alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**EXHIBIT32**

 

**WARRENRESOURCES, INC.**

 

**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 Warren Resources, Inc. (the“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2003 as filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),I, Norman F. Swanton, Chairman of the Board and Chief ExecutiveOfficer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adoptedpursuant 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 the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

 

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

 
| /s/ Norman F. Swanton                                    |   |
|----------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Norman F. Swanton                                        |
| ***Chairman of the Board  And Chief Executive Officer*** |
|                                                     |

 

November 6, 2003

 

A signed original of this original statement required by Section 906has been provided to Warren Resources, Inc., and will be retained by WarrenResources, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or itsstaff upon request.

 

1

----

 

**WARRENRESOURCES, INC.**

 

**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 Warren Resources, Inc. (the“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2003 as filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),I, Timothy A. Larkin, Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officerand Principal Accounting Officer of the Company, 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 the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

 

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

 
| /s/ Timothy A. Larkin                                                                   |   |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Timothy A. Larkin                                                                       |
| ***Senior Vice President,  Chief Financial Officer  And Principal Accounting Officer*** |

 

November 6, 2003

 

A signed original of this original statement required by Section 906has been provided to Warren Resources, Inc., and will be retained by WarrenResources, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or itsstaff upon request.

 

2

----
#### IN THE MATTER OF THE SUSPENSION OR REVOCATION OF THE LICENSE OF: JERROLD I. KOENIG, D.D.S.

May 30, 1978.

Petition for certification denied.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

_______________________________

ANTHONY KENNEY,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

LABOR FINDERS, INC., and Manager, 

Ryan McDaniel,

 Defendant - Appellee.

No. 10-5052

(D.C. No. 4:10-CV-00194-CVE-PJC)

(N.D. Okla.)

_______________________________

ORDER

_______________________________

The captioned appeal is dismissed for lack of prosecution pursuant to 10th Cir. R. 

42.1.

A copy of this order shall stand as and for the mandate of this court.

Entered for the Court,

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

August 9, 2010

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 10-5052 Document: 01018474152 Date Filed: 08/09/2010 Page: 1
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 212 (Wednesday, November 3, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 67752]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-27743]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following 
meetings.
    The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis 
Panel, Small Business: Devices and Detection Systems.
    Date: November 17-18, 2010.
    Time: 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: The Allerton Hotel, 701 North Michigan Avenue, Chicago, 
IL 60611.
    Contact Person: Ross D Shonat, PhD, Scientific Review Officer, 
Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 
Rockledge Drive, Room 6172, MSC 7892, Bethesda, MD 20892. 301-435-
2786. <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#9ae8f5e9e9b4e9f2f5f4fbeedaf4f3f2b4f2f2e9b4fdf5ec"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="f785988484d9849f98999683b7999e9fd99f9f84d9909881">[email protected]</span></a>.
    This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the 
meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and 
funding cycle.

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis 
Panel, Member Conflicts: Voice and Speech.
    Date: November 22, 2010.
    Time: 1 p.m. to 2:30 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, 
Bethesda, MD 20892. (Telephone Conference Call.)
    Contact Person: Weijia Ni, PhD, Scientific Review Officer, 
Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 
Rockledge Drive, Room 3184, MSC 7848, Bethesda, MD 20892. (301) 237-
9918. <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#b0ded9c7f0d3c3c29eded9d89ed7dfc6"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="1e7077695e7d6d6c3070777630797168">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.306, 
Comparative Medicine; 93.333, Clinical Research, 93.306, 93.333, 
93.337, 93.393-93.396, 93.837-93.844, 93.846-93.878, 93.892, 93.893, 
National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: October 28, 2010.
Jennifer S. Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2010-27743 Filed 11-2-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
II 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1994

To amend part D of title XVIII of the Social Security Act to strike the 

language that prohibits the Secretary of Health and Human Services 

from negotiating prices for prescription drugs furnished under the Medicare program. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

DECEMBER 9, 2003

Mr. DASCHLE (for Mr. FEINGOLD) introduced the following bill; which was 

read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL

To amend part D of title XVIII of the Social Security 

Act to strike the language that prohibits the Secretary 

of Health and Human Services from negotiating prices 

for prescription drugs furnished under the Medicare program.

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 ‘‘Efficiency in Govern5 ment Health Care Spending Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. FINDINGS. 

7 Congress makes the following findings: 
2

•S 1994 IS 

1 (1) Prohibiting the Federal Government from 

2 negotiating prescription drug prices with manufac3 turers fails to take advantage of the purchasing 

4 power of the Medicare program. 

5 (2) Negotiating prescription drug prices can re6 duce the costs of prescription drugs for both the 

7 Medicare program and taxpayers. 

8 (3) A 2002 study by the inspector general of 

9 the Department of Health and Human Services 

10 found that—

11 (A) both the Medicare program and the 

12 beneficiaries of the Medicare program contin13 ually pay too much for medical equipment and 

14 medical supplies; and 

15 (B) if the Medicare program paid the same 

16 prices for 16 health care supplies as the De17 partment of Veterans Affairs, which directly ne18 gotiates prices with manufacturers, pays for 

19 those supplies, the Federal Government could 

20 save $958,000,000 each year. 

21 SEC. 3. ELIMINATION OF PROHIBITION OF NEGOTIATION 

22 OF PRICES. 

23 (a) REPEAL OF NONINTERFERENCE PROVISION.—

24 (1) IN GENERAL.—Subsection (i) of section 

25 1860D–11 of the Social Security Act, as added by 
3

•S 1994 IS 

1 section 101 of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Im2 provement, and Modernization Act of 2003, is re3 pealed. 

4 (2) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Subsection (j) 

5 of section 1860D–11 of the Social Security Act, as 

6 added by section 101 of the Medicare Prescription 

7 Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003, 

8 is redesignated as subsection (i). 

9 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

10 this section shall take effect as if included in the enact11 ment of section 101 of the Medicare Prescription Drug, 

12 Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003.

Æ
Order entered February 11, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-12-01101-CV

MICHAEL HILL, Appellant

V.

SHERMCO INDUSTRIES, Appellee

On Appeal from the 162nd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-10-04535

ORDER

By postcard dated November 1, 2012, we notified the court reporter for the 162nd 

Judicial District Court that the reporter’s record was overdue. We directed the court reporter to 

file the record within thirty days. To date, we have received no reponse. 

Accordingly, we ORDER court reporter Sheretta Martin to file, within TEN DAYS of 

the date of this order, either (1) the reporter’s record; (2) written verification that no hearings 

were recorded; or (3) written verification that appellant has not been found indigent and has not 

paid for the record. 

/s/ CAROLYN WRIGHT

CHIEF JUSTICE
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY IN THE INTEREST OF R.R., JR.

June 27, 1978.

Petition for certification granted.
#### Walpole *v.*Cooper.

*Wednesday, May*29.

A plea, apparently good on its face, cannot be set aside upon an affidavit that it is false.

ERROR to the *Hancock*Circuit Court.

Sullivan, J.

— Assumpsit by Cooper, assignee of *Preston*and Meek, against *Walpole*on a promissory note. Pleas, 1. Payment to the assignors before the assignment; • 2. Payment of 50 dollars part, &c., to the assignors, &c. 3. That the note was obtained from the defendant by the assignors by fraud, &c. 4. Payment to the assignors in manner following, viz., that, at the time of the assignment, they were indebted to the defendant in the sum of 175 dollars for professional services, &c. 5. That at the time of making said promissory note, the assignors agreed to receive from the defendant cash notes in satisfaction and discharge of the same, which he has always been ready to pay, &c. 6. Non assumpsit. The plaintiff, on affidavit filed stating that the pleas were false, vexatious, and intended for delay, moved to set them aside. The defendant objected, but the Court set aside the pleas, and gave judgment for the plaintiff.

It is the duty of a Court, when a false plea is filed which is evidently intended to hinder, perplex, and delay the case, to reject it on motion. This should be done to guard, the administration of justice against mockery and abuse. In the performance of this duty, however, care should be taken that the Courts do not usurp the rights of another tribunal, by *101deciding upon the truth or falsity of matters of fact. There are cases reported,- in which the Courts have set aside pleas apparently good upon their face, upon an' affidavit that they were false and vexatious. The case of *Richley*v. Proone, 1 B. & C. 286, is of that kind. But those cases are discountenanced by later decisions, and the rule seems now to be, that if there be nothing improper on the face of the plea, and it be relevant, a motion to reject it on account of its falsity, or to sign judgment as for want of a plea, will be overruled. *Merrington*v. *Becket,*2 B. & C. *81.*—Smith *et al.*v. *Backwell,*4 Bing. 512.—1 Blackf. 347, note (1). An application to reject a plea, founded on an affidavit that it is false, must, in general, be met by an affidavit of the defendant that the plea is true. The effect, therefore, of listening to such applications is to require pleas to be verified by affidavit, which, according to the statute, may be pleaded without oath.

*P. Sweetser,*for the plaintiff.

*O. 71. Smith,*for the defendant.

Some of the pleas in this case are clearly defective, others are well pleaded. As the case must be reversed, we will leave the plaintiff to his demurrer to the defective pleas, and allow him to take issue on those well pleaded.

*Per Curiam.*

— The judgment is reversed with costs. Cause remanded, &c.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-1115

MISRAK HAILEMARIAM GEBREHIWOT,

Petitioner,

versus

ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration

Appeals. (A95-220-634)

Submitted: August 17, 2005 Decided: December 13, 2005

Before TRAXLER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Aragaw Mehari, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. John L. Brownlee,

United States Attorney, Sara Bugbee Winn, Assistant United States

Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Misrak Hailemariam Gebrehiwot, a native and citizen of

Ethiopia, petitions for review of an order of the Board of

Immigration Appeals (Board) denying her motion to reopen

immigration proceedings. We review the denial of a motion to

reopen for abuse of discretion. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2004); INS

v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323-24 (1992); Stewart v. INS, 181 F.3d

587, 595 (4th Cir. 1999). The denial of a motion to reopen must be

reviewed with extreme deference, since immigration statutes do not

contemplate reopening and the applicable regulations disfavor

motions to reopen. M.A. v. INS, 899 F.2d 304, 308 (4th Cir. 1990)

(en banc).

A motion to reopen "shall state the new facts that will

be proven at a hearing to be held if the motion is granted and

shall be supported by affidavits or other evidentiary material."

8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1) (2004). "A motion to reopen proceedings

shall not be granted unless it appears to the Board that evidence

sought to be offered is material and was not available and could

not have been discovered or presented at the former hearing." Id.

We have reviewed the record, the immigration judge's decision, and

the Board's orders and find no abuse of discretion.

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
- 3 -

are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-22-00582-CR

Ex parte Robert Joseph Yezak

FROM THE 299TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

NO. D-1-DC-20-200222, HONORABLE KAREN SAGE, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Robert Joseph Yezak has filed a pro se notice of appeal seeking review of the 

trial court’s failure to rule on his application for writ of habeas corpus filed in the trial court. The 

trial court has not yet addressed the merits of his application or conducted an evidentiary hearing

regarding the application. “No appeal lies from the refusal to issue a writ of habeas corpus 

unless the trial court rules on the merits of the application.” Ex parte Young, 257 S.W.3d 276, 

277 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2008, no pet.); see Ex parte Ratliff, No. 03-04-00040-CR, 2004

WL 1686636, at *1 (Tex. App.—Austin July 29, 2004, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for 

publication). Accordingly, we have no jurisdiction over this appeal. See Ex parte Young, 

257 S.W.3d at 277.

To the extent that Yezak is seeking mandamus relief from this Court regarding an 

alleged failure to rule, we would be unable to grant relief. In his filings, Yezak notes that he is 

represented by appointed counsel in the proceedings below. A defendant has no right to “hybrid 

representation.” See Ex parte Taylor, 36 S.W.3d 883, 887 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001). To the 

extent that Yezak’s filings can be construed as a pro se mandamus petition, the absence of a right 
2

to hybrid representation means that this Court cannot act on his petition. See Gray v. Shipley, 

877 S.W.2d 806, 806 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1994, orig. proceeding).

For these reasons, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.

__________________________________________

Thomas J. Baker, Justice

Before Justices Goodwin, Baker, and Kelly

Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction

Filed: October 28, 2022

Do Not Publish
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

ALEX CENICEROS

,

Appellant

,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

,

State

. **§**

**§**

**§**

**§**

**§**

**§**

**§** No. 08

- 2 2

- 00 1 56

- C R

Appeal from the

171 st District Court

of El Paso C ounty, Texas

(TC# 20170D03795 )

O R D E R

The Court GRANTS Christina A. Boh ren ’ s r equest for an extension of time within which

to file the Reporter ’ s Record until January 31, 2023

. NO FURTHER REQUESTS FOR

EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE THE REPORTER ’ S RECORD WILL BE CONSIDERED BY

THIS COURT.

It is further ORDERED that Christina A. Bohren

, Court Reporter for the 171 st District

Court f or El Paso County, Texas, prepare the Reporter ’ s Record and forward the sam e to this Cou rt

on or before January 31, 2023

.

I T IS SO ORDERED this 17 th d ay of January , 20 2 3

.

PER CURIAM

Before Rodriguez , C.J., Palafox and Soto , JJ.
Order entered October~..~_~ , 2012

In The

No. 05-12-00659-CR

ANASTASIA MIKAL SOLANO, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1

Grayson County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2010-1-0242

ORDER

The Court ORDERS the trial court to conduct a hearing to determine why appellant’s

brief has not been filed. In this regard, the trial court shall make appropriate findings and

recommendations and determine whether appellant desires to prosecute the appeal, whether

appellant is indigent, or if not indigent, whether retained counsel has abandoned the appeal. See

TEX. R. At, r,. P. 38.8(b). If the trial court cannot obtain appellant’s presence at the hearing, the

trial court shall conduct the hearing in appellant’s absence. See Meza v. State, 742 S.W.2d 708

(Tex. App.-Corpus Christi 1987, no pet.) (per curiam). If appellant is indigent, the trial court is

ORDERED to take such measures as may be necessary to assure effective representation, which

may include appointment of new counsel.
We ORDER the trial court to transmit a record of the proceedings, which shall include

written findings and recommendations, to this Court within THIRTY DAYS of the date of this

order.

This appeal is ABATED to allow the trial court to comply with the above order. The

appeal shall be reinstated thirty days from the date of this order or when the findings are

received, whichever is earlier.
**Exhibit 23.1**
**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**
     We hereby consent to the incorporation by referencein the Registration Statements on Form S-3 (No. 333-72730) and Form S-8 (No. 333-117007, No. 333-103663, No. 333-61248,No. 333-54976, No. 333-52634, No. 333-47020, No. 333-92619 and No. 333-81492) of SonicWALL, Inc. of ourreport dated March 16, 2005, relating to the financialstatements, financial statement schedule, management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reportingand the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, which appears in this Form 10-K.
/s/ PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP
San Jose, California
#### H. L. Beckley et al. *v.*R. D. Hayman.

Evidence — Contrariety — Weight —■ Credibility.

Where there is a contrariety of evidence it peculiarly belongs to the jury to decide upon its weight and the credibility of the witnesses.

APPEAL EROM CAMPBELL CIRCUIT COURT.

June 29, 1867.

Opinion oe the Court by

Judge Williams :

We perceive no error in the instructions and there being a con* trariety of evidence it peculiarly belonged to the jury to decide upon its weight and the credibility of the witnesses.

The conduct of the juror whilst imprudent does not seem to have been prejudicial to appellant; no connivance of the appellee is pretended; what he said to the affiant seems to have indicated that he had made up his mind, before the expression of opinion by the witness, that defendants had better paid plaintiff than went to law. Whilst this might be regarded as his opinion and was, therefore, improper yet this was neither sought by the person, nor does it seem to have influenced him; it was not a statement of any facts in the case, and the prompt reply of the person indicated that he had previously come to a conclusion and that the other person agreed with him if the judgment was too large it' was cured by the remission.

Judgment affirmed.
#### STATE BANK OF CHATHAM v. LUANN BEAUTY SALON, INC.

June 27, 1978.

Petition for certification denied.