alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>

                                                                    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 Annual Report on Form 10-K of Waxman
Industries, Inc. (the "Company") for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2003, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), the undersigned hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

-        the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
         15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

August 28, 2003

                                /s/ Melvin Waxman
                                --------------------------------------------
                                Melvin Waxman
                                Chairman of the Board and Co-Chief Executive
                                Officer

                                /s/ Armond Waxman
                                --------------------------------------------
                                Armond Waxman
                                President, Co-Chief Executive Officer and
                                Treasurer

                                /s/ Mark W. Wester
                                --------------------------------------------
                                Mark W. Wester
                                Senior Vice President and Chief Financial
                                Officer
Exhibit
31.2
 CERTIFICATION
 
 I, John
E. Baker, certify that:
 
 1.
    I
      have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Stratus Properties
      Inc.;
  2.
    Based
      on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a
      material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the
      statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
      were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this
      report;
  3.
    Based
      on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
      included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
      financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
      registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
  4.
    The
      registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for
      establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as
      defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant
      and have:
  (a)
    Designed
      such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
      controls 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)
    Evaluated
      the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures
      and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of
      the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period
      covered by this report based on such evaluation;
and
  (c)
    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; and
  5.
    The
      registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our
      most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to
      the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s
      board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
      functions):
  (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
13, 2005
 
 /s/
John E. Baker
 John E. Baker
 Senior
Vice President &
 Chief
Financial Officer
**Exhibit 21**

**Subsidiaries of the Registrant**

OPNET Analysis, Inc. (formerly MIL 3 Analysis, Inc.), a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Delaware.

OPNET Technologies Societe par Actions Simplifiee, a corporation organized under the laws of France.

OPNET Technologies Limited, a corporation organized under the laws of England and Wales. 

OPNET Technologies b.v.b.a, (formerly WDM NetDesign, b.v.b.a), a corporation organized under the laws of Belgium.

OPNET Technologies, GmbH, a corporation organized under the laws of Germany. 

OPNET Technologies Asia Pte. Ltd., a corporation organized under the laws of Singapore.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Torrey MITCHELL, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 11-50283.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 7, 2012.*

Filed Dec. 18, 2012.

Curtis A. Kin, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Michael Anthony Brown, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Holly A. Sullivan, Law Office of Holly A. Sullivan, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: IKUTA and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges, and BURNS, District Judge.**

*

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

**

 The Honorable Larry A. Burns, District Judge for the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM ***

Mitchell appeals the district court’s reimposition of supervised release. We affirm.

The district court did not plainly err in considering the need for restitution when reimposing Mitchell’s term of supervised release; rather, the court is required to consider such a need pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 3583(c) and 3553(a)(7). The general rule that district courts may not consider “just punishment” when revoking and reimposing supervised release, *see*18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(A), does not override the more specific obligation imposed by § 3553(a)(7) to consider the need to provide restitution. *See Bloate v. United States,*559 U.S. 196, 130 S.Ct. 1345, 1354, 176 L.Ed.2d 54 (2010).

Nor was the court’s imposition of a term of supervised release substantively unreasonable, in light of the totality of the circumstances. *See United States v. Carty,*520 F.3d 984, 993 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc). In addition to considering the need for restitution, the district court considered *629Mitchell’s rehabilitative needs and imposed a sentence that farthered Congress’s goal to help Mitchell make “a desirable transition back into the community.” *United States v. Hurt,*345 F.3d 1033, 1036 (9th Cir.2003). The result was a sentence that was “sufficient, but not greater than necessary” to accomplish the relevant statutory purposes. *Carty,*520 F.3d at 991 (internal quotation marks omitted).

AFFIRMED.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 96-30228

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

MARCUS THEODORE,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 95-CR-284-L

- - - - - - - - - -

October 10, 1996

Before JONES, DeMOSS and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Marcus Theodore contends that the district court erred in

denying him an additional one-level reduction for the acceptance

of responsibility. Section 3E1.1(b) of the sentencing guidelines

established a three-part test to determine entitlement to the

additional one-level decrease for acceptance of responsibility. 

United States v. Mills, 9 F.3d 1132, 1136 (5th Cir. 1993). The

sentencing court is directed to grant the additional one-level
No. 96-30228

- 2 -

decrease in the defendant's offense level if (1) the defendant

qualifies for the two-level decrease under § 3E1.1(a) for

acceptance of responsibility; (2) the defendant's offense level

is 16 or higher before the two-level reduction under § 3E1.1(a);

and (3) the defendant timely "`assisted authorities'" by taking

"one--but not necessarily both--of two `steps': either (a)

`timely' furnishing information to the prosecution about the

defendant's own involvement in the offense (subsection (b)(1));

or (b) `timely' notifying the authorities that the defendant will

enter a guilty plea (subsection (b)(2))." United States v.

Tello, 9 F.3d 1119, 1124-25 (5th Cir. 1993). 

Affording the district court the great deference that is

required, we find that the denial of the additional reduction for

acceptance of responsibility was not clearly erroneous because of

the Government’s representations, the close proximity of the plea

to the trial date, and the extensive factual basis presented for

the plea. United States v. Bermea, 30 F.3d 1539, 1577 (5th Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 115

S. Ct. 1113, 1825 (1995); see § 3E1.1, comment. (n.5) ("the determination of the sentencing

judge is entitled to great deference").

AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-2000
<CASH>                                         860,596
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,665,983
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (69,373)
<INVENTORY>                                  2,024,916
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             4,662,497
<PP&E>                                       5,069,345
<DEPRECIATION>                             (1,417,885)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               9,943,266
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,694,917
<BONDS>                                      1,367,327
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         3,629
<OTHER-SE>                                   6,433,083
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 9,943,266
<SALES>                                     11,312,112
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            11,364,090
<CGS>                                        7,971,628
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               10,020,492
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               221,747
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              80,113
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,041,738
<INCOME-TAX>                                   411,623
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            630,115
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   630,115
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .19
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .19


</TABLE>
### The Honorable Susan Webber Wright, United States Distric t 1 

### Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. ___________ No. 95-3402

___________ Johnny Warren, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Eastern District of Arkansas. Mexico Chiquito, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: December 24, 1996 Filed: January 2, 1997

___________ Before FAGG, WOLLMAN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM.
Jo hnny Warren appeals from the district court's entry of judgmen t 1 for defendant after a bench trial in his employm ent discrimination action. In the absence of a trial transcript, we cannot review the district court' s factual findings for clear error. See Meroney v . Delta Int'l Mach. Corp. , 18 F.3d 1436, 1437 (8 th Cir. 1994). Accepting those findings as true, we agree that Warren did not establish a prima facie case of rac e discrimination. See Miner v. Bi-State Dev. Agency , 943 F.2d 912, 913-14 (8t h Cir. 1991) (plaintiff who failed to prove performance was adequat e fail ed to establish prima facie case of race discrimination). As t o War ren's allegations regarding his appointed counsel's representatio n below, we note that a civil litigant has no

### -2-

constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel. See Glick v
. Henderson , 855 F.2d 536, 541 (8th Cir. 1988). Accordingly, we affirm. Se e 8th Cir. R. 47B.
A true copy.

Attest:
CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
# United States Court of Appeals **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________ REGINALD C. SAMPSON, SR., Petitioner,

v.

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD, Respondent.

______________________

2013-3021

______________________ Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection Board in case no. DA4324120147-I-1.

______________________

ON MOTION

______________________ P ER C URIAM

.

O R D E R

The United States Postal Service moves to dismiss Reginald C. Sampson, Sr.’s petition for review for lack of jurisdiction, and, in the alternative, to reform the caption to designate the Merit Systems Protection Board as the respondent.
It appears that Sampson’s petition stems from an initial decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board (“Board”) and that Sampson ha s filed a petition for the same action with both the Board and this court. Sampson Case: 13-3021 Document: 12 Page: 1 Filed: 02/04/2013REGINALD SAMPSON , SR . v. MSPB 2
may not simultaneously proceed in both fora. Therefore, if he wishes for his petition for review to proceed in this court, he must dismiss his Board petition.
Accordingly,

I T I S O RDERED T HAT : (1) The motion to dismiss is denied. If Sampson does not notify the court that he has dismissed hi s petition for review before the Board within 30 days of filing of this order, this petition will be dismissed.
(2) The motion to reform the caption is granted. The revised official caption is reflected above.
(3) The briefing schedule is stayed.

F OR THE C OURT

/s/ Jan Horbaly Jan Horbaly Clerk

s25 Case: 13-3021 Document: 12 Page: 2 Filed: 02/04/2013
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FORM 10-Q
MARCH 31, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                           5,797
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      359
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                        411
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 6,695
<PP&E>                                           1,258
<DEPRECIATION>                                     733
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   7,297
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,006
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           160
<OTHER-SE>                                      33,794
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     7,297
<SALES>                                            225
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   309
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,832
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,523)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,523)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.09)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.1





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 ARIAD Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), does hereby certify, to such officer’s knowledge, that:





The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2010 (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 information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.




Date:  August 9, 2010
/s/ Harvey J. Berger, M.DHarvey J. Berger, M.D.Chairman and Chief Executive OfficerDate:  August 9, 2010
/s/ Edward M. FitzgeraldEdward M. FitzgeraldExecutive Vice President,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 10.12



Compensation of Named Executive Officers of Curis, Inc.



As of March 1, 2005, following are the base salaries, on an annual basis, of
the named executive officers (as defined in Item 402(a)(3) of Regulation S-K) of Curis, Inc.:



|                        |  |                                                                |  | 
|----------------------- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 
|Daniel R. Passeri       |  | $360,000                                                      
|                        |  | President and Chief Executive Officer                          |  | 
|                        | 
|Michael P. Gray         |  | $225,000                                                      
|                        |  | Vice President of Finance and Chief Financial Officer          |  | 
|                        | 
|Lee L. Rubin            |  | $310,000                                                      
|                        |  | Senior Vice President of Research and Chief Scientific Officer |  | 
|                        | 
|Mark W. Noel            |  | $190,000                                                      
|                        |  | Vice President, Technology Management and Business Development |  | 
|                        | 
|Mary Elizabeth Potthoff |  | $185,000                                                      
|                        |  | Vice President, General Counsel                                |  | 



In addition, each of
the named executive officers listed above is eligible to receive stock options and stock awards under the 2000 Stock Incentive Plan of Curis, Inc.
UNITED
STATES


SECURITIES
AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION


WASHINGTON,
D.C. 20549








FORM
8-K





CURRENT
REPORT


Pursuant
to Section 13 or 15(d) of the


Securities
Exchange Act of 1934





Date of
report (Date of earliest event reported): February 5, 2010





Vail
Resorts, Inc.


(Exact
Name of Registrant as Specified in Charter)




Delaware
              
              001-09614
              
              51-0291762(State
      or Other Jurisdiction of Incorporation)
              
              (Commission
      File Number)
              
              (IRS
      Employer Identification No.)390
      Interlocken Crescent
                Broomfield,
      Colorado
              
              80021(Address
      of Principal Executive Offices)
              
              (Zip
      Code)Registrant's
      telephone number, including area code:
              
              (303)
      404-1800







(Former
      Name or Former Address, if Changed Since Last Report)





Check the
appropriate box below if the Form 8-K filing is intended to simultaneously
satisfy the filing obligation of the registrant under any of the following
provisions (see General
Instruction A.2. below):





o  Written
communications pursuant to Rule 425 under the Securities Act (17 CFR
230.425)





o  Soliciting
material pursuant to Rule 14a-12 under the Exchange Act (17 CFR
240.14a-12)





o  Pre-commencement
communications pursuant to Rule 14d-2(b) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR240.14d-2(b))





o  Pre-commencement
communications pursuant to Rule 13e-4(c) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR240.13e-4(c))





Item
5.02.  Departure of Directors or Certain Officers; Election of Directors;
Appointment of Certain Officers; Compensatory Arrangements of Certain
Officers.





On February 8, 2010, Vail Resorts, Inc. (the
“Company”) announced that Keith A. Fernandez, President of Vail Resorts
Development Company, ceased to be employed with the Company effective February
5, 2010.








SIGNATURES




Pursuant
to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has
duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned hereunto
duly authorized.





Vail
      Resorts, Inc.Date:
      February 8, 2010
            By:
            /s/
      Fiona E. ArnoldFiona
      E. ArnoldSenior
      Vice President and
              General
      Counsel