alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**EXHIBIT 15.1**





October
      31, 2006








The
      Board of Directors and Stockholders of Genentech, Inc.





We
      are aware of the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
      pertaining to the Genentech, Inc. Tax Reduction Investment Plan, the 2004 Equity
      Incentive Plan, the 1999 Stock Plan, the 1996 Stock Option/Stock Incentive
      Plan,
      the 1994 Stock Option Plan, the 1990 Stock Option/Stock Incentive Plan, and
      the
      1991 Employee Stock Plan, the Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-37072)
      related to the resale of common shares deliverable upon the exchange of Liquid
      Yield Option Notes, the Registration Statement (Form S-4 No. 333-128400) related
      to the exchange offer for Senior Notes, and in the related Prospectuses, as
      applicable, contained in such Registration Statements of our report dated
      October 6, 2006, relating to the unaudited condensed consolidated interim
      financial statements of Genentech, Inc. that are included in its Form 10-Q
      for
      the quarter ended September 30, 2006.





Very
                truly yours,/s/ERNST
                & YOUNG LLP
|   | (1)      | The      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as      applicable, 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      at the date and for the periodsindicated. |
|--------|-----------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:      March 31,      2009                                           |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                                |
| /s/      Dean Marks                                                      |
| Dean      MarksChief      Executive Officer (Principal ExecutiveOfficer) |

----
#### In the Matter of Derek Harris, Appellant, v Richard Dormer, as Police Commissioner of the Suffolk County Police Department, et al., Respondents.

[972 NYS2d 911]

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a de*881termination of the respondent Suffolk County Police Department dated June 27, 2011, removing the petitioner from the certified list of eligible candidates for the position of Suffolk County Police Officer, the petitioner appeals from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Leis III, J.), entered February 29, 2012, which granted the respondents’ motion to dismiss the petition, dismissed the petition, and, in effect, dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the petitioner’s contention, the record supports the determination of the respondent Suffolk County Police Department removing the petitioner from the certified list of eligible candidates for the position of Suffolk County Police Officer based upon the results of his pre-employment polygraph examination. The respondents did not act irrationally or arbitrarily in relying on the opinions of several experts who reviewed the test results and concluded that the petitioner had deliberately engaged in the use of countermeasures in an attempt to improperly influence the results of the examination *(see Matter of Mullen v County of Suffolk,*43 AD3d 934 [2007]; *Matter of Mark v Schneider,*305 AD2d 685 [2003]; *Matter of Kelly v Suffolk County Dept. of Civ. Serv. Human Resources,*301 AD2d 525 [2003]). Moreover, the petitioner failed to present evidence demonstrating that the determination lacked a rational basis or was arbitrary and capricious. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the motion to dismiss the petition, dismissed the petition, and, in effect, dismissed the proceeding. Mastro, J.P., Dillon, Angiolillo and Chambers, JJ, concur.
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 32

Certification of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Spectrum
Laboratories, Inc.

In connection with the quarterly report of Spectrum Laboratories, Inc. and its
subsidiaries, SLI Acquisition Corp., Spectrum Europe B.V. and Spectrum
Chromatography (collectively, the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended
June 28, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the "Report"), Roy T. Eddelman, Chief Executive Officer and Brian A.
Watts, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

         1.       the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
                  13(a) or Section 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 11, 2003.

/s/ Roy T. Eddleman
-------------------------------------


Roy T. Eddleman
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
Spectrum Laboratories, Inc.


/s/ Brian A. Watts
-------------------------------------


Brian A. Watts
Chief Financial Officer
Spectrum Laboratories, Inc.







                                       14
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). K A D / R es ear ch 1 NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T I QB AL S I NG H D HI L L ON , P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E R J r ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 07- 70812 A ge nc yN o. A 097- 602- 205 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

a n O r de rof

the B o ar do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d D e c e m be r15, 2009 ** B efo re: G O O D W IN , W A L L A C E , an dC L IF T O N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. I qba l S i ngh D hi l l on, ana t i ve a nd c i t i z e n of I ndi a , pe t i t i ons f

orr e vi e w of

the B oa r d of I m m i gr a t i on A ppe a l s ’ or de rdi s m i s s i ng hi s appe a l f r om a n i m m i gr a t i on j udge ’ s de c i s i on de ny i ng hi s appl i c a t i on f ora s y l um , w i thhol di ng of r e m ova l , a nd 

# FI LED DE C 28 2009 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALSK AD / Res ea r ch 07- 70812 2 pr ot e c t i on unde rthe C onve nt i on A ga i ns tT ortur e ( “ C A T ” ) . W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on p u r s u a n t to 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 . W e r e v ie w f o rs ub s tan tia l e v id e n c e , H usye v v . Mukasey , 5 2 8 F .3 d1 1 7 2 , 1 1 7 7 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 8 ) , an dw e d e n yth e p e titio n . S ubs t ant i a l e vi de nc e s upport s the a ge nc y ’ s a dve r s e c r e di bi l i tyde t e rm i na t i on b e c au s e D illio n te s tif

ie dab o u t o n g o in g p o lic e v is its to h is h o m e b u t h e o m itte dth is i nf orm a t i on, w i thouta de qua t e e xpl ana t i on, f r om hi s othe rw i s e de t a i l e d a s y l um appl i c a t i on, s e e L i v . A s h c r o ft , 3 7 8 F .3 d9 5 9 , 9 6 3 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) , an dh is t e s t i m onyw a s i nc ons i s t e ntw i th hi s doc um e nt arye vi de nc e r e gar di ng the na tur e of h is f a m ily ’s r e la tio n s h ip w ith S im r an jit S in g h M an n , se e G oel v. G on zales , 490 F . 3d 73 5, 73 9 (9th C i r. 20 07 ) ( i ncon si st enci es betw ee n t es t i m on y and do cum ent ary e vi de nc e s upporta n a dve r s e c r e di bi l i tyf i ndi ng w he r e i nc ons i s t e nc i e s go t o the he a rtof the c l a i m ) . I n the abs e nc e of c r e di bl e t e s t i m ony , D hi l l on’ s a s y l um a nd w ith h o ld in g o f

r e m o v a l c la im s f

a il. Se e Fa ra h v . A s h c r o ft , 348 F . 3d 1153, 1156 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) . B e c aus e D hi l l on’ s C A T c l a i m i s ba s e d on the t e s t i m onythe a ge nc yf ound no tcr edi bl e, and D hi l l on po i nt s t o n o o ther e vi dence t o sho w i ti s m ore l i kel y than n o t h e w o u ldb e to rtu r e dif r e tu rn e dto I n d ia , h is C A T c la im f a ils . Se e id . a t1156- 57. P E T I T I ON F OR RE V I E W DE NI E D.
From: The District Court of the 8th Judicial District. County of Cascade.

#### STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, vs. *85RONALD LATRAY, Defendant,

*84CAUSE NO. DDC-09-110 DECISION

*85On May 21,2009, the defendant was sentenced to a commitment to the Department of Corrections for a term of five (5) years for the offense of Count I: Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol - 11th Lifetime Offense, a felony. The court recommends the Department of Corrections place the Defendant at the Montana State Prison. The Court further recommends the Department place the Defendant either in the WATCh Program or in a similar comparable alcohol treatment program. The Defendant was declared ineligible for parole for five (5) years.

On November 12, 2009, the defendant’s application for review of that sentence was heard by the Sentence Review Division of the Montana Supreme Court.

The defendant was present and was represented by Eric Olson. The state was not represented.

Before hearing the application, the defendant was advised that the Sentence Review Division has the authority not only to reduce the sentence or affirm it, but also increase it. The defendant was further advised that there is no appeal from a decision of the Sentence Review Division. The defendant acknowledged that he understood this and stated that he wished to proceed.

Rule 17 of the Rules of the Sentence Review Division of the Supreme Court of Montana provides that “the sentence imposed by the District Court is presumed correct, and the sentence will not be reduced or increased unless it is deemed clearly inadequate or excessive.” (§46-18-904(3), MCA).

The Division finds that the reasons advanced for modification are insufficient to hold that the sentence imposed by the District Court is inadequate or excessive.

Therefore, it is the unanimous decision of the Sentence Review Division that the sentence shall be affirmed.

Done in open Court this 12th day of November, 2009.

DATED this 25th day of November, 2009.

Chairperson, Hon. Stewart Stadler, Member, Hon. Blair Jones and Member, Hon. Richard Simonton.
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3645 

To suspend temporarily the duty on certain artificial filament single yarn 

(other than sewing thread). 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 12, 2006 

Mr. SCHUMER (for himself and Mrs. CLINTON) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on certain artificial filament 

single yarn (other than sewing thread). 

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

3 SECTION 1. CERTAIN ARTIFICIAL FILAMENT SINGLE YARN 

4 (OTHER THAN SEWING THREAD). 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

6 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

7 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

8 new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.54.03 Artificial filament single yarn (other 

than sewing thread), not put up for retail sale, of viscose rayon, untwisted or 

with a twist not exceeding 120 turns/m 

(provided for in subheading 5403.39) ..... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2009 ’’. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with BILLS
2 

•S 3645 IS 

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

3 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

4 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with BILLS
CERTIFICATION

            PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
             (SUBSECTIONS (a) AND (b) OF SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF
                          TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE)


         Pursuant to section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections
(a) and (b) of section 1350,  chapter 63 of Title 18,  United States Code),  the
undersigned  officer  of  NT  Media  Corp.  of  California,   Inc.,  a  Delaware
corporation (the  "Company"),  does hereby certify with respect to the Quarterly
Report of the Company on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended September 30, 2004 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "10-QSB Report") that:

         (1) the  10-QSB  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 10-QSB Report fairly presents, in
all material respects,  the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.

Dated:  November 22, 2004           NT MEDIA CORP. OF
                                    CALIFORNIA, INC.

                                    /s/ Chris Briggs
                                    --------------------------------------------
                                    Chris Briggs
                                    President, Chief Executive Officer and Chief
                                    Financial Officer

A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 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.
























                                   Exhibit 32
No. 07-14-00423-CR

Terry Fielder

 Appellant

v.

The State of Texas

 Appellee

§

§

§

§

From the 361st District Court

 of Brazos County

October 13, 2015

Opinion by Justice Pirtle

J U D G M E N T

Pursuant to the opinion of the Court dated October 13, 2015, it is ordered,

adjudged and decreed that the judgment of the trial court be affirmed.

Inasmuch as this is an appeal in forma pauperis, no costs beyond those that

have been paid are adjudged.

It is further ordered that this decision be certified below for observance.

o O o

FILE COPY
MANDATE

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-13-00509-CV

Enzo Investments, LP, Appellant

v.

Charles White, Appellee

Charles White, Cross-Appellant

v.

Enzo Investments, LP; IP Investments, 

LLC; and IP Real Estate, LLC, CrossAppellees

Appealed from the 152nd District Court 

of Harris County. (Tr. Ct. No. 2009-

08290). Opinion delivered by Justice 

Christopher. Justices Donovan and 

Wise also participating.

TO THE 152ND DISTRICT COURT OF HARRIS COUNTY, GREETINGS:

Before our Court of Appeals on May 12, 2015, the cause upon appeal to 

revise or reverse your judgment was determined. Our Court of Appeals made its 

order in these words:

This cause, an appeal from the judgment signed March 14, 2013 in favor of 

appellee/cross-appellant Charles White, was heard on the transcript of the record. 

We have inspected the record and find error in the judgment. We therefore 

REVERSE the portion of the trial court’s judgment awarding White attorney’s 

fees; AFFIRM the remainder of the trial court’s judgment, and REMAND the 

cause for relitigation solely on the issue of attorney’s fees in accordance with the 
court’s opinion. If, however, White files in this Court a remittitur of $168,375.00

within fifteen days after the issuance of our opinion, we instead will modify the 

trial court’s judgment to reduce the award of attorney’s fees to $209,192.50 and 

affirm the trial court’s judgment as modified.

We further order that all costs incurred by reason of this appeal be paid by 

appellee/cross-appellant Charles White.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said 

Court in this behalf and in all things have it duly recognized, obeyed, and executed.

WITNESS, the Hon. Kem Thompson Frost, Chief Justice of our Fourteenth 

Court of Appeals, with the Seal thereof affixed, at the City of Houston, October 29, 

2015.
|   | (1)      | The      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as      applicable, 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      at the date and for the periodsindicated. |
|--------|-----------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:      May 6, 2009                                                      |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                                   |
| /s/      Teresa Kelley                                                      |
| Teresa      KelleyChief      Financial Officer (Principal FinancialOfficer) |

----
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Daniel Keefe, Appellant, v Aramatic Refreshment Services Inc. et al., Respondents. Workers’ Compensation Board, Respondent.

[975 NYS2d 204]

Egan Jr., J.

Appeal from a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed August 2, 2012, which ruled, among other things, that claimant was entitled to workers’ compensation benefits at the marked partial disability rate.

Claimant has two established workers’ compensation claims for back injuries that occurred in 2004 and 2009, and his *1430benefits are apportioned equally between the claims. Although the parties agreed that claimant had a temporary total disability until January 2012 and thereafter was entitled to benefits at the temporary partial disability rate, the employer and the workers’ compensation carrier responsible for the 2009 claim argued that the amount of benefits for which they were liable should be calculated using claimant’s 2009 wages instead of his higher 2004 wages. The Workers’ Compensation Board agreed, and claimant now appeals.

Workers’ Compensation Law § 15 (5) provides that, “[i]n case of temporary partial disability resulting in decrease of earning capacity, the compensation shall be two-thirds of the difference between the injured employee’s average weekly wages before the accident and his [or her] wage earning capacity after the accident in the same or other employment.” Wages, in turn, are determined with reference “to the latest ‘injury’ when there have been two or more” *(Matter of Meszaros v Goldman,*307 NY 296, 300 [1954]; *see*Workers’ Compensation Law §§ 2 [9]; 15 [5-a], [7]). Accordingly, claimant’s 2009 earnings were correctly used to calculate the employer’s liability under that claim. Indeed, to hold otherwise would run afoul of the statutory directive that compensation for a later, successive claim be determined using a claimant’s “earning capacity at the time of the later injury” (Workers’ Compensation Law § 15 [7]; *see Matter of Crawley v Failla,*6 NY2d 57, 62-63 [1959]; *Matter of Carle v New York Bus. Bldg. Corp.,*11 AD2d 570, 570-571 [1960]).

As a final matter, the award for the period of temporary total disability was reduced by the Board, without explanation, to reflect a “marked temporary partial disability.” The parties agree that this was error, and we remit this matter so that the Board may address this issue *(see*Workers’ Compensation Law § 15 [2]).

Peters, P.J., McCarthy and Spain, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is modified, without costs, by reversing so much thereof as found that claimant was entitled to benefits from February 9, 2011 to January 23, 2012 at the marked temporary partial disability rate of $154.78 per week in his 2009 workers’ compensation claim; matter remitted to the Workers’ Compensation Board for further proceedings not inconsistent with this Court’s decision; and, as so modified, affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3610 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3610

  To suspend temporarily the duty on certain Giardiniera prepared or 
 preserved otherwise than by vinegar or acetic acid in concentrations 
                         less than 0.5 percent.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 29, 2006

 Mr. Menendez introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To suspend temporarily the duty on certain Giardiniera prepared or 
 preserved otherwise than by vinegar or acetic acid in concentrations 
                         less than 0.5 percent.

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

SECTION 1. CERTAIN GIARDINIERA PREPARED OR PRESERVED OTHERWISE THAN BY 
              VINEGAR OR ACETIC ACID IN CONCENTRATIONS LESS THAN 0.5 
              PERCENT.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

      

``      9902.10.30        Giardiniera,            Free      No change       No change       On or before 12/
                           containing red                                                    31/2009          ''
                           peppers and chili                                                                   .
                           peppers, prepared or
                           preserved otherwise
                           than by vinegar, not
                           frozen (provided for
                           in subheading
                           2005.90.97)..........

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```