alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Edward RODRIGUEZ, a/k/a Rick, Thomas J. Albernaz, Peter Smigowski and William John Martins, Defendants-Appellants.

No. 77-5339.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

May 8, 1980.

Raymond E. LaPorte, Tampa, Fla., for Rodriguez.

Martin G. Weinberg, Boston, Mass., for Albernaz.

James W. Lawson, Joseph S. Oteri, Boston, Mass., for Smigowski.

Joel R. Magazine, Coconut Grove, Fla., for Martins.

Michael P. Sullivan, Asst. U. S. Atty., Miami, Fla., Mervyn Hamburg, Atty., U. S. Dept. of Justice, Criminal Division, Washington, D. C., for plaintiff-appellee.

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING

Before SKELTON, Senior Judge,* FAY and RUBIN, Circuit Judges.

*

 Senior Judge of the United States Court of Claims, sitting by designation.

PER CURIAM:

IT IS ORDERED that the petition for rehearing filed in the above entitled and numbered cause be and the same is hereby denied.

The court granted rehearing en bane to consider the double jeopardy question discussed in the opinion rendered by the court en banc. *See United States*v. *Rodriguez,*612 F.2d 906 (5th Cir. 1980) (en banc). However, in doing so the court did not enter an order specifically restricting the en banc rehearing to this issue. Therefore, under rule 17, Local Rules, Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, the entry of the order granting the rehearing en banc automatically vacated the panel opinion.

The court en banc has, therefore, remanded to the panel those issues listed on application for rehearing and not discussed in the en banc opinion. Having fully considered the applications for rehearing as to all issues other than the double jeopardy issue, the panel finds them to be without merit, and denies rehearing.
Exhibit
32.1





YUHE
INTERNATIONAL, INC.




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 YUHE INTERNATIONAL, INC. (the “Company”)
on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Gao Zhentao, the
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 results of operations of the
Company.




Date:
15th
day of May, 2009.





/s/
      Gao ZhentaoGao
      ZhentaoChief
      Executive Officer(Principal
      Executive Officer)
#### IN THE MATTER OF: EVA LEVONIA GRACE POPE, minor child

No. 345A01

(Filed 9 November 2001)

Appeal pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-30(2) from the decision of a divided panel of the Court of Appeals, 144 N.C. App. 32, 547 S.E.2d 153 (2001), affirming a judgment signed 9 May 2000 by Brown (Shirley H.), J., in District Court, Buncombe County. Heard in the Supreme Court 16 October 2001.

*Charlotte A. Wade for petitioner-appellee Buncombe County Department of Social Services.*

*Michael E. Casterline for respondent-appellant Rachel Pope.*

*Cindy Sellars, Guardian ad Litem, by Attorney Advocate Judy N. Rudolph, appellee.*

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"NASA","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/nasamigrate\/","title":"ATD2","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"CZfUXcDGnw\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/image-detail\/atd2_video_still_for_web_feature_01\/\">ATD2<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/image-detail\/atd2_video_still_for_web_feature_01\/embed\/#?secret=CZfUXcDGnw\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“ATD2” — NASA\" data-secret=\"CZfUXcDGnw\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/10\/atd2_video_still_for_web_feature_01.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":338}
Exhibit 32.2




CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
  
 Pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350), the undersigned, ReiJane Huai,
Chief Executive Officer of FalconStor Software, Inc., a Delaware Corporation
(the “Company”), does hereby certify, to his knowledge, that:
  The Annual Report on Form 10-K for the
year ended December 31, 2009 of the Company (the “Report”) fully complies with
the requirements of Sections 13(a) and 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, and the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.
  
  
  /s/  ReiJane
  HuaiReiJane
      HuaiChief
      Executive OfficerMarch
      12, 2010
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Eugene K. Carothers,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. R. Bard Inc. and Bard Peripheral 

Vascular, Inc.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

MDL Case No. 2:15-md-02641-DGC

Civil Action No. CV-17-03424-PHX-DGC

WAIVER OF THE SERVICE OF SUMMONS

To: Freese & Goss PLLC - Birmingham, AL

(Name of plaintiff’s attorney or unrepresented plaintiff)

I have received your request to waive service of a summons in this action along with a copy of the complaint, two 

copies of this waiver form, and a prepaid means of returning one signed copy of the form to you.

I, or the entity I represent, agree to save the expense of serving a summons and complaint in this case.

I understand that I, or the entity I represent, will keep all defenses or objections to the lawsuit, the court’s 

jurisdiction, and the venue of the action, but that I waive any objections to the absence of a summons or of service.

I also understand that I, or the entity I represent, must file and serve an answer or a motion under Rule 12 within 

60 days from 10/23/2017, the date when this request was sent (or 90 days if it was sent outside the United States). If I fail 

to do so, a default judgment will be entered against me or the entity I represent.

Date: October 26, 2017 /s/ Richard B. North, Jr.

Signature of the attorney or unrepresented party

C. R. Bard, Inc. and Bard Peripheral

Vascular, Inc.

Printed name of parties waiving service of 

summons

Richard B. North, Jr. (Ga. Bar No. 545599)

Printed Name

Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP

201 17th St., NW, Suite 1700, Atlantic Station, Atlanta, GA 30363

Address

richard.north@nelsonmullins.com

E-mail Address

(404) 322-6155

Telephone number

Duty to Avoid Unnecessary Expenses of Serving a Summons

Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires certain defendants to cooperate in saving unnecessary expenses of serving a 

summons and complaint. A defendant who is located in the United States and who fails to return a signed waiver of service requested by a plaintiff 

located in the United States will be required to pay the expenses of service, unless the defendant shows good cause for the failure. 

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 8458 Filed 10/30/17 Page 1 of 2
2

“Good cause” does not include a belief that the lawsuit is groundless, or that it has been brought in an improper venue, or that the court has 

no jurisdiction over this matter or over the defendant or the defendant’s property. 

If the waiver is signed and returned, you can still make these and all other defenses and objections, but you cannot object to the absence of 

a summons or of service. 

If you waive service, then you must, within the time specified on the waiver form, serve an answer or a motion under Rule 12 on the 

plaintiff and file a copy with the court. By signing and returning the waiver form, you are allowed more time to respond than if a summons had been 

served.

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 8458 Filed 10/30/17 Page 2 of 2
* 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. 08-60039 Summary Calendar

MAGUERITE JEAN-BAPTISTE Petitioner

v. MICHAEL B MUKASEY, U S ATTORNEY GENERAL Respondent

Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A97 956 154
Before SMITH, DeMOSS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Maguerite Jean-Baptiste seeks review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing her appeal from the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of her application for asylum and withholding of removal. Jean-Baptiste argues that the BIA erred in upholding the IJ’s determination that her testimony was not credible and denial of her asylum
application for lack of corroborating evidence. Under 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii), the IJ was authorized, in light of the totality of the United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D November 17, 2008 Charles R. Fulbruge III ClerkNo. 08-60039

2 circumstances, to base a credibility determination on the inconsistency between Jean-Baptiste’s testimony and her prior statements. The record supports, and does not compel a conclusion contrary to, the determination thatJean-Baptiste’s testimony was not credible and that Jean-Baptiste should have provided available evidence corroborating her otherwise credible testimony about her arrival in and life in the United States. See 8 U.S.C. § 1 252(b)(4); Chen v. Gonzales, 470 F.3d 1131, 1134 (5th Cir. 2006). Because the IJ found that her testimony was not credible, Jean-Baptiste’s uncorroborated testimony was insufficient to sustain her burden of proving her eligibility for asylum. See § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i), (ii). Jean-Baptiste argues that she established that she was persecuted or had
a well-founded fear of persecution on account of, or at least in part on account of, an imputed political opinion. Because she did not raise this issue before the BIA, we lack jurisdiction to consider it. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1); Wang v. Ashcroft, 260 F.3d 448, 452-53 (5th Cir. 2001). In her petition for review, Jean-Baptiste has not raised, and thus has abandoned, any argument challenging the denial of her appli c ation for withholding of removal, the determination that the harm she suffered constituted persecution, and the determination that she failed to establish that being a family member ofsomeone who had disappeared is one of the protected grounds. See Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830, 833 (5th Cir. 2003). Accordingly, Jean-Baptiste’s petition for reviewis DENIED IN PART and DISMISSED IN PART for lack of jurisdiction.
#### Wm. Allen and Wife *v. Wm.*E. Glover.

Judicial Sales — Right to Substitute Purchaser.

One who purchases property at a judicial sale, and does not comply with the terms thereof, loses their rights thereunder, and it may be transferred to a third party by the court, ór a re-sale may be ordered.

Same.

This may be done independent of any consent on the part of the original purchaser.

APPEAL FROM LOUISVILLE CHANCERY COURT.

April 17, 1869.

Opinion of the Court by

Judge Peters:

Mrs. Allen was certainly a preferred bidder for the properly; but until she complied with the terms of the sale she was not in any sense, and could not be regarded as, a purchaser thereof, and if she was unable to comply, whatever right, if any, she acquired by her bid was lost to her, and the court might either have ordered a re-sale of the propéry, and might, as appears to have, been done, have permitted another person to be substituted for her as the purchaser, upon his complying with the terms of the sale, and this could be done independent of any consent on her part;-so that whether the writing signed by her was legally obligatory on her or not is wholly immaterial to this controvesy.

*119
      *Thompson, for appellants.*

*John Roberts, for appellee.*

As far as the conduct of the appellee Glover is developed by the facts in this record there is nothing to subject him to legal liability; but on the contrary, he has manifested throughout a disposition to assist and relieve appellants as far as he could without detriment to himself, and from his efforts to aid them they have derived no inconsiderable advantages; the time allowed by him for them to find a purchaser was as long as they could reasonably have asked; it was neither unjust nor harsh in him to require as much as $6,000 to be paid down, in view of the fact that he had advanced the two instalments which had matured, and the time was approaching when the last would mature, and he had been compelled to borow the money to pay what had been paid.

From the time of the first sale until Gill -purchased, appellants occupied the premises without payment of rent, and after the sale to Gill they continued to occupy it for several months, which was paid for out of the advanced price for which the property was sold; all of which they got the benefit of except what was applied to refund to appellee money which he had actually expended for .the property, and for their benefit.

The judgment must be *affimed.*
Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm   The Board of Directors and Stockholders Inland Real Estate Corporation: We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements (Nos. 333-128624 and 333-140535) on Form S-8 and Form S-3 of Inland Real Estate Corporation (the Company) of our reports dated February 27, 2009, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of the Company as of December 31, 2008 and 2007, and the related consolidated statements of operations and other comprehensive income, stockholders equity, and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2008 and the related financial statement schedule, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2008, which reports appear in the December 31, 2008 annual report on Form 10-K of the Company.  KPMG LLP Chicago, Illinois February 27, 2009
QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document

 
 

Exhibit 10.1    
  


 
 

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS    
  


        We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Form S-8 Nos. 333-13388 and 333-13390) of Bookham Technology plc
of the reference to our firm in Item 3 under the caption "Selected Consolidated Financial Data" and of our report dated March 18, 2003 with respect to the consolidated financial
statements of Bookham Technology plc, all included in this Annual Report (Form 20-F) for the year ended December 31, 2002. 



	/s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP
Ernst & Young LLP
 Reading, England

March 18, 2003

	 	 	 











QuickLinks



Exhibit 10.1


CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                  CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
   PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(b) OF THE EXCHANGE ACT AND 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350.

      In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Penwest
Pharmaceuticals Co. (the "Company") for the period ended June 30, 2005 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
the undersigned, Robert J. Hennessey, President and Chief Executive Officer of
the Company, hereby certifies, 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 results of operations of the
Company.

   Dated: August 5, 2005                /s/ Robert J. Hennessey
                                        ---------------------------------------
                                        Robert J. Hennessey
                                        President and Chief Executive Officer

                                       35
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 13**  **- 1**  **440**

TROY WILLIAMS , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v.
TERO TEK INTERNATIONAL, INC.; TERO TEK INTERNATIONAL, INC., Corporate Headquarters , Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Baltimore

. James K. Bredar , District Judge. ( 1:1 0

- cv
- 0 2752

- JKB )

Submitted : June 20 , 2013 Decided: June 25, 2013

Before GREGORY, DUNCAN , and DAVIS , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed in part , and a ffirmed in part by un published per curiam opinion

.

Troy Williams , Appellant Pro Se. James A. Rothschild , ANDERSON, COE & KING, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Troy Williams appeals the district court’s order
granting summary judgment to the defendant and its subsequent

order denying his motion to reopen

. ∗ We dismiss the appeal of
the order granting summary judgment for lack of jurisdiction
because the notice of appeal from that order was not timely

filed. W e affirm the denial of Williams’ motion to reopen

. Parties are accorded thirty days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order to note an ap peal, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends
the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the
appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). “[T]he timely
filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional
requirement.” Bow l e s v. Russell , 551 U.S. 2 0 5, 2 1 4 ( 2007 ).
The district court’s summary judgment order was
entered on the docket on February 27, 2012 . The notice of
appeal was filed on April 1 , 2013

. Because Williams failed to

file a timely notice of a ppeal or to obtain an extension or
reopening of the appeal period we dismiss t he appeal to the

∗ Williams’ informal brief state s that he also appeals the district court’s marginal order entered April 3, 2013, denying his motion for reconsideration. Williams did not file a notice of appeal of this order and it is therefore not properly before this court.3 extent it challenges the district court ’ s summary judgment

order

.
A lthough Williams timely appealed the denial of his

motion to reopen , we find no abuse of discretion. MLC Auto.,
LLC v. Town of S. Pines , 532 F.3d 269, 277 (4th Cir. 2008).
Accordingly, we affirm. We dispense with oral argument because
the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the

materials before th is court and argument w ould not aid the
decisional process.

DISMISSED IN PART; AFFIRMED IN PART
United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

February 10, 2010

Before

FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge

RICHARD D. CUDAHY, Circuit Judge

DANIEL A. MANION, Circuit Judge

No. 09-1258

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

ERWIN ACOX,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United 

States District Court for the 

Northern District of Illinios, 

Eastern Division.

No. 07 CR 145

Virginia M. Kendall, Judge.

Order

The opinion of this court issued on February 9, 2010, is amended as follows:

Page 9, line 2, change “was” to “is”;

Page 9, last line of first paragraph, delete the second “that”.
|   | (1) | to      my knowledge, 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. |
|--------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Dated:      November 12, 2009 | /s/ Warren Bielke      Warren      BielkeInterim      Chief Executive Officer |
|-------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                          |                                                                          |

| Dated:      November 12, 2009 | /s/ Katherine L. Wolf      Katherine      L. WolfChief      Financial Officer |
|-------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to
18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Webster Preferred Capital Corporation (the Company) hereby certifies, that to his knowledge on the date hereof:



|(a) | the Form 10-Q Report of the Company for the quarter ended March 31, 2011 filed on the date hereof with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
|--- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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

May 5, 2011



/s/ Gerald P. PlushGerald P. PlushPresident(Principal Executive Officer)


Pursuant to Securities
and Exchange Commission Release 33-8238, dated June 5, 2003, this certification is being furnished and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended or incorporated
by reference in any registration statement of the Company filed under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it by reference.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.