alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Case 3:11-cv-04087-MLC-LHG Document 1 Filed 07/15/11 Page 1 of 4 PageID: 1
Case 3:11-cv-04087-MLC-LHG Document 1 Filed 07/15/11 Page 2 of 4 PageID: 2
Case 3:11-cv-04087-MLC-LHG Document 1 Filed 07/15/11 Page 3 of 4 PageID: 3
Case 3:11-cv-04087-MLC-LHG Document 1 Filed 07/15/11 Page 4 of 4 PageID: 4
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

I, March Clancy, the Chief Executive and Financial Officer of Hybrid Fuel
Systems, Inc. (the "Company"), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to the best of my
knowledge:

(1) the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB/A of the Company for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2004 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section
13 (a) or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or
78o(d)); and

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

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Hybrid Fuel Systems, Inc. and will be retained by Hybrid Fuel
Systems, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.

Dated: September 27, 2005

                                   /s/ Mark Clancy
                                   Name: Mark Clancy
                                   Title: Chief Executive and Financial Officer
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Chris Mohamed, Appellant.

[822 NYS2d 474]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles Solomon, J.), rendered on or about June 17, 2004, unanimously affirmed. No opinion. Order filed. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.E, Andrias, Sullivan, McGuire and Malone, JJ.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS

OFFICE: TRENTON DATE: June 5, 2015

JUDGE MARY L. COOPER 

COURT REPORTERS: Regina Tell and Carol Farrell

TITLE OF CASE: CV11-3962(MLC) 

HELSINN HEALTHCARE S.A. 

v.

DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES, LTD. 

 

APPEARANCES:

Joseph O’Malley, Esq., Eric Dittman, Esq., Isaac Ashkenazi, Esq., 

and Charles Lizza, Esq., for plaintiffs

Gorge Lombardi, Esq., Jovial Wong, Esq., Mayra Tarantino, Esq., Julia Johnson, Esq.,

and Brendan Barker, Esq. for defendant TEVA

Stuart Sender, Esq., Michael Imbacuan, Esq., Howard Wang, Esq., Kenneth Crowell, Esq.

and Constance Huttner, Esq., for defendant DR. REDDY'S LAB

NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS:

Trial without jury continued before the Honorable Mary L. Cooper.

Lee Kirsch SWORN for defendants. 

Ordered trial adjourned until 6/8/15 at 9:30am.

Lunch recess: 12:00pm – 1:00pm

TIME COMMENCED: 9:30am 

TIME ADJOURNED: 4:15pm 

TOTAL TIME: 5 hours, 45 minutes

s/Elizabeth Heffner

Deputy Clerk

Case 3:11-cv-03962-MLC-DEA Document 325 Filed 06/05/15 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 18820
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION



Pursuant to the requirement set forth in Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the Exchange Act), and Section
1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code (18 U.S.C. §1350), Frank Litvack, M.D., Chief Executive Officer of Conor Medsystems, Inc. (the Company), and Michael Boennighausen, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
each hereby certify that, to the best of his knowledge:



| | 1. | The Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2004, and to which this Certification is attached as Exhibit 32.1 (the Periodic Report),
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Exchange Act; and
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



In Witness Whereof, the undersigned have
set their hands hereto as of the 31st day of March, 2005.



/s/    FRANK LITVACK,
M.D.

Frank Litvack, M.D.

Chief Executive Officer



/s/    MICHAEL
BOENNIGHAUSEN

Michael Boennighausen

Chief Financial Officer
Case 2:11-cr-00451-KSH Document 458 Filed 07/08/11 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 183
CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER OF


FRANKLIN
TOWERS ENTERPRISES, INC.


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 adopted pursuant to Pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned hereby certifies that
the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2010 of
Franklin Towers Enterprises Inc. (the “Company”) fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in such Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company.





(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 result of operations of the Company.





/s/
      Dingliang Kuang





Dingliang
Kuang


Chief
Executive Officer


Chief
Financial Officer




August
23, 2010




A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
Franklin Towers Enterprises, Inc. and will be retained by Franklin Towers
Enterprises, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.
# 2011-17

Workplace suicides in the private construction industry, 2011-2017 - continued		

Workplace suicides in the private construction industry, 2011-2017		

Workplace suicides in the private construction industry, 2011-2017 - continued		

Workplace suicides in the private construction industry, 2011-2017		

Page &P
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 60

To amend the Metric Conversion Act of 1975 to require Federal agencies 

to impose certain requirements on recipients of awards for scientific 

and engineering research. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 7, 2003

Mr. EHLERS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Science 

A BILL

To amend the Metric Conversion Act of 1975 to require 

Federal agencies to impose certain requirements on recipients of awards for scientific and engineering research.

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

3 SECTION 1. AMENDMENT. 

4 Section 12(b) of the Metric Conversion Act of 1975 

5 (15 U.S.C. 205j–1(b)) is amended to read as follows: 

6 ‘‘(b) Guidelines established under subsection (a) shall 

7 require that any transaction between the Federal agency 

8 and another person providing for such person to perform 
2

•HR 60 IH 

1 scientific or engineering research with Federal funding in2 clude provisions—

3 ‘‘(1) clearly identifying the extent to which the 

4 metric system of measurement or other systems of 

5 measurement will be used under the transaction; 

6 ‘‘(2) requiring the usage of systems of measure7 ment consistent with the provisions described in 

8 paragraph (1); and 

9 ‘‘(3) assigning to the person receiving Federal 

10 funding the financial responsibility for failure to fol11 low the requirements stated in paragraph (2).’’.

Æ
Exhibit 32.1
Form 10-QSB
Millennium Electronics, Inc.
File No. 0-22515
                            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 Millennium  Electronics,  Inc.
(the  "Company")  on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2003 as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
Douglas P.  Morris,  President,  Chief  Executive  Officer  and 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 to the best of
my knowledge:

     (1) the Report fully  complies  with the  requirements  of Section 13(a) or
15(d)of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; 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/ Douglas P. Morris
President, Chief Executive Officer
Chief Financial Officer
Director

August 28, 2003
a)
    
    Designed such disclosure control and procedures, or caused such disclosure control
and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information
relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us
by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is
being prepared;b)
    
    Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal
control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide
reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation
of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted
accounting principles;c)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure control and procedures
and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure
control and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such
evaluation; andd)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the
registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially
affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control
over financial reporting.
  a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation
of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely
affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial
information; and
 
 b)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees
who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting.
 Date: May 15, 2008
    By:
    /s/ David R. AllenDavid R. AllenChief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer)
Exhibit 12
 Dendreon Corporation  Ratios of Earnings to Fixed Charges
2009 10-K
 Year endedDecember 31,Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges (in thousands)
    
    2009
    
    
    2008
    
    
    2007
    
    
    2006
    
    
    2005EarningsLoss before taxes
    
    $
    (220,161
    )
    
    $
    (71,644
    )
    
    $
    (99,264
    )
    
    $
    (91,642
    )
    
    $
    (81,547
    )Add: Fixed Charges
    
    
    5,174
    
    
    
    7,210
    
    
    
    5,888
    
    
    
    3,532
    
    
    
    2,157Less: Capitalized Interest
    
    
    1,374
    
    
    
    586
    
    
    
    229
    
    
    
    1,536
    
    
    
    Total Earnings (as defined)
    
    
    (216,361
    )
    
    
    (65,020
    )
    
    
    (93,605
    )
    
    
    (89,646
    )
    
    
    (79,390
    )Fixed ChargesInterest expense
    
    
    1,893
    
    
    
    4,685
    
    
    
    3,828
    
    
    
    252
    
    
    
    346Capitalized Interest
    
    
    1,374
    
    
    
    586
    
    
    
    229
    
    
    
    1,536
    
    
    
    Amortization of debt issuance costs
    
    
    428
    
    
    
    471
    
    
    
    278
    
    
    
    84
    
    
    
    5Total Interest Expensed and Capitalized
    
    
    3,695
    
    
    
    5,742
    
    
    
    4,335
    
    
    
    1,872
    
    
    
    351One-third of rental expense, net of sublease income
    
    
    1,479
    
    
    
    1,468
    
    
    
    1,553
    
    
    
    1,660
    
    
    
    1,806Total Fixed Charges
    
    $
    5,174
    
    
    $
    7,210
    
    
    $
    5,888
    
    
    $
    3,532
    
    
    $
    2,157
[No. 54192-7-I.

Division One.

November 21, 2005.]

#### Richard J. Klein et al., Appellants, v. Estate of John R. Klein et al., *Respondents.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Snohomish County, No. 03-2-09757-6, Charles S. French, J., entered April 20, 2004. *Reversed*by unpublished opinion per Schindler, J., concurred in by Cook, J. Pro Tern.; Kennedy, J., indicated her concurrence prior to her death on September 16, 2005.
[No. 22917-3-III.

Division Three.

October 20, 2005.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Eric K. Johnson, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Chelan County, No. 03-1-00329-9, Ted W. Small, J., entered March 8, 2004. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Sweeney, A.C.J., concurred in by Schultheis and Brown, JJ.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,  AS ADOPTED PURSUANTTO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of OSK Capital III Corp(the "Company") on Form 10-KSBfor the period ending December 31, 2002 (the "Report"), I, Deborah Salerno, President of theCompany, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1)         The Report fully complies with the requirement of Section 13(a) or 15 (d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

2)         The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the Company'sfinancial position and results of operations.

/s/ Deborah A. SalernoDeborah A. Salerno, President

January 28, 2004
[Cite as State v. Smith , 2020-Ohio-1446.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT PORTAGE COUNTY, OHIO

STATE OF OHIO, : MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiff-Appellee, : CASE NO. 2020-P-0023 - vs - : MICHAEL A. SMITH, : Defendant-Appellant. :

Criminal Appeal f r om the Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 2017 CR 00290.

Jud g ment: Dismissed.

Victor V. Vigluicci, Portage County Prosecutor, 241 South Chestnut Street, Ravenna, OH 44266 ( For Plaintiff-Appellee )

. Michael A. Smith, pro se, PID# 762-940, Trumbull Correctional Institution, 5701 Burnett Road, P.O. Box 901, Leavittsbur g , OH 44430 ( Defendant-Appellant )

.

THOMAS R. WRIGHT, J. {¶1} On February 25, 2020, appellant, Michael A. Smith, pro se, file d a “Motion to file Appeal on Sentence,” construed as a motion for leave to file a delayed appeal, pursuant to App.R. 5(A). No notice of appeal was filed in the trial court, and no judgment entry for which appellant appeals was provided. {¶2} App.R. 5(A) provides:2 {¶3} “After the expiration of the thirty day period provided by App. R. 4(A) for the filing of a notice of appeal as of right, an appeal may be take n by a defendant with leave of the court to which the appeal is taken in the following clas ses of cases: {¶4} “(a) Criminal proceedings; * * * {¶5} “(2) A motion for leave to appeal shall be filed with the court of appeals

and shall set forth the reasons for the failure of the appellant to perfect an appeal as of right. Concurrently with the filing of the motion, the movant shall file with the clerk of the trial court a notice of appeal in the form prescribed by App.R. 3 and shall file a copy of the notice of the appeal in the court of appeals. * * *.” (Emphasis added.) {¶6} In the present case, appellant’s motion is defective for the fo llowing reasons: 1) appellant’s motion does not set forth any reasons for filing an untimely appeal; and 2) no notice of appeal was filed in the trial court concurrently with the filing of the motion for leave to appeal in this court. Further, no a ppealed judgment entry was provided pursuant to Loc.R. 3(D)(2). {¶7} Accordingly, because appellant’s present motion is procedurally defective, it is hereby overruled. {¶8} We note that appellant is not barred from filing a new motion f or leave to file a delayed appeal that complies with the App.R. 5(A) and th e local rules of this court by filing a notice of appeal with the trial with an attached ju dgment entry on appeal. {¶9} This matter is dismissed. MATT LYNCH, J., MARY JANE TRAPP, J.,

concur.
N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential. 

# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________ PATRICK B. BUCKLEY, Claimant

- Appellant,

v.

ERIC K. SHINSEKI, S ecretary of Veterans Affairs, Respondent

- Appellee.

______________________

2013

- 7073

______________________ Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims in No. 11

- 1012, Chief Judge Bruce E. Kasold.

______________________

JUDGMENT

______________________

K ENNETH M. C ARPENTER , Carpenter, Chartered, of Topeka, Kansas, argued for claimant

- appellant.

P HYLLIS J O B AUNACH , Senior Trial Counsel, Classification Unit, United States Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, argued for respondent

- appellee. With her on the brief were S TUART F. D ELERY , Assistant Atto rney General, B RYANT G. S NEE , Acting Director, and M ARTIN F. H OCKEY , J R

. , Deputy Director. Of counsel on the brief were M ICHAEL J. T IMINSKI , Deputy AssistantGeneral Counsel, and C HRISTINA L. G REGG , Attorney, United States Department of Veterans Affairs, of Was hington, DC. Of counsel was Y. K EN L EE , Attorney.

______________________

T HIS C AUSE having been heard and considered, it is

O RDERED and A DJUDGED :

P ER C URIAM (D YK , R EYNA , and T ARANTO , Circuit Judges ).

AFFIRMED

. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

E NTERED BY O RDER OF THE C OURT

May 9, 2014 /s/ Daniel E. O’Toole

Date Daniel E. O’Toole Clerk of Court
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). 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 UN I T E D S T AT E S OF AME R I C A, P l ai nt i ff

- A pp el l ee , v. MAR T I N C AR R I L L O- C AS T AN E DA , a . k. a . M art i n C ar i l l o, a . k. a . M artyC arr i l l o, a. k. a. S pank y, a. k. a R od ol fo V al dez, D e f

e n d an t - A p p e llan t. N o. 10- 50294 D. C . No . 2 : 1 0 - c r - 0 0 1 3 8 - OD W ME MOR AN DU M *

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 C e n tr a l D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia O t i s D . W r i ghtI I , D i s tr i c tJudge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d June 15, 2011 ** B efo re: C A N B Y , O ’ S C A N N L A IN , an dF IS H E R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. M a rt i n C arr i l l o- C a s t ane daappe a l s f r om hi s gui l ty - pl e ac onvi c t i on and 21- m onth s e nt e nc e f

orbe i ng a n i l l e ga l a l i e n f ound i n the U ni t e d S t a t e s f ol l ow i ng de port a t i on, i n vi ol a t i on of 8 U . S . C . § 1326. P ur s uantt o A n de rs v . Ca lifo rn ia ,



# FI LED JU N 24 2011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS10- 50294 2 38 6 U . S . 73 8 (19 67 ), C arri l l o-C as t aneda’ s c ou nselhas f i l ed a bri ef

st at i ng there ar e n o g r o u n d s f

o rr e lie f , a lo n g w ith am o tio n to w ith d r aw a s c o u n s e l o f r e c o r d . W e have prov i ded the appel l antw i th the op po rtun i ty t o fi l e apro se s up pl em ent al br i e f . N o pr o s e s uppl e m e nt a l br i e f ora ns w e r i ng br i e f

ha s be e n f

i l e d. O uri nde pe nde ntr e vi e w of the r e c or d pur s uantt o P e n s o n v . O h io , 4 8 8 U . S. 7 5 , 8 0 - 8 1 ( 1 9 8 8 ) , d is c lo s e s n o a r g u ab le g r o u n d s f o rr e lie f o n d ir e c t ap p e a l. A cco rd i n g l y, co u n sel ’ s m o t i o n t o w i th d raw i s G R A N TED , and the di stri ct co u rt ’ s j u d g m en ti s A FFI R M ED .
#### The Wm. N. Beach.1 Drake *v.*The Wm. N. Beach.

*(District Court, E. D. New York.*

June 22, 1886.)

CoiujsroN—Floating Logs—Austsnom *ov*Light—Passing Tug — Entangling oe Sornesw.

Libelant, allowed logs to remain floating in the water along-side his derrick, with no light upon them. In the night the propeller of a passing tug, whose pilot had no knowledge of the presence of the logs, caught in the logs, whereby libelant’s *property*was damaged. On suit brought against the tug for the damage, *held,*that she was not liable.

In Admiralty.

*De L. Berier,*for libelant.

*E. D.*McCarthy, for claimants.

1

 Reported by R. D. & Wyllys Benedict, Esqs., of the New York bar.

Benedict, J.

In such a locality as this, in the Harlem river, it was not negligence in the pilot of the William N. Beach to allow the stem of his boat to approach within 16 feet of the libelant’s derrick, then fast to the shore. As the tide was, and as the tug was handled, it is plain that no injury would have been done to the libelant’s property there, if the screw of the tug had not caught in some piles which the libelant had placed and allowed to remain floating *in*the water along-side his derrick. It was negligence in the libelant to leave these piles where they were when the tug’s propeller was caught and stopped by them, and this negligence was the cause of the damages complained of. There was no negligence on the part of the tug in failing to see the piles floating in the water. No light had been placed upon them. The pilot of the tug had no knowledge of their presence, nor any reason to suspect their presence there.

The libel must he dismissed, with costs.
#### FLANAGAN v. POTOMAC ELECTRIC POWER CO.

Civil Action No. 15215.

District Court of the United States for the District of Columbia.

Nov. 17, 1942.

Frank Paley, of Washington, D. C., for plaintiff.

H. W. Kelly and R. E. Lee Goff, both of Washington, D. G, for defendant Potomac Electric Power Co.

Edmund L. Jones and Howard Boyd, both of Washington, D. G, for thi. 1 party defendants Combustion Engineeris y Co., Inc., and another.

McGUIRE, Justice.

The original plaintiff in this case has sued a third party, not his employer, alleging negligence as a result of which he claims injury.

The third party — the defendant in the original suit — proceeding under Rule 14, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S. C.A. following section 723c, made an ex parte motion to bring in the employer of the plaintiff on the theory that it “may be liable to him or to the plaintiff for all or part of the plaintiff’s claim against him.” The motion was granted.

The employer now seeks to have the third party complaint dismissed. Obviously its liability as far as the plaintiff is concerned is fixed. It cannot be sued by him except under circumstances which are not present here. It may well, however, under the circumstances owe a duty or obligation to the third party plaintiff, the original defendant, and this an independent duty or obligation not necessarily bottomed on contract express or implied.

The motion to- dismiss the third party complaint, therefore, is denied.