laws of descent and distribution should take effect as to any unconsumed portion thereof. *Walden*v. *Walden,*191 *Ga.*182 (12 S. E. 2d 345), cited and relied on by both sides, involved property that was set aside to a widow and one minor child. The child became of age, and thereafter the widow died leaving a will wherein she undertook to devise the property to another son. This court properly held that the widow could not give to another by will the former minor’s interest in the property. However, as pointed out in that decision, the property did not revert to the estate of the deceased husband, and the language used on p. 192, that “we reach the view, under the authorities, that when all of the beneficiaries of a year’s support cease to exist as such, any of the property set apart which may be unconsumed belongs to them or their heirs in common,” does not require a finding, as contended, that, where property is set apart as a year’s support for the benefit of *295the widow alone, she can not make a testamentary disposition thereof.

It follows that a widow in the above circumstances can devise property set apart for her benefit alone. Accordingly, the petition of a child, who was sui juris at the time the property was set apart, seeking to recover an interest as an heir at law, failed to set forth a cause of action, and the trial judge did not err in dismissing the action on general demurrer. See Redfearn on Wills (Rev. ed.) 528, § 292; 21 Am. Jur. 561, § 317.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur, except Duck-worth, C. J., not participating.*