alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 32.2**
 
 HERITAGE OAKS BANCORP
  Quarterly Report on Form 10QSB
 for the Quarter ended September 30, 2004
 
 **CERTIFICATION**
 
 Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
 
 
 The undersigned, who is the Chief Executive Officer of Heritage Oaks Bancorp (the Company), hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 USC Section 1350, that to my knowledge, (i) the Quarterly Report on Form 10QSB for the quarter ended September 30, 2004, as filed by the Company with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Quarterly Report), to which this Certification is an Exhibit, fully complies with the applicable requirements of Section 13(a) and 15(d) of the Exchange Act; and (ii) the information contained in this Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 
 ****Date: October 19, 2004
By:
/s/ Margaret A. TorresMargaret A. TorresExecutive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Heritage Oaks Bancorp, and will be retained by Heritage Oaks Bancorp and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-7642
TIMOTHY MAURICE VALENTINE, Petitioner - Appellant, versus THOMAS R. CORCORAN, Warden; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND, Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District ofMaryland, at Greenbelt. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (CA96-760-CCB) Submitted: February 13, 1997 Decided: February 27, 1997 Before WIDENER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Timothy Maurice Valentine, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney Gen eral, Ann Norman Bosse, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1994), amended by Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Valentine v. Corcoran , No. CA96-760-CCB (D. Md. Sept. 4, 1996). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented inthe materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
The schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the financial
statements and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial
statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1000

<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          NOV-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAY-31-1999
<CASH>                                              62
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,139
<ALLOWANCES>                                        12
<INVENTORY>                                      1,855
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 7,367
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   7,509
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              399
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          1
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                       7,109
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     7,509
<SALES>                                          4,020
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 4,020
<CGS>                                            2,353
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    2,353
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (294)
<INCOME-TAX>                                      (146)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (148)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (148)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (.11)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.11)



</TABLE>
585 A.2d 372

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. JEFFREY GIOVANELLO.

September 18, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT

 

I,Jeff S. Potter, president and chief executive officer of Frontier Airlines, Inc.(the “Company”), certify pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Actof 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

 

(1)                                  the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of theCompany for the period ended June 30, 2005 (the “Report”) fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

 

(2)                                  the information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operationsof the Company.

 
| Dated:  August 1, 2005 | /s/  Jeff S. Potter |   |
|-----------------------------|---------------------|--------|
|                        | Jeff  S. Potter     |
|                        | President  and CEO  |

 

----
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 194 (Thursday, October 7, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 62097]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-25473]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

BROADCASTING BOARD OF GOVERNORS


Sunshine Act Meeting

Date and Time: Wednesday, October 13, 2010, 9:30 a.m. (local time), 
3:30 a.m. (EDT).

Place: Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty Headquarters, Editorial Room 4-
34, Vinohradska 159A, 100 00 Prague 10, Czech Republic.

Subject: Notice of Meeting of the Broadcasting Board of Governors.

Summary: The Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) will be meeting at 
the time and location listed above. The BBG will be considering Board 
By-Laws, a Calendar Year 2011 meeting schedule, Strategy and Budget 
Committee recommendations, and a Governor's trip report. The meeting is 
open to the public--but due to space limitations via Webcast only--and 
will be streamed on the BBG's Web site at http://www.bbg.gov. The 
meeting will also be made available on the BBG's Web site for on-demand 
viewing by 9:30 a.m. EDT.

Contact Person for More Information: Persons interested in obtaining 
more information should contact Paul Kollmer-Dorsey at (202) 203-4545.

Paul Kollmer-Dorsey,
Deputy General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2010-25473 Filed 10-5-10; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 8610-01-P
Order entered November 17, 2015

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**
No. 05
- 15
- 01256
- CV
IN RE PROASSURANCE INSURAN CE COMPANY, Relator Original Proceeding from the County Court at Law No. 3 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 352,923
- 401 

### O RDER Before the Court is relator’s unopposed motion to schedule a filing date for its reply brief, in which relator requests that the Court permit relator to file a reply brief on or before November 20, 2015. We GRANT the motion.

/s/ CR AIG STODDART JUSTICE
#### Clifton Peter BORNE and Donald Joseph Walker, Appellants, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.

No. 20459.

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.

June 5, 1964.

Rehearing Denied July 16, 1964.

*566Dean A. Andrews, Jr., James T. Davis, Marcel J. Meunier, Jr., New Orleans, La., for appellants.

Peter E. Duffy, John C. Ciolino, Asst. U. S. Attys., Louis C. LaCour, U. S. Atty., New Orleans, La., for appellee.

Before CAMERON* WISDOM and GEWIN, Circuit Judges.

*

**Judge Cameron participated in the hearing and decision of this cause but died before the opinion was filed. See 28 U.S. C.A. § 46.

PER CURIAM:

Appellants were convicted for unlawfully selling a quantity of marihuana cigarettes in violation of 21 U.S.C.A. § 176a and 26 U.S.C.A. § 4742(a). The case was tried by a jury. Appellant Borne contends that the statutory presumption 1 *embodied in 21 U.S.C.A. § 176a violates his constitutional rights. Appellant Walker contends that his conviction is invalid by reason of entrapment.

 After a careful consideration, of the entire record, we find to the contrary. The constitutionality of the presumption contained in 21 U.S.C.A. § 176a, relating specifically to the importation,, possession and sale of narcotic drugs, has-been consistently upheld. Manning v. United States, 5 Cir., 1960, 274 F.2d 926. A legislative presumption of one fact, from evidence of another does not constitute a denial of due process of law when there is some rational connection between the fact proved and the ultimate-fact presumed. Barrett v. United States,. 5 Cir., 1963, 322 F.2d 292.

 The undisputed testimony contained in the record disclosed that it was appellant Walker who initiated the proposal to sell marihuana to Agent Robinson on their first meeting, and it was he who was the principal figure in bringing appellant Borne into negotiations for the subsequent sale of marihuana. When the actions of government agents “merely afford opportunities or facilities for the commission of the offense” there has been no entrapment. Sorrells v. United States, (1932) 287 U.S. 435, 53 S.Ct. 210, 77 L.Ed. 413. Such were the facts in this case. Therefore, the convictions are affirmed.

It should be observed that Judge Cameron participated in the hearing and decision of this cause but died before the opinion was filed. See 28 U.S.C.A. § 46.

1

. A presumjrtion that links possession to smuggling. 21 U.S.C.A. § 176a:

> “Smuggling of marihuana; penalties; evidence; definition of marihuana. * * *

> “Whenever on trial for a violation of this subsection, the defendant is shown to have or to have had the marihuana in his possession, such possession shall be deemed sufficient evidence to authorize conviction unless the defendant explains his possession to the satisfaction of the jury.” (Only the pertinent portion of the Section is quoted.)
#### W. M. Gwin *v.*W. P. Stone.

JANUARY TERM, 1844.

A bill may be taken for confessed, even though the exhibits to the bill are not filed.

In this case the bill had- been filed without its exhibits ; on the return of process “ *executed,”*the complainant took *the bill*for confessed, and a motion was made to set aside the *pro*confesso, upon affidavit.

Judge Thompson, however, desirous of settling a point of practice, inquired whether a party complainant-has a right to take a *pro confesso*before the exhibits to his bill are filed ?

By the Chancellor.

I can have no doubt of it; the exhibits are matters entirely of evidence : they come properly for the consideration of the Court at the final hearing, and have no connection with the taking of the *pro confesso.*That can always be taken, upon service of process, or *the*appearance of the party, in the mode prescribed by law.
**Exhibit31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Robert B. Goergen,Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Blyth, Inc., certify that:

 

1.                 I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form10-Q of Blyth, Inc.;

 

2.                 Based on my knowledge, this report does notcontain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;

 

3.                 Based on my knowledge, the financialstatements, and other financial information included in this report, fairlypresent in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

 

4.                The registrant’s other certifying officer(s)and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for theregistrant and have:

 

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, toensure that material information relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

 

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controlsand procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of theperiod covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

 

(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s mostrecent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of anannual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting;and

 

5.                 The registrant’s other certifying officer(s)and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal controlover financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committeeof the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):

 

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the designor operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonablylikely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarizeand report financial information; and

 

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting.

 

 

Date: December 16, 2004

 

 
| /s/ Robert  B. Goergen               |   |
|--------------------------------------|--------|
| Robert B. Goergen                    |
| Chairman and Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
#### Willie James WILLIAMS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Karen ROHLING; Attorney General of Kansas, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 00-3353.

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

Jan. 2, 2001.

Before BRORBY, KELLY, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

MURPHY, Circuit Judge.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. *See*Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir.R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

Proceeding *pro se,*petitioner Willie James Williams seeks a certificate of appealability (“COA”) to enable him to appeal the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. *See*28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (providing that no appeal may be taken from the denial of a § 2254 petition unless the petitioner first obtains a COA). Williams is not entitled to a COA unless he can make a “substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” *Id.*§ 2253(c)(2). Williams can make this showing by demonstrating that the issues raised are debatable among jurists, a court *762could resolve the issues differently, or that the questions presented deserve further proceedings. *See Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 1603-04, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000).

In his § 2254 petition, Williams challenged the decision by a state Joint Committee on Special Claims denying his claims for damages in the amounts of $999,000,000 and $100,000,000,000. Williams’ claims involved allegations that state prison officials lost his legal papers. Although the district court acknowledged that Williams had failed to exhaust his state remedies, the court concluded that Williams’ petition failed to allege any violation of federal law that is properly brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and dismissed the petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(2).

This court has reviewed Williams’ request for a COA and accompanying brief and has conducted a *de novo*review of the district court’s order and the entire record on appeal. On appeal, Williams has failed to identified any error in the district court’s analysis, and this court finds none. Accordingly, this court denies Williams’ request for a COA for substantially those reasons set forth in the district court’s order dated October 30, 2000, and dismisses this appeal.

*

 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir.R. 36.3.
I 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 934 

To reduce prescription drug costs by allowing the importation and 

reimportation of certain drugs. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 7, 2017 

Mr. ELLISON (for himself and Mr. ROHRABACHER) introduced the following 

bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To reduce prescription drug costs by allowing the importation 

and reimportation of certain drugs. 

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 ‘‘Personal Drug Impor5 tation Fairness Act of 2017’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REDUCING PRESCRIPTION DRUG COSTS BY ALLOW7 ING CERTAIN DRUGS TO BE IMPORTED OR 

8 REIMPORTED. 

9 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any provision of 

10 the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 301 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 934 IH

1 et seq.), a drug may be imported into the United States, 

2 and may be reimported into the United States by a person 

3 other than the drug’s manufacturer, if the drug— 

4 (1) has the same active ingredients, route of ad5 ministration, and strength as a prescription drug ap6 proved under chapter V of such Act (21 U.S.C. 351 

7 et seq.); 

8 (2) may be lawfully marketed in, and is im9 ported or reimported from, a qualified country; 

10 (3) is dispensed by a licensed pharmacist; 

11 (4) is shipped directly to, or is imported by, the 

12 ultimate consumer from the qualified country; 

13 (5) is shipped or imported in quantities that do 

14 not exceed a 90-day supply; and 

15 (6) is accompanied by a copy of a valid pre16 scription. 

17 (b) DEFINITIONS.—In this Act: 

18 (1) The term ‘‘drug’’ has the meaning given to 

19 such term in section 201 of the Federal Food, Drug, 

20 and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 321), except that such 

21 term excludes any controlled substance (as defined 

22 in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 

23 U.S.C. 802)). 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 934 IH

1 (2) The term ‘‘prescription drug’’ means a drug 

2 subject to section 503(b)(1) of the Federal Food, 

3 Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 353(b)(1)). 

4 (3) The term ‘‘qualified country’’ means a 

5 country that— 

6 (A) is Australia, Canada, Israel, Japan, 

7 New Zealand, Switzerland, South Africa, a 

8 member-state of the European Union, or a 

9 country in the European Economic Area; and 

10 (B) is determined by the Commissioner of 

11 Food and Drugs to have standards for ensuring 

12 the safety and effectiveness of drugs that are at 

13 least as protective as such standards in the 

14 United States. 

Æ 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
THI RD DI VI SI ON BA RNES, P. J. , BOGGS and BRA NCH, JJ.

N O T IC E : M otions for r e c ons i de r a tion m us t be ph y sic a l ly r e ce iv ed i n our c le r k ’s offic e w ithin te n da y s of the da te of de c is ion to be de e m ed tim e ly file d.

http://w w w .ga a ppe a l s .us /r ule s Septem ber 28, 2016



# I n th e Co u r t o f

A p p eals o f

G eo r g ia

A1 4 A1 68 2 . KELLEY v . THE STATE.

B O G G S , J u d g e.

In S t a te v. Kel l ey , 2 9 8 Ga. 5 2 7 (7 83 SE2 d 1 2 4 ) (2 0 16 ), t h e Geo rg i a Su p rem e
C o u r t rev ers ed o u r o p i n i o n i n Kel l ey v. St a t e , 3 3 1 Ga. Ap p

. 7 5 8 (7 71 SE2 d 4 4 1 ) (2 0 1 5). W e t h erefo re v acat e o u r p ri o r o pi n i on an d ad o p t t h e o p i n i o n o f t h e Geo rg i a
Su p rem e Co u rtas o u r o wn

. Ju d g men t a f f i r m ed . Ba r nes , P. J. a n d

Br a nch , J., co n cu r
.
**Exhibit 99.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANTTO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report ofBlyth, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending April 30, 2003 asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the“Report”), I, Robert H. Barghaus, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer ofthe Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)           TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)           Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.

 
|   | /s/ Robert H. Barghaus                     |   |
|--------|--------------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Robert H. Barghaus                         |
|   | Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |
|   | June 16, 2003                              |

 

Thiscertification is made solely for the purpose of 18 U.S.C. § 1350, subject tothe knowledge standard contained therein, and not for any other purpose.

 

----
I 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 888 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to improve dependency and indemnity 

compensation for survivors of certain totally disabled veterans. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 6, 2017 

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

on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to improve dependency and indemnity compensation for survivors of certain 

totally disabled veterans. 

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

3 SECTION 1. AUTOMATIC ENROLLMENT FOR DEPENDENCY 

4 AND INDEMNITY COMPENSATION FOR SUR5 VIVORS OF CERTAIN TOTALLY DISABLED 

6 VETERANS. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1318(a) of title 38, 

8 United States Code, is amended— 

9 (1) by striking ‘‘The Secretary’’ and inserting 

10 ‘‘(1) The Secretary’’; and 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 888 IH

1 (2) by adding at the end the following new 

2 paragraph: 

3 ‘‘(2) In carrying out paragraph (1), the Secretary 

4 shall treat a notification of the death of a veteran de5 scribed in subsection (b) as a claim by the surviving 

6 spouse and children of the deceased veteran for benefits 

7 under this chapter. The Secretary may not require that 

8 such spouse and children file a claim for such benefits.’’. 

9 (b) APPLICATION.—The amendments made by this 

10 section shall apply with respect to deaths of veterans oc11 curring on or after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with BILLS