alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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. 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 E DWAR D A L VA R AD O; J OH N AZZAM ; CHARLOTT E B OSW EL L; TA N D A BRO W N ; BERTH A D U EN A S, P l ai n t i ffs, CH A RLES G I BBS; J A N I CE LEW I S; MAR I A MUN OZ ; KE VIN N E E L Y; L OR E P AO GO F I E ; DY R ON N TH EO D O RE; LA SO N I A W A LK ER; C HR I S T OP HE R WI L KE R S ON , P l ai n t i ffs, a nd PERN ELL EV A N S, P la in tif

f - A p p e llan t, v. F E D E R A L E X P R E S S C O R P O R A T I O N , a D el aw ar e c orpo rat i on , D B A F edex E x p ress, D ef

endant- A pp el l ee . N o. 08- 16545 D . C. N o . 3 : 0 4 - c v - 0 0 0 9 8 - SI ME MOR AN DU M * 

# FI LED JU N 16 2010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2 A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e N o rth e rn D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia S us a n I l l s t on, D i s tr i c tJudge , P r e s i di ng A r gue d a nd S ubm i tt e d M ay12, 2010 S a n F r an c is c o , C a lif

o rn ia B efo re: R E IN H A R D T , W . F L E T C H E R an dN . R . S M IT H , C i rcu i tJu d g es. Pl a i n t i f f Pe rn e l l Ev a n s ap p e a l s th e d e n i a l o f h i s mo t i o n f

o re x t e n s i o n o f

t i me t o f i l e anot i c e of

appe a l . W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S . C . § 1291. T h e d is tr ic t c o u rt m a ye x te n dth e tim e to f ile an o tic e o f

ap p e a l if ap arty m o v e s w ith in 3 0 d a y s a f te re x p ir a tio n o f

th e ap p e a l p e r io da n d“s h o w s e x c u s ab le ne gl e c torgood c aus e . ” F e d. R . A pp. P . 4( a ) ( 5) ( A ) . I n L em og e v . U ni ted States , 587 F . 3d 1188, 1192, 1194- 96 ( 9th C i r . 2009) , w e he l d tha tadi s tr i c tc ourtm a ki ng a n e x c u s ab le n e g le c t d e te rm in a tio n ab u s e dits d is c r e tio n w h e n it f a ile d , in te ra lia , to c o n s id e re a c h o f

th e f o u re x p lic it P i on ee rf

a c t or s a s w e l la s the pr e j udi c e the m ovi ng pa rtyw oul d s uf f e ri f i t s m ot i on w a s de ni e d. B e c aus e w e de c i de d L e m oge af t erthe di stri ctcourt ’ s dec i si on i n thi s c as e, w e vac at e and re m and t o al l ow that courtt o rec on si der i n l i gh tof L e m oge . V AC AT E D A ND RE MAND E D.
**Exhibit 32.1****CERTIFICATION**I, Michael D. Dale, Chief Executive Officer of ATS Medical, Inc. (the “Company”), certify, pursuantto Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended March 31, 2007 (the“Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities and Exchange Actof 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); andThe information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Company.     Date: May 9, 2007         /s/ Michael D. Dale       Name: Michael D. Dale  Title: Chief Executive Officer
EXHIBIT
      32





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350











We, each hereby certify to the best of
our knowledge that the Quarterly Report of Form 10-Q of Gateway Tax Credit Fund,
Ltd. for the period ended December 31, 2008 containing the financial statements
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 that information contained
in the periodic report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of Gateway.








/s/ Ronald M.
      Diner
              Ronald
      M. Diner
              President
              Raymond
      James Tax Credit Funds, Inc.
              (the
      Managing General Partner)
              February
      19, 2009/s/ Jonathan
      Oorlog
              Jonathan
      Oorlog
              Vice
      President and Chief Financial Officer
              Raymond
      James Tax Credit Funds, Inc.
              (the
      Managing General Partner)
              February
      19, 2009
#### Liestiawati WIDJAJA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General of the United States, Respondent.

No. 06-1391.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Sept. 22, 2006.

Decided: Oct. 24, 2006.

Arnedo S. Valera, Law Offices of Valera *&*Associates, Fairfax, Virginia, for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Assistant Director, Kristin K. Edison, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Before MOTZ, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Liestiawati Widjaja, a native and citizen of Indonesia, seeks review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) denying her motion to reconsider. We have reviewed the administrative record and conclude that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying Widjaja’s motion. *See*8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a), (b) (2006).

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. *See In re: Widjaja,*No. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ] (B.I.A. Mar. 6, 2006). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*PETITION DENIED.*
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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB ("Quarterly Report")of Itronics, Inc. (the "Registrant") for the fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2007as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, each of theundersigned, in their capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) The Quarterly 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 Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Registrant.

 

Date: August 13, 2007                                /S/MICHAEL C. HORSLEY
                                                     MichaelC. Horsley

                                                     Controller

                                                     (PrincipalAccounting Officer)

42
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-1996
<CASH>                                         103,624
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  928,427
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     46,603
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,284,457
<PP&E>                                         620,729
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,008,478
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,921,096
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       142,692
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,922,727
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,065,419
<SALES>                                        882,666
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               882,666
<CGS>                                          667,547
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,027,043
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                20,833
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,165,210)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,165,210)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,165,210)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.20)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.20)
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
               The  consolidated  balance  sheet as of February 28, 1997 and the
               consolidated  statement  of  income  for the three  months  ended
               February 28, 1997.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. Dollars
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              NOV-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 DEC-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   FEB-28-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         1,608
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  2,998
<ALLOWANCES>                                   116
<INVENTORY>                                    96
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               5,114
<PP&E>                                         31,176
<DEPRECIATION>                                 13,677
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 22,613
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          2,730
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       708
<OTHER-SE>                                     19,768
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   22,613
<SALES>                                        3,765
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               4,078
<CGS>                                          839
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  2,196
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               3
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             35
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                1,844
<INCOME-TAX>                                   701
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            1,143
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   1,143
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  .36
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  .36
        


</TABLE>
#### Luis ALEGRIA; Maile Alegria, husband and wife, Plaintiffs—Appellants, v. PACIFIC EMPLOYERS INSURANCE COMPANY, a foreign insurance company, Defendant—Appellee.

No. 04-35834.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted June 8, 2006.*

Decided June 14, 2006.

*726Brian Paul Russell, Esq., Seattle, WA, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

William F. Knowles, Esq., Cozen O’Con-nor Washington Mutual Tower, Seattle, WA, for Defendant-Appellee.

Before: TALLMAN and BYBEE, Circuit Judges, and HUFF,** District Judge.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

**

 The Honorable Marilyn L. Huff, District Judge, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM ***

The facts are known to the parties.

In the June 29, 2000, coverage waiver, Best Buy rejected Pacific Employers Insurance Company’s (“PEIC”) under-insured motorist (“UIM”) coverage “in its entirety.” Such a rejection is effective under a plain reading of Wash. Rev.Code § 48.22.030(4) and under *Galbraith v. National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh,*78 Wash.App. 526, 897 P.2d 417, 420 (1995) (requiring a “specific and unequivocal” rejection). The district court correctly determined that Best Buy effectively waived PEIC’s UIM. coverage when the coverage waiver was sent to the underwriters on May 29, 2001, irrespective of the alleged acceptance of UIM coverage dated February 15, 2001.

Following Best Buy’s purchase of Magnolia Hi-Fi (“Magnolia”), Magnolia’s coverage under the PEIC policy was subject to Best Buy’s earlier waiver of UIM coverage. Consistent with *Koop v. Safeway Stores, Inc.,*66 Wash.App. 149, 831 P.2d 777 (1992), Magnolia’s inclusion under Best Buy’s policy did not materially alter Best Buy’s policy such that PEIC was obligated to offer UIM coverage to Magnolia; there was no lapse in Best Buy’s coverage, and the parties (i.e., Best Buy employees), subject matter, and policy number were the same. Further, Magnolia did not request UIM coverage following its acquisition by Best Buy.

Given the foregoing, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Alegria’s motion for reconsideration.

The district court’s grant of summary judgment in PEIC’s favor and denial of Alegria’s motion for reconsideration are AFFIRMED.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                          14,451
<SECURITIES>                                    25,353
<RECEIVABLES>                                   76,196
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     20,987
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               203,254
<PP&E>                                          57,400
<DEPRECIATION>                                  28,163
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 234,844
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          141,958
<BONDS>                                          1,917
<COMMON>                                         1,895
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                      81,563
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   234,844
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               416,995
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  377,823
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                38,551
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 904
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  4,750
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,141
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,609
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,609
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.39
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>
                                                                      EXHIBIT 23

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Post-Effective Amendment to
Registration Statement No. 33-13901, and in Registration Statement Nos.
33-73696, 33-73698, 33-73700, 333-17349, 333-17351, 333-50356, 333-75388 and
333-75391 of Barr Laboratories, Inc. on Form S-8 of our report dated August 9,
2002, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Barr Laboratories, Inc.
for the year ended June 30, 2002.

DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

Stamford, Connecticut
August 26, 2002
SCAD-19-0000055
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI # I
OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL,

Petitioner,

vs. CLAYTON C. IKEI, Respondent.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING (ODC Case No. 16-O-032)

ORDER (By: Nakayama, J.) Upon review of the exhibits filed in this matter on January 23, 2019 by the Disciplinary Board of the Hawai # i Supreme Court, in support of its report and recommendation, it is apparent that several docket items are sealed when, with proper, specific redaction, as set forth in Rule 9.1 of the Hawai # i Court Records Rules (HCRR), publicly accessible versions of those docket items could be made available. See O# ahu Publications, Inc. v. Takase, 139 Hawai # i 236, 246, 386 P.3d 873, 883 (2016). Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Disciplinary Board, with Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCAD-19-0000055 05-MAR-2019 01:59 PMthe cooperation of the Office of Disciplinary Counsel and

Respondent Clayton Ikei, shall file publicly accessible versions of Dockets 3, 4, 7 and 8 by redacting social security and financial account information pursuant to HCRR Rule 9.1, as well as the information found at Docket 4:258-61, or good cause as to why an entire docket item should remain sealed, based upon the impracticability of specific redaction. The parties shall, in future filings in this matter, similarly adhere to employing redaction to ensure general public access to relevant documents.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai # i, March 5, 2019. /s/ Paula A. Nakayama Associate Justice

2
#### In the Matter of New York State Health Facilities Association, Inc., on Behalf of its Member Residential Health Care Facilities, Appellant, v James G. Sheehan, as Medicaid Inspector General of the State of New York, et al., Respondents.

Submitted March 18, 2013;

decided April 30, 2013

Motion by LeadingAge New York for leave to appear amicus curiae on the motion for leave to appeal herein granted, and the memorandum of law is accepted as filed.
QUEST PRODUCTS CORPORATION

                                  Exhibit 99.1

                            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 Quest Products Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Burton
A. Goldstein, CEO 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.


                                                        /s/ Burton A. Goldstein
                                                        ------------------------
                                                        Burton A. Goldstein
                                                        Chief Executive Officer

                                                        May 12, 2003
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 MTS Medication
Technologies, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Form 10-Q), I, Todd E. Siegel, President and Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) | The Form 10-Q 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 Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: November 16, 2009



|                                                    
|----------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Todd E. Siegel                                  
|Todd E. Siegel President and
Chief Executive Officer



35
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-8098

In Re: REGINALD L. FRAZIER, Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-94-170-4-BO, CA-95-463-HC-BO) Submitted: November 30, 1995 Decided: February 26, 1996 Before WILKINSON, Chief Judge, and HAMILTON and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Reginald L. Frazier, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Reginald Frazier brought this petition for writ of mandamus seeking multiple forms of relief. To the extent that Frazier alleges unreasonable delay in the habeas corpus action proceeding in the district court, the district court docket sheet reflects no delay. To the extent that Frazier seeks review of district court action, mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal. In re United Steelworkers , 595 F.2d 958, 960 (4th Cir. 1979). Frazier's request for an evidentiary hearing before this court is denied. Frazier makes conclusory allegations of bias on the part of the district court. He has made no claim which shows that the district judge has a personal bias which would prevent him from rendering an impartial decision. In re Beard , 811 F.2d 818, 827 (4th Cir. 1987). We also hold that Frazier cannot reopen through mandamus our decisions in Frazier v. North Carolina State Bar , No. 94-1775 (4th Cir. Jan. 6, 1995) (unpublished), or Frazier v. North Carolina State Bar , No. 95-1233 (4th Cir. June 20, 1995) (unpublished). To the extent that Frazier seeks to challenge the conditions of his confinement, he may file an action in district court under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988). We grant Frazier leave to proceed in forma pauperis. We deny his Motion to Post Supersedeas Bond and Motion for Temporary Stay and Release on Bail as mootC the district court granted bail in a hearing on November 13, 1995. We deny his Motion for Hearing In Banc because no judge requested a vote on the Motion. Frazier's petition for a writ of mandamus is denied.3 We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED