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

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

        In connection with the Annual Report on Form10-K/A of Webco Industries, Inc. (the "Company")for the year ended July 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission onthe date hereof (the "Report"), I, F. William Weber, Chief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer) of the Company, certify as of the date hereof, pursuant to18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, that, based on my knowledge:        1. The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and         2. The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company.        This certification is deemed to accompany thisAnnual Report on Form 10-K/A, but is not deemed"filed" for purpose of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, asamended, or otherwise.

Date: March 4, 2004 

/s/ F. William Weber F. William Weber Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)
<PAGE>
                                                                      EXHIBIT 12

PG&E GAS TRANSMISSION, NORTHWEST CORPORATION
SEC FILING - FORM 10-Q - First Quarter 2000
EXHIBIT 12 - RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES


                                                  For the Three Months Ended
                                              ----------------------------------
Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges                2000                   1999
----------------------------------            -----------             ----------

Earnings
  Net income                                      13.6                   13.1
Adjustments:
  Income taxes                                     8.6                    8.1
  Fixed charges (as below)                        10.6                   10.6
                                              -----------             ----------
    Total adjusted earnings                       32.8                   31.8
                                              ===========             ==========



Fixed charges:
  Net interest expense                            10.4                   10.2
Adjustments:
  Interest component of rents                      0.0                    0.0
  AFUDC debt                                       0.2                    0.4
                                              -----------             ----------
    Total fixed charges                           10.6                   10.6
                                              ===========             ==========


Ratio of earnings to fixed charges                 3.1                    3.0
                                              ===========             ==========
Exhibit
32.2




CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18
U.S.C. Section 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Printing Components Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date here of (the "report"), I, Vinod Gandhi,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:




(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 15th day of May, 2009.




VINOD GANDHI
                  Vinod
      Gandhi
                  Chief
      Financial Officer
#### J. L. BEVACQUA, Plaintiff and Appellant, *v.*BURLINGTON NORTHERN, INC., a corporation, Defendant and Respondent.

No. 14187.

Submitted Jan. 30, 1979.

Decided Aug. 15, 1979.

598 P.2d 1124.

Hoyt & Lewis, John C. Hoyt, argued, Great Falls, for plaintiff and appellant.

Kurt W. Kroschel, argued, Billings, for defendant and respondent.

MR. JUSTICE SHEA

delivered the opinion of the Court.

Plaintiff appeals from an order of the Cascade County District Court dismissing his complaint without prejudice on the ground that suit was brought in an inconvenient forum.

*238Plaintiff Bevacqua is a resident of Spokane, Washington, and has been employed by the defendant railroad since 1947. Defendant railroad as a Minnesota Corporation doing business as a common carrier in Montana and throughout the Northwest. Plaintiff alleges that while operating a “road switcher” at defendant’s Hauser Yard in Idaho, he severely injured his back in attempting to turn the main air reservoir shut-off valve of the train’s braking system. He was treated for back injury by a chiropractor and two medical doctors all of whom reside in Spokane, Washington.

Plaintiff brought suit for personal injuries in Cascade County District Court under the Federal Employer’s Liability Act (FELA), 45 U.S.C. § 51, et seq., and other federal statutes. Defendant railroad promptly moved to dismiss on the ground of *forum non conveniens.*Based on the parties’ affidavits and supporting memoranda, the District Court granted the railroad’s motion to dismiss under the doctrine of *forum non conveniens*“due to the fact that the incident occured [sic] in Idaho and most of the witnesses including the plaintiff live in Spokane, Washington.”

The issue on appeal is whether the District Court erred in dismissing this FELA suit under the doctrine of *forum non conveniens.*

Our decision in this case is controlled by *Labella v. Burlington Northern*(1979), 182 Mont. 202, 595 P.2d 1184. The doctrine of *forum non conveniens*must be tempered with the open door policy as stated in *Labella,*and there is presently no reason that causes us to apply it to FELA actions, as there has been no demonstrated abuse.

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE HASWELL, JUSTICES HARRISON and SHEEHY, J.J., and JOSEPH B. GARY, sitting in for Mr. Justice Daly, District Judge, concur.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 December 23, 2019

b1216

Order 

Clerk

December 23, 2019

158584

In re ESTATE OF ROBERT BERRY BULLOCK.

__________________________________________

GWENDOLYN MOORE, Co-Personal 

Representative of the ESTATE OF ROBERT

BERRY BULLOCK,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 158584

COA: 338635

Wayne PC: 2017-824534-CZ

JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., a/k/a

JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.,

Defendant-Appellee.

__________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 21, 2018 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 61 

To amend chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, to provide for en bloc 

consideration in resolutions of disapproval for ‘‘midnight rules’’, and 

for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 4, 2021 

Mr. BIGGS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Rules, for a period 

to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee 

concerned 

A BILL 

To amend chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, to provide 

for en bloc consideration in resolutions of disapproval 

for ‘‘midnight rules’’, and for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Midnight Rules Relief 

5 Act of 2021’’. 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 61 IH

1 SEC. 2. EN BLOC CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTIONS OF 

2 DISAPPROVAL PERTAINING TO ‘‘MIDNIGHT 

3 RULES’’. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 801(d) of title 5, United 

5 States Code, is amended by adding at the end the fol6 lowing: 

7 ‘‘(4) In applying section 802 to rules described under 

8 paragraph (1), a joint resolution of disapproval may con9 tain one or more such rules if the report under subsection 

10 (a)(1)(A) for each such rule was submitted during the 

11 final year of a President’s term.’’. 

12 (b) TEXT OF RESOLVING CLAUSE.—Section 802(a) 

13 of title 5, United States Code, is amended— 

14 (1) by inserting after ‘‘resolving clause of which 

15 is’’ the following: ‘‘(except as otherwise provided in 

16 this subsection)’’; and 

17 (2) by adding at the end the following: ‘‘In the 

18 case of a joint resolution under section 801(d)(4), 

19 the matter after the resolving clause of such resolu20 tion shall be as follows: ‘That Congress disapproves 

21 the following rules: the rule submitted by the ll 

22 relating to ll; and the rule submitted by the ll 

23 relating to ll. Such rules shall have no force or 

24 effect.’ (The blank spaces being appropriately filled 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 61 IH

1 in and additional clauses describing additional rules 

2 to be included as necessary)’’. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
**Exhibit 32.1****CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO****18 U.S.C. ss. 1350****AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, the undersigned President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company certifies that, to hisknowledge:1. The Company’s Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2006 (the “Report”) fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;and2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Company.                                                   /s/ David Weissberg, M.D.   David Weissberg, M.D.   Chairman and Chief ExecutiveOfficer Dated:  August 21, 2006
EXHIBIT 32.1
 
 CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO
 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 In connection with the Quarterly Report of Medite Cancer Diagnostics, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2016 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Michaela Ott, as 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 the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.
 
 By:
/s/ Michaela Ott
Dated:
September 2, 2016Michaela OttTitle:
Chief Executive Officer

(Principal Executive Officer)
 
 This certification is being furnished to the SEC as an exhibit to the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
 
 A signed copy of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided by the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Henry Kraus v. Joseph Johnson, Jr.

Motion granted, with ten dollars

costs.
#### Francis Elmore Kirnan, by Charles A. Burke, His Guardian ad Litem, Appellant, v. The New York and Ottawa Railway Company, Respondent.

Judgment and order unanimously affirmed.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-21268 Summary Calendar

ELZIA ALLEN RICHARDSON, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus ONE BLACK FEMALE CORRECTIONAL OFFICER; MIKE LIGHTSEY, Defendants-Appellees.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-00-CV-4181

-------------------- March 20, 2003 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Elzia Allen Richardson, Texas inmate # 522518, filed a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that an unknown and unnamed defendant had unreasonably interfered with his right to visitation with his family and that defendant Mike Lightsey retaliated against him for filing a grievance against the unnamed defendant by refusing to process his grievance forms.No. 01-21268 -2- Richardson appeals the district court’s dismissal with prejudice of his complaint. Richardson “has no constitutional right to visitation privileges.” Berry v. Brady , 192 F.3d 504, 508 (5th Cir. 1999). Thus, Richardson’s contentions, that he has a liberty interest in visitation privileges, that the prison policies on visitation created a liberty interest, and that prison officials’ failure to follow TDCJ policies, do not present constitutional issues and do not state cognizable claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Doe v. Rains County Indep. Sch. Dist. , 66 F.3d 1402, 1406 (5th Cir. 1995). The district court properly dismissed Richardson’s claim against the unnamed defendant pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) (2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim. After conducting a de novo review, we conclude that there was no error in the district court’s summary judgment dismissal of Richardson’s claims against Lightsey. Richardson’s claim that Lightsey denied him access to the courts by denying him access to the grievance process fails, as a matter of law, because Richardson has neither alleged nor shown that his position as a litigant was prejudiced. See Walker v. Navarro County Jail , 4 F.3d 410, 413 (5th Cir. 1993). Richardson’s retaliation claim also fails, as a matter of law, for two reasons. First, it fails because Richardson failed to state a claim of the violation of a specific constitutional right, in this case the right of access to the courts. See Tighe v. Wall , 100 F.3d 41, 42 (5th Cir.No. 01-21268 -3- 1996). Second, it fails because Richardson’s bald allegations of a conspiracy between Lightsey and Richardson are not sufficient to allege a retaliatory motive on Lightsey’s part. See id. By failing to argue on appeal the propriety of the district court’s finding that the defendants, to the extent that they were sued in their official capacities, are entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity, Richardson has abandoned that issue.
See Yohey v. Collins , 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993). The judgment of the district court dismissing Richardson’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint with prejudice is AFFIRMED.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-6658

RICHARD T. THARPE, a/k/a Richard Terry Tharp,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

NORFOLK COMMUNITY HOSPITAL; MRS. WATSON,

Supervisor; DENTAL DEPARTMENT, Norfolk City

Jail; SHERIFF, Norfolk City Jail,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge.

(CA-96-133)

Submitted: September 5, 1996 Decided: September 17, 1996

Before WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Richard T. Tharpe, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's order dismissing his 42

U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. Appellant's case was referred to a

magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (1988). The

magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Appellant that failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based

upon the recommendation. Despite this warning, Appellant failed to

object to the magistrate judge's recommendation.

The timely filing of objections to a magistrate judge's

recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the

substance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned

that failure to object will waive appellate review. Wright v.

Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985). See generally Thomas

v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Appellant has waived appellate review

by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice.

Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss

the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before

the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                      16,458,654
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                5,794,814
<ALLOWANCES>                                   316,000
<INVENTORY>                                  2,266,234
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            25,237,962
<PP&E>                                       9,451,238
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,592,353
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              41,089,452
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       15,374,498
<BONDS>                                      5,895,701
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                        1,753,928
<PREFERRED>                                          5
<COMMON>                                         5,975
<OTHER-SE>                                  12,079,294
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                41,089,452
<SALES>                                     14,066,630
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            19,062,788
<CGS>                                       10,958,024
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               17,160,976
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             8,592,137
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          11,561,276
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (28,577,642)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (28,577,642)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                              (28,577,642)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (6.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (6.00)


</TABLE>
#### Anthony W DOUGLAS, Regina C Douglas, Plaintiffs—Appellants, v. CITY OF BATON ROUGE, Parish of East Baton Rouge, Dept of Public Works, for the Parish of East Baton Rouge, Fred Raiford, Director of Department of Public Works, Gerald Boykins, Irys Allgood, Defendants—Appellees.

No. 02-30846.

Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Aug. 15, 2003.

Before KING, Chief Judge, and EMILIO M. GARZA and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.*

In this civil rights case, plaintiffs challenge the district court’s orders setting aside an entry of default and denying their motion for appointment of counsel. Plaintiffs also complain of a denial of their summary judgment motion, however, no such motion was ever filed. Rather, it appears that plaintiffs are challenging the order setting aside the entry of default judgement.

We do not have jurisdiction to review the district court’s order setting aside the entry of default or its order denying plaintiffs’ motion for default judgment, First, plaintiffs’ notice of appeal did not evince an intent to appeal the denial of their motion for default judgment. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 4(a). Second, neither of these orders is a final order or an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. *See*28 U.S.C. §§ 1291, 1292; *see also Adult Film Ass’n of America, Inc. v. Thetford,*776 F.2d 113, 115 (5th Cir.1985). Accordingly, plaintiffs’ appeal from these orders are DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.

An interlocutory order denying an application for the appointment of counsel in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 case is immediately appealable. *Robbins v. Maggio,*750 F.2d 405, 409-13 (5th Cir.1985). However, a trial court is not required to appoint counsel for an indigent plaintiff in a civil rights action unless there are exceptional circumstances. *Ulmer v. Chancellor,*691 F.2d 209, 212 (5th Cir.1982). This court will not reverse the district court’s denial of such a motion unless the appellants show that the ruling constituted a clear abuse of discretion. *Cupit v. Jones,*835 F.2d 82, 86 (5th Cir.1987).

Plaintiffs have not shown that the district court’s order denying appointed counsel was a clear abuse of discretion. *Cupit,*835 F.2d at 86. The district court’s denial of their motion for appointment of counsel is therefore AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
#### Arnold *v.*The State of Ohio.

(No. 23567

Decided June 8, 1932.)

*Mr. Elmer L. Conway*and *Mr. Joseph T. Carney,*for plaintiff in error.

*Mr. C. Luther Swaim,*prosecuting attorney, for defendant in error.

It is ordered and adjudged that said petition in error be, and the same is hereby, dismissed for the reason no debatable constitutional question is involved in said cause.

*Petition in error dismissed.*

Marshall, C. J., Jones, Matthias, Day, Allen, Kinkade and Stephenson, JJ., concur.