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








CERTIFICATON OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER





Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to


§ 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002





In connection with the filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission of the Quarterly Report of Hemagen Diagnostics, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the period ending December 31, 2010, (the ”Report”), I, William P. Hales, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, that:





(1)
The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





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














/s/ William P. Hales


William P. Hales


President and Chief Executive Officer


(Principal Executive Officer)














February 9, 2011





























A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Hemagen Diagnostics, Inc. and will be retained by Hemagen Diagnostics, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

1263 

CA 15-00642 

PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., CENTRA, PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, AND VALENTINO, JJ.

 

JASON T. AUGHTMON, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, 

 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

RAYMOND T. WARD AND TAMMEY M. WARD, 

DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS. 

STEVE BOYD, P.C., WILLIAMSVILLE (STEPHEN BOYD OF COUNSEL), FOR

PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT. 

BROWN & KELLY, LLP, BUFFALO (KRISTEN B. DEGNAN OF COUNSEL), FOR

DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS. 

 

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Niagara County (Frank

Caruso, J.), entered August 5, 2014. The order, insofar as appealed

from, denied plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this action seeking damages for

injuries he sustained when a vehicle owned by defendant Tammey M. Ward

and driven by defendant Raymond T. Ward collided with the vehicle

driven by plaintiff. Following discovery, plaintiff moved for partial

summary judgment on the issue whether he sustained a serious injury

under the 90/180-day category of serious injury (see Insurance Law §

5102 [d]). Supreme Court properly denied the motion. Contrary to

plaintiff’s contention, he failed to meet his initial burden with

respect to the 90/180-day category inasmuch as he failed to submit

evidence establishing as a matter of law that he sustained “a

medically determined injury or impairment of a non-permanent nature”

that was causally related to the subject accident (id.; see Heatter v

Dmowski, 115 AD3d 1325, 1326; see also Hartman-Jweid v Overbaugh, 70

AD3d 1399, 1400). In support of his motion, plaintiff submitted,

inter alia, the affirmed report of a physician who examined plaintiff

on behalf of defendants. The physician concluded, based on all of

plaintiff’s medical reports, as well as the imaging studies conducted

since the date of the accident (cf. Quinones v Ksieniewicz, 80 AD3d

506, 506-507), that plaintiff had “extensive congenital variation and

degenerative disease of the lumbar spine that was not caused by the

accident of record” and that plaintiff’s injuries were caused by those

preexisting “anatomical elements.” We thus conclude that plaintiff

failed to meet his burden of establishing, as a matter of law, that

his alleged pain and injuries were caused by the subject accident (see 
-2- 1263 

CA 15-00642 

generally Carrasco v Mendez, 4 NY3d 566, 580). 

Entered: November 13, 2015 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration

Mary W. Jackson Building NASA Headquarters

Washington, DC 20546-0001

October 19, 2023 

Reply to Attn of: General Law Practice Group

TO: Distribution

FROM: Agency Counsel for Ethics

SUBJECT: Determination Regarding Attendance by NASA employees at the 

Environmental Law Institute (ELI) Reception and Dinner on October 24, 2023 

On October 24, 2023, the Environmental Law Institute (ELI), nonprofit organizations under 

501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, will host a reception and dinner at The Omni 

Shoreham DC, 2500 Calvert St., NW, Washington, DC 20008, starting at 5:30 p.m. until 

10:00 p.m. The purpose is to honor individuals and organizations for demonstrating 

outstanding commitment to environmental protection. The dinner is an opportunity for 

environmental professionals to forge new bonds of cooperation, while supporting the agendasetting research, education, and training programs of the Institute. This year’s annual 

achievement award will be given to Dr. J. Marshall Shepherd. 

 Approximately, 750 people have been invited to attend. Attendees will have a diversity of 

views or interests and will include representatives from the legislative branch, state and local 

government officials, representatives from industry, employees of federal agencies, academia,

media and members of the public. The estimated cost of the event, including all food and 

beverages, is $250 per person. ELI is in control of the organizing, planning and invitations 

for this event. Attendance at this event will allow NASA attendees to exchange information 

regarding various NASA programs. I find that the event meets the requirements of a “widely 

attended gathering” as defined in 5 C.F.R. § 2635.204(g)(2). 

I further determine that there is an Agency interest in having NASA personnel attend the 

event because it will provide an opportunity for the invited persons to exchange ideas and 

views pertaining to NASA’s policies, programs and operations. NASA employees, including 

NASA employees in non-career positions who are required to sign the ethics pledge under 

Executive Order 13989, who do not have a significant role in a matter affecting the interests 

of the sponsor may accept an invitation for free attendance to the event. In those 

circumstances, I find that the Agency’s interest in attendance outweighs any concern that the 

individual may be, or may appear to be, improperly influenced in the performance of their 

duties. 

However, NASA employees who have a significant role in any pending matter affecting the 

interests of ELI, such as procurement duties, program management, or 
2

negotiating or administering a Space Act Agreement, should seek a separate determination 

from their local ethics counselor as to whether they may accept the invitation.

Adam F. Greenstone
#### In the Matter of Colin Clarke, Petitioner, v Raymond P. Martinez, Respondent.

[789 NYS2d 207]

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the State of New York Department of Motor Vehicles Appeals Board, dated October 27, 2003, confirming so much of a determination of an Administrative Law Judge, dated May 24, 2002, as, after a hearing, found that the petitioner violated Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1180 (d), and, inter alia, imposed a $250 fine.

Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, the petition is denied, and the proceeding is dismissed on. the merits, with costs.

Contrary to the petitioner’s contention, the determination that he violated Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1180 (d) by speeding is supported by substantial evidence *(see Matter of Mataragas v New York State Dept. of Motor Vehs.,*6 AD3d 537, 538 [2004]). The Administrative Law Judge properly relied upon the patrol *613officer’s testimony that he had been trained in visually estimating speed and the officer’s testimony regarding his visual estimate of the speed at which the petitioner’s car was traveling. This testimony, taken together with the reading from the calibrated laser device in the officer’s car, was sufficient to sustain the determination *(see Matter of Koenigsberg v State of N.Y. Dept. of Motor Vehs. Appeals Bd.,*8 AD3d 383 [2004]; *Matter of Gentile v Jackson,*273 AD2d 235 [2000]). Because this constituted the petitioner’s third speeding violation within an 18-month period in addition to the imposition of a $250 fine, the petitioner’s driver’s license was mandatorily revoked for a minimum of six months pursuant to Vehicle and Traffic Law § 510 (2) (a) (iv) and (6) (a) *(see Matter of Filsaime v Melton,*89 AD2d 604 [1982]).

The petitioner’s remaining contentions are without merit. Schmidt, J.P., Adams, Cozier and S. Miller, JJ., concur.
#### EDWARD F. CLARK, JR. v. WILLIAM F. HYLAND, ATTORNEY GENERAL.

May 16, 1978.

Petition for certification denied.
1 The Honorable Ronald E. Longstaff, Chie f Judge, United States District Court for the Southern Di strict of Iowa. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

________________ No. 04-3969

________________ United States of America, Appellee,

v. Lorenzo Montejano-Quintanar, Appellant. * * * * * * * * * * Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa. [UNPUBLISHED]

________________ Submitted: September 12, 2005 Filed: December 2, 2005

________________ Before ARNOLD, HANSEN, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

________________ PER CURIAM. A jury convicted Lorenzo Montejano-Quin tanar of one count of conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine and marijuana and two counts each of distribution of methamphetamine and marijuana, including the distribution of more than 50 grams of methamphetamine. The district court 1 sentenced him to the statutory mandatory-2- minimum of 20 years’ imprisonment base d on the jury’s drug-quantity finding and his prior felony conviction. See 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A). Montejano-Quintanar appeals his conviction and sentence, raisi ng a host of arguments. We have carefully reviewed the record and find Montejano-Qu intanar’s claims of error to be wholly without merit. Therefore, we affirm the judgment of the district court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________
FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

April 22, 2010

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

In re:

CLARENCE LEE DAVIS

Movant.

No. 10-5044

ORDER

Before LUCERO, EBEL, and O’BRIEN, Circuit Judges.

Movant Clarence Lee Davis, a federal prisoner appearing pro se, seeks

authorization to file a second or successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate, set

aside, or correct his sentence. Because Mr. Davis does not meet the conditions of

28 U.S.C. § 2255(h), we deny authorization and dismiss the proceeding.

Mr. Davis was convicted by a jury of conspiracy to commit armed robbery,

aiding and abetting an attempted armed bank robbery, use of a firearm during a

crime of violence, and being a felon in possession of a firearm. He was sentenced

to 360 months’ imprisonment. Mr. Davis’s convictions and sentence were affirmed

on direct appeal. United States v. Davis, 437 F.3d 989, 999 (10th Cir. 2006). In

September 2006, Mr. Davis filed his first § 2255 motion, arguing, inter alia, that he

received ineffective assistance of both trial and appellate counsel. The district

Appellate Case: 10-5044 Document: 01018407823 Date Filed: 04/22/2010 Page: 1 
-2-

court denied the motion, and this court denied Mr. Davis’s request for a certificate

of appealability. United States v. Davis, 259 F. App’x 88, 89 (10th Cir. 2007).

Mr. Davis now seeks leave to file a second or successive § 2255 motion to

bring two new claims that his counsel was ineffective for failing (1) to sever his

trial from that of his co-defendant, and (2) to file any pre-trial motions that may

have assisted in his defense, in particular, failing to file a motion to notify the

government of an alibi defense. In order to receive authorization, Mr. Davis must

show there is either: 

(1) newly discovered evidence that, if proven and viewed in light of

the evidence as a whole, would be sufficient to establish by clear and

convincing evidence that no reasonable factfinder would have found

the movant guilty of the offense; or 

(2) a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on

collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously

unavailable.

28 U.S.C. § 2255(h). 

Mr. Davis contends that both of his ineffective-assistance claims are based

on newly discovered evidence, but his supporting explanation is simply that he now

has the assistance on an inmate law clerk who has developed new issues for him to

present. Mot. for Auth. at 6-7. Mr Davis fails to describe any newly discovered

evidence; doing new legal research is not new evidence. 

Accordingly, because Mr. Davis’s motion does not meet the requirements for

authorization under § 2255(h), his motion is DENIED. This denial of authorization

Appellate Case: 10-5044 Document: 01018407823 Date Filed: 04/22/2010 Page: 2 
-3-

is not appealable and “shall not be the subject of a petition for rehearing or for a

writ of certiorari.” 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(E).

Entered for the Court,

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk

Appellate Case: 10-5044 Document: 01018407823 Date Filed: 04/22/2010 Page: 3
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18
- 7405

MARC PIERRE HALL , Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v. WARDEN ANDREWS , Respondent

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Raleigh

. James C. Dever III , District Judge. ( 5:18

- hc

- 02058

- D )

Submitted : May 16, 2019 Decided: May 20, 2019

Before DIAZ and THACKER , Circuit Judges , and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

. Marc Pierre Hall, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Marc Pierre Hall , a federal prisoner, appeals the dist rict court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court

. Hall v. Andrews , No. 5:18

- hc

- 02058

- D (E.D.N.C. Nov. 5, 2018)

. We grant Hall’s motion for this c ourt to adopt the exhibits attached to his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion and deny Hall’s motions for appointment of counsel and for an injunction pending appe al

. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
Exhibit 99.1



REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM



Board of Directors and Stockholders

FC Banc Corp.



We have reviewed the accompanying consolidated balance sheet of FC Banc Corp. (the Company) and subsidiary as of September 30, 2005, and the related
consolidated statements of income and comprehensive income for the three-month and nine-month periods ended September 30, 2005 and 2004 and the consolidated statement of cash flows for the nine-month periods ended September 30, 2005 and
2004, and the consolidated statement of changes in stockholders equity for the nine-month period ended September 30, 2005. These financial statements are the responsibility of the Companys management.



We conducted our review in accordance with standards of the Public Company Accounting
Oversight Board (United States). A review of interim financial information consists principally of applying analytical procedures to financial data and making inquiries of persons responsible for financial and accounting matters. It is substantially
less in scope than an audit conducted in accordance with standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, the objective of which is the expression of an opinion regarding the financial statements taken as a whole. Accordingly, we do not
express such an opinion.



Based on our review, we are not aware of any material
modifications that should be made to the accompanying financial statements referred to above for them to be in conformity with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles.



We have previously audited, in accordance with standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), the consolidated
balance sheet as of December 31, 2004, and the related consolidated statements of income, changes in stockholders equity, and cash flows for the year then ended (not presented herein); and in our report dated February 11, 2005, we
expressed an unqualified opinion on those consolidated financial statements.



|                        
|------------------------
|/s/ S.R. Snodgrass, A.C.
|                        
|Wexford, PA             
|November 4, 2005
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 Annual Report of AIMS Worldwide, Inc. a Nevada corporation (the Company), on Form 10-KSB for the annual period ending December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Patrick Summers, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350), that to my knowledge:  (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and  (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.       /s/Patrick J. Summers Patrick J. Summers, Chief Financial Officer April 17, 2007
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

In connection with the annual report on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2003 (the Report) of Newtek Business Services, Inc.
(the Company), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, the undersigned, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies that to the best of my knowledge:



| | (1) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Newtek as of and for the periods covered in
the Report.
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ Barry SloaneBarry Sloane, Chief Executive Officer/s/ Michael J. HoldenMichael J. Holden, Chief Financial Officer


May 9, 2006
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 12.1

DJ ORTHOPEDICS, INC.
COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
(DOLLARS IN THOUSANDS)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                           Historical
                                                    -----------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Years Ended December 31,
                                                    -----------------------------------------------------------
                                                     2001         2000         1999         1998         1997
                                                    -------      -------      -------      -------      -------
<S>                                                 <C>          <C>          <C>          <C>          <C>
Income before income taxes ...................      $ 5,201      $ 5,159      $ 9,515      $ 8,345      $10,904

Interest .....................................       16,673       15,876        7,057           --        2,072
Amortization of Debt Issuance Costs ..........          919          877          409           --           --
Amortization of Discount on Sr. Notes ........          204          205          102           --           --
1/3 of rental expense-operating leases .......        1,196        1,064          895        1,064          775
                                                    -------      -------      -------      -------      -------

Earnings .....................................      $24,193      $23,181      $17,978      $ 9,409      $13,751

Interest .....................................      $16,673      $15,876      $ 7,057      $    --      $ 2,072
Amortization of Debt Issuance Costs ..........          919          877          409           --           --
Amortization of Discount on Sr. Notes ........          204          205          102           --           --
1/3 of rental expense-operating leases .......        1,196        1,064          895        1,064          775
                                                    -------      -------      -------      -------      -------

Fixed Charges ................................      $18,992      $18,022      $ 8,463      $ 1,064      $ 2,847

Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges ...........         1.27         1.29         2.12         8.84         4.83
                                                    =======      =======      =======      =======      =======
</TABLE>
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

ROBERTO DIAZ,

Appellant,

v.

R & A CONSULTANTS,

Appellee. §

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 15

- 00358

- CV

Appeal from

County Court at Law No. 6

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC # 2015

- DCV

- 3097 )

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes there was no error in the

judgment. We therefore affirm the judgment of the court below. We further order that Appellee

recover from Appellant and its sureties, if any, see T EX .R.A PP .P. 43.5 , on the judgment and all

costs, for which let execution issue. This decision shall be certified below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 10TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019.

ANN CRAWFORD McCLURE, Chief Justi ce

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Palafox, JJ.
<PAGE>   1

                                                                 EXHIBIT 11.0

                         Ribozyme Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
                  Computation of Pro Forma Net Loss Per Share


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                     Quarter           Quarter           Six Months         Six Months
                                                     ending             ending             ending             ending
                                                    06/30/97           06/30/96           06/30/97           06/30/96
                                                ----------------   ----------------   -----------------   ---------------
<S>                                               <C>                 <C>               <C>                <C>
Weighted average common shares
     outstanding........................               7,118,054          5,796,578           7,038,128         3,418,554

Assumed conversion of preferred stock
     from original date of issuance,
     pursuant to staff policy...........
                                                               -            392,433                   -         1,312,196

                                                ----------------   ----------------   -----------------   ---------------
     Total..............................               7,118,054          6,189,011           7,038,128         4,730,750

     Net loss...........................           $  (3,118,964)      $ (5,053,671)      $  (6,134,676)     $ (8,156,097)
                                                ================   ================   =================   ===============

     Pro forma net loss per share.......           $       (0.44)      $      (0.82)      $       (0.87)     $      (1.72)
                                                ================   ================   =================   ===============
</TABLE>