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





**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 Synergx Systems Inc. (the “Company”)
      on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Daniel S. Tamkin,
      Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and I, John A. Poserina, Chief Financial
      Officer of the Company certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted
      pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to my knowledge,
      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/Daniel
      S. Tamkin


Daniel
      S. Tamkin


Chief
      Executive Officer


Synergx
      Systems Inc.


May 11, 2007












/s/John
      A, Poserina


John
      A. Poserina


Chief
      Financial Officer


Synergx
      Systems Inc.


May
      11,
      2007
EXHIBIT 21.1
                                  SUBSIDIARIES

The following is a list of subsidiaries of the Company as of March 17, 1996:


                                                                    PLACE OF
                                NAME                              ORGANIZATION
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subsidiaries of Micro Warehouse, Inc. (Delaware)
     Micro Warehouse, Inc. of New Jersey.......................  United States 
     Micro Warehouse, Inc. of Ohio.............................  United States
     Micro Warehouse Catalogues, Inc. of Connecticut...........  United States
     Micro Warehouse Canada Limited............................  Canada
     Micro Warehouse Denmark APS...............................  Denmark
     Micro Warehouse Finland OY................................  Finland
     Micro Warehouse International, Inc. ......................  United States
     Micro Warehouse Norway AS.................................  Norway
     Micro Warehouse Sweden AB.................................  Sweden
     Micro Warehouse AG........................................  Switzerland
     TD 2 S.A..................................................  France
     Innosoft S.A.R.L..........................................  France
     Kelar S.A.R.L.............................................  France
     Micro Warehouse Australia Pty. Ltd........................  Australia
     Benton Sistemas S.A. de C.V...............................  Mexico
     Inmac Inc.................................................  Canada
Subsidiaries of Micro Warehouse Finland Oy:                      
     Business Forum Oy.........................................  Finland
Subsidiaries of Micro Warehouse International, Inc.:             
     Micro Warehouse (Deutschland) GmbH........................  Germany
     Micro Warehouse Holding B.V...............................  The Netherlands
     Micro Warehouse Japan KK..................................  Japan
Subsidiaries of Micro Warehouse Holding B.V.:                    
     Micro Warehouse B.V.......................................  The Netherlands
     Inmac AB..................................................  Sweden
     TD S.A....................................................  France
     Micro Warehouse Ltd.......................................  United Kingdom
     Micro Warehouse S.A.R.L...................................  France
Subsidiaries of Inmac AB:                                        
     Micro Warehouse Sweden AB.................................  Sweden
     MacKatalogen AB...........................................  Sweden
Subsidiaries of Micro Warehouse Ltd:                         
     Technomatic Ltd...........................................  United Kingdom
     Inmac Ltd.................................................  United Kingdom
     Micro Warehouse (1996) Ltd................................  United Kingdom


                                       22
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2874 Reported in Senate (RS)]

                                                       Calendar No. 380
111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2874

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
   at 2000 Louisiana Avenue in New Orleans, Louisiana, as the ``Roy 
                  Rondeno, Sr. Post Office Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           December 11, 2009

  Ms. Landrieu (for herself and Mr. Vitter) introduced the following 
 bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland 
                   Security and Governmental Affairs

                              May 18, 2010

              Reported by Mr. Lieberman, without amendment

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
   at 2000 Louisiana Avenue in New Orleans, Louisiana, as the ``Roy 
                  Rondeno, Sr. Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. ROY RONDENO, SR. POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 2000 Louisiana Avenue in New Orleans, Louisiana, shall be 
known and designated as the ``Roy Rondeno, Sr. Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Roy 
Rondeno, Sr. Post Office Building''.
                                                       Calendar No. 380

111th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                                S. 2874

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
   at 2000 Louisiana Avenue in New Orleans, Louisiana, as the ``Roy 
                  Rondeno, Sr. Post Office Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                              May 18, 2010

                       Reported without amendment
```
<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
    <meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width" />
    <meta name="robots" content="noindex">
    <title>Research at NIDDK (Division of Intramural Research) - NIDDK</title>
    
<meta name="VIcurrentDateTime" content="638490751129842466" />
<meta name="VirtualFolder" content="/" />
<script type="text/javascript" src="/layouts/system/VisitorIdentification.js"></script>

</head>
<body>
    <div></div>
</body>
</html>
#### Susan Larabee et al., Respondents-Appellants, v Governor of the State of New York, Respondent, and New York State Senate et al., Appellants-Respondents.

Submitted December 6, 2010;

decided January 18, 2011

Motion for reargument dismissed as untimely *(see*Rules of Ct of Appeals [22 NYCRR] § 500.24 [b]) *[see*14 NY3d 230 (2010)].

*737Chief Judge Lippman taking no part.
#### L. Andrew BERNHEIM, Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellant, v. David ELIA, Daniel Elia, The Alfred Elia Trust, the Estate of Josephine Elia, Bernadette Elia, Tina Elia, the Estate of Alfred Elia, Defendants-Counter-Claimants-Appellees, John and Jane Does 1-50, John and Jane Does 51-100, Defendants.

No. 10-1096-cv.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Feb. 18, 2011.

Brian M. Melber, Personius Melber, LLP, Buffalo, N.Y. (Philip L. Guarino, Law Office of Philip L. Guarino, Caldwell, N.J., on the brief), for Appellant.

David Elia, Buffalo, N.Y. (David Smith, Smith, Feuerstein *&*Smith, LLP, Buffalo, N.Y., on the brief), for Appellees.

Present: ROSEMARY S. POOLER, PETER W. HALL, Circuit Judges, and JOSEPH F. BIANCO,* District Judge.

*

 The Honorable Joseph F. Bianco, United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation.

SUMMARY ORDER

L. Andrew Bernheim appeals from the February 25, 2010 decision and order of the United States District Court for the Western District of New York (Arcara, *J.)*dismissing his complaint. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, procedural history, and specification of issues for review.

Bernheim filed this action on February 28, 2005 against defendants David Elia, Daniel Elia, the Estate of Alfred Elia, the Alfred Elia Trust, the Estate of Josephine Elia, Bernadette Elia, Tina Elia, and John Does 1 through 100 (the “Elia defendants”). In his complaint, Bernheim alleges that he is either part or sole owner of D.A. Elia Construction Corp. (“Elia Construction”) and seeks a declaratory judgment to that effect. He also alleges that the Elia defendants wrongfully deprived him of ownership profits and benefits.

After setting out the long and convoluted history of the numerous proceedings involving the parties, the district court de-*408dined to adopt Magistrate Kenneth Schroeder’s report and recommendation that recommended denying defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint and granting Bernheim partial summary judgment on the issue of ownership. The district court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss. We affirm for the reasons set forth in the district court’s decision and opinion of February 25, 2010.

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court hereby is AFFIRMED.
#### George ESCAMILLA, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Ernest CHANDLER, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 05-40359.

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided Oct. 31, 2006.

James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Petitioner-Appellant.

Domingo Sotelo-Lopez, Big Spring, TX, pro se.

Before REAVLEY, WIENER and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

George Escamilla, federal prisoner #54920-146, appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition challenging a prison disciplinary proceeding in which he was found guilty of the introduction of narcotics into Three Rivers Federal Correctional Institution (FCI). He argues that the district court erred in determining that the evidence was sufficient to support the decision of the disciplinary hearing officer (DHO).

Escamilla has not shown that the district court erred in determining that there was “some evidence” in the record to support the DHO’s disciplinary decision as the DHO’s decision was based on the charging officer’s statement, the contents of 33 taped telephone conversations, the SIS report of Lieutenant Robert Swain, and the statements of confidential infor*396mants. *See Reeves v. Pettcox,*19 F.3d 1060, 1062 (5th Cir.1994).

For the first time on appeal, Escamilla argues that his due process rights were violated because he did not appear before the Unit Disciplinary Committee within 72 hours of receiving notice of the charges against him as required by “Program Statement § 5270.07.” Escamilla may not raise this claim for the first time on appeal. *See Leverette v. Louisville Ladder Co.,*183 F.3d 339, 342 (5th Cir. 1999) (this court will not consider a new theory of relief raised for the first time on appeal).

AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. 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 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
#### Rock City Sound, Inc., Respondent, v Bashian & Farber, LLP et al., Appellants.

Submitted February 14, 2011;

decided March 31, 2011

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Nydia Santiago, Appellant.

Submitted February 22, 2011;

decided March 24, 2011

Motion for assignment of counsel granted and Robert S. Dean, Esq., Center for Appellate Litigation, 74 Trinity Place, 11th Floor, New York, NY 10006 assigned as counsel to the appellant on the appeal herein.
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION OFCHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTEDPURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for thefiscal quarter ended March 31, 2006 (the “Report”) by BentleyPharmaceuticals, Inc. (the “Registrant”), the undersigned hereby certifiesthat, to his knowledge:

1.               The Report fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934, as amended, and

2.               The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Registrant.
|   | /s/ JAMES R. MURPHY                                             |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | James R. Murphy                                                 |
|   | Chairman of the Board of Directors and Chief  Executive Officer |
|   | (Principal Executive Officer)                                   |
|   |                                                            |
|   | May 10, 2006                                               |

 

----
#### CAME v. CONSOLIDATED VULTEE AIRCRAFT CORPORATION et al.

District Court, S. D. New York.

Nov. 10, 1947.

Harry Malter, of New York City, for plaintiff.

Pruitt, Desvernine, Hale & Coursen, of New York City (H. Preston Coursen, of New York City, of counsel), for defendant Consol. Vultee Aircraft Corporation'.

Burgess, Ryan & Hicks, of New York City (Newton A. Burgess, of New York *601City, of counsel), for defendant American Type Founders Sales Corporation.

COXE, District Judge.

On the argument of this motion it was agreed by counsel that American Type Founders, Inc. might be substituted as a defendant in this case instead of American Type Founders Sales Corporation, without the service of further papers. The only remaining question is whether the cross-claim of American Type Founders, Inc. against Consolidated Vultee Aircraft Corporation is proper under Rule 13 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S. C.A. following section 723c.

I think this cross-claim, as alleged, is one arising out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the original action; it is essentially based on a denial that Consolidated Vultee Aircraft Corporation had any proprietary rights in the alleged invention, which is the claim of the plaintiff in the complaint. The motion of the defendant Consolidated Vultee Aircraft Corporation to dismiss the cross-claim of American Type Founders, Inc., is accordingly denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM ODWALLA,
INC. FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE YEAR ENDED AUGUST 31, 1997 AS FILED ON FORM
10-K AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FILING ON FORM 10-K.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          AUG-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             SEP-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               AUG-31-1997
<CASH>                                           2,217
<SECURITIES>                                     1,008
<RECEIVABLES>                                    5,202
<ALLOWANCES>                                       592
<INVENTORY>                                      3,910
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                14,230
<PP&E>                                          20,393
<DEPRECIATION>                                   6,518
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  31,006
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           12,930
<BONDS>                                            424
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        29,310
<OTHER-SE>                                    (11,675)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    31,006
<SALES>                                         52,630
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                52,630
<CGS>                                           27,650
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   27,650
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                39,527
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   659
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 149
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (14,337)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (1,901)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (12,436)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (12,436)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (2.49)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (2.49)
        

</TABLE>
Document

Exhibit 10.3

SECOND AMENDMENT
TO
 SPECIALTY PHARMACY NETWORK AGREEMENT


This Second Amendment to Specialty Pharmacy Network Agreement (this “Amendment”) is made as of the date the last Party executes this Amendment (the “Amendment Effective Date”), by and between Accredo Health Group, Inc. (“Specialty Pharmacy”), and United Therapeutics Corporation (“UT”).  Specialty Pharmacy and UT are each referred to in this Agreement as a “Party,” collectively, the “Parties.”


WHEREAS, the Parties entered into that certain Specialty Pharmacy Network Agreement dated as of January 1, 2018, as may be amended (the “Agreement”); and


WHEREAS, the Parties entered into that certain Master Services Agreement dated December 18, 2013 as amended (the “MSA”); and


WHEREAS, the Parties now wish to amend the Agreement to include no charge TYVASO DPI training equipment as further described below.


NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual agreements and covenants contained herein, and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the Parties hereto, intending to be legally bound, hereby agree as follows:




1.Attachment A.  Attachment A of the Agreement is hereby deleted in its entirety and is replaced with the Attachment A attached to this Amendment. 


2.Attachment H. A new Attachment H, BluHale® PRO Device and TYVASO DPITM Demonstration Kit (“Training Equipment”), shall be added to the Agreement as a new Attachment H to the Agreement. 


3.Except as amended and supplemented hereby, all of the terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain and continue in full force and effect and apply hereto.        


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the undersigned, duly authorized, has executed this Amendment, effective as of the Amendment Effective Date.


						
	Accredo Health Group, Inc.


By:    /s/ Bill Martin            
Print Name: Bill Martin                
Title:    Chief Commercial Officer            
Date:   06/08/2022 | 10:40 AM CDT  
	United Therapeutics Corporation


By:    /s/ Kevin Gray            
Print Name:    Kevin Gray        
Title:    SVP Strategic Operations            
Date:   13-Jun-2022 | 5:30:09 PM EDT  









Page 1 of 5
#### STIERHOFF v. CHESAPEAKE & O. RY. CO.

District Court, S. D. New York.

Dec. 15, 1947.

Gerald F. Finley, of New York City (Arnold B. Elkind, of New York City, of counsel), for plaintiff.

Dorr, Hammond, Hand & Dawson, of New York City (William C. Blind, of New York City, of counsel), for defendant.

RYAN, District Judge.

Plaintiff, a resident of Toledo, Ohio, sues to recover under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act, 45 U.S.C.A. § 51 et seq., for injuries alleged to have been sustained by him in an accident which occurred in Toledo, Ohio.

*55Plaintiff now seeks to take depositions in Toledo of twenty-four persons, all of whom are said to reside there.

Defendant moves for an order directing that plaintiff he permitted to take these depositions only if plaintiff advances to defendant the expenses of attendance by defendant’s attorneys at such examination, including a reasonable counsel fee, or in the alternative, that plaintiff proceed on written interrogatories.

It cannot be disputed that this action could have been brought with more convenience to the parties involved and to the Court, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, sitting in Toledo, which is eight miles from the scene of plaintiff’s accident, and in the immediate vicinity of where the persons sought to be examined reside or work. Congress has, however, given to plaintiff the right to sue in this form. Judicial limitations or abridgement of this right should not be imposed.

Plaintiff alleges that he has sustained severe injuries, has been unable to work for fourteen months and is financially in no position to pay counsel fees to defendant’s attorneys.

Rule 12 of the 'Civil Rules of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York leaves the granting of such allowance to the discretion of the Court.

If plaintiff had sued in Ohio, of which State he is a resident, defendant would have been represented, in its own interest, by counsel at the taking of depositions. The added expense does not seem much greater because suit was brought in New York.

This, considered together with plaintiff’s serious injuries and his financial condition, brings the Court to the conclusion that the relief here sought should not be granted and the motion is therefore denied.

Settle order on notice and set date for taking of depositions not less than ten (10) days after the signing of the order.
**EXHIBIT
      32.1**




**CERTIFICATION**




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), each of the
      undersigned officers of Zoom Technologies, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the
      “Company”), does hereby certify that:




|(1) | The
              Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2007 (the
              “Form 10-Q”) of the Company 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 Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all materials
              respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
              Company.
|--- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Dated:
                August 14,2007
            
            
            **/s/
                Frank B. Manning**Frank
                B. ManningChief
                Executive Officer