alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATION REQUIRED
UNDER SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In
connection with the filing of the financial statements of Ophthalmic Imaging Systems
(Registrant) for the quarter ended September 30, 2006 (the Report),
each of the undersigned hereby certifies, to such officers knowledge, that:

|1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
          Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
|-- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

|                      |                        
|--------------------- | -----------------------
|Date:  April 30, 2007 |                        
|                      | /s/ Gil Allon          
|                      |                        
|                      | Gil Allon              
|                      | Chief Executive Officer
|                      |                        
|                      | /s/ Ariel Shenhar      
|                      |                        
|                      | Ariel Shenhar          
|                      | Chief Financial Officer
# 16SNR08_00

# image1.png
#### BERNAT v. PENNSYLVANIA R. CO.

Civ. A. No. 13748.

United States District Court E. D. Pennsylvania.

June 25, 1953.

Richter, Lord and Farage, Philadelphia, Pa., for plaintiff.

Barnes, Dechert, Price, Myers & Rhoads, Philadelphia, Pa., for defendant.

KIRKPATRICK, Chief Judge.

The defendant has failed to obey an order made under Fed.Rules Civ.Proc. rule 34, 28 U.S.C., to produce the plaintiff’s own statement, taken by the defendant shortly after the accident. The matter is now before the Court to determine what penalty should be imposed.

 The plaintiff argues that the only adequate penalty for a refusal is to render a judgment by default against the disobedient party under Rule 37(b) (2) (iii) and there is something to be said for his view. In a case where the refusal to produce a document makes it impossible for the plaintiff to prepare or present his case, a default judgment would be the proper remedy. However, the rule provides for a number of consequences of varying degrees of severity, and I think it is clearly intended that the Court should fit the penalty to the nature and effects of the refusal. Of course, in refusing to obey the order of the Court the defendant takes a calculated risk, but it is plain that it was not intended that he should automatically incur a default judgment in every case.

In the present case there is nothing to show that the withholding of the plain*466tiff’s own statement given to the defendant will deprive the plaintiff of any vital information as to the facts of his accident or that his presentation of his case will be hindered or impaired.

I think that the proper order to make is to refuse to permit the defendant to introduce the plaintiff’s statement in evidence or to use it for the purpose of cross-examination, or to refer to it at the trial. Rule 37(a) provides for the allowance of a reasonable attorney’s fee in connection with the obtaining of the order to produce and 37(b) (2) provides that “the court may make such orders in regard to the refusal as are just”. The order will, therefore, include the allowance of an attorney’s fee of $50 to the plaintiff’s counsel. An order in accordance with the foregoing may be presented.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20
- 1519

STEVEN EUGENE SHARPE , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, a Trustee for Structured Asset Investment Loan Trust Mortgage Pass Through Certificate series 2004

- 1; WELLS FARGO HOME MORTGAGE; AMERICA ’ S SERVING COMPANY , Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Columbia

. Terry L. Wooten , Senior District Judge. ( 3:19

- cv - 03334

- TLW )

Submitted : December 13, 2021 Decided: December 28, 2021

Before THACKER and RUSHING , Circuit Judges , and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge

.
Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

. Orin G. Briggs, Lexington, South Carolina, for Appellant. M. Todd Carroll, WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON (US) LLP, Columbia, South Carolina; John C. Hawk, IV, WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON (US) LLP, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circ uit. USCA4 Appeal: 20-1519 Doc: 38 Filed: 12/28/2021 Pg: 1 of 32 PER CURIAM: Steven Eugene Sharpe appeals the district court’s order dismissing his complaint without prejudice

. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Sharpe that failure to file timely, specific objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate judge ’s recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned of the consequences of noncompliance. Martin v

. Duffy , 858 F.3d 239, 245 (4th Cir. 2017); Wright v. Collins , 766 F.2d 841 , 846

- 47 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn , 474 U.S. 140, 154

- 55 (1985). Sharpe stated that he had received the magistrate judge’s recommendation, which included proper notice , and he filed a document that the district court construed as objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation

. Because the objections were not specific to the particularized legal recommendations made by the magistrate judge, however, Sharpe has waived appellate re view of the district court’s order

. See Martin , 858 F.3d at 245 (holding that, “to preserve for appeal an issue in a magistrate judge’s report, a party must object to the finding or recommendation on that issue with sufficient specificity so as reasonably to alert the district court of the true ground for the objection” (internal quotation marks omitted)). USCA4 Appeal: 20-1519 Doc: 38 Filed: 12/28/2021 Pg: 2 of 33 Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately pr esented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED USCA4 Appeal: 20-1519 Doc: 38 Filed: 12/28/2021 Pg: 3 of 3
Slip-Op. 02-92 UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE BEFORE: TH E HONORAB LE GREGORY W. CARMAN, CHIE F JUDGE

____________________________________ : FORMER

EMPLOYEE S OF : LEVI STRAUSS, : : Plaintiffs, :

: v. : Court No. 00-11-00522 : UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, : : Defendant. :

: ____________________________________:

JUDGMENT ORDER Upon cons ideration of the f ailure to prosecu te this action with du

e dilige nce by Plaintiff s, appear ing pro se , despite being provided notice by this Court of Plaintiffs’ need to timely file a US CIT R. 56 .1 Mo ti on fo r J ud gm en t o n t he Ag en cy R ec or d, it is he re by, ORDEREDthat this case is dismissed pursuant to USCIT R. 41(b)(3).

______________________________ Gregory W. Carman, Chief Judge

Dated: August 21, 2002 New York, New York
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 158 (Thursday, August 17, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 39142]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-17350]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

POSTAL SERVICE


Product Change--Priority Mail Negotiated Service Agreement

AGENCY: Postal Service<SUP>TM</SUP>.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the 
Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services 
contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail 
Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

DATES: Date of notice required under 39 U.S.C. 3642(d)(1): August 17, 
2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elizabeth A. Reed, 202-268-3179.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
August 9, 2017, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a 
Request of the United States Postal Service to Add Priority Mail 
Contract 340 to Competitive Product List. Documents are available at 
www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2017-169, CP2017-262.

Stanley F. Mires,
Attorney, Federal Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2017-17350 Filed 8-16-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, May 08, 2018. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, May 08, 2018 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A18A1449. EULALIO ROBLES v. VENKATRANGA KONDA .
The appellant in this case failed to comply with the notice of docketing mailed by this Court and with Court of Appeals Rule 23 (a), regarding the filing of an enumeration of errors and brief within twenty days after the appeal was docketed. See also Court of Appeals Rule 13. On April 25, 2018, this Court ordered the appellant to file an enumeration of errors and a brief no later than May 07, 2018. As of the date of this order, the appellant's enumeration of errors and brief still have not been filed. Accordingly, this appeal is deemed abandoned and is hereby ordered DISMISSED. Court of Appeals Rules 7, 23 (a).
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

July 12, 2022

No. 04-22-00356-CR

Angelica NAVARRO-DEPAZ,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 437th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2018CR13056

Honorable Melisa C. Skinner, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

On July 7, 2022, court reporters, Kay Gittinger and Linda Hernandez, each filed a 

notification of late record stating that the appellant has failed to pay or make arrangements to pay 

the fee for preparing the reporter’s record. On July 11, 2022, court reporter, Mary Beth Sasala,

also filed a notification of late record stating that the appellant has failed to pay or make 

arrangements to pay the fee for preparing the reporter’s record.

We, therefore, ORDER appellant to provide written proof to this court on or before

July 22, 2022, that either (1) the reporter’s fee has been paid or arrangements have been made to 

pay the reporter’s fee; or (2) appellant is entitled to appeal without paying the reporter’s fee. If 

appellant fails to respond within the time provided, appellant’s brief will be due on or before 

August 11, 2022, and the court will only consider those issues or points raised in appellant’s 

brief that do not require a reporter’s record for a decision. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.3(c).

It is so ORDERED on July 12, 2022.

PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO: _______________________

 MICHAEL A. CRUZ, 

 CLERK OF COURT
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Daniel Jones, Appellant.

[853 NYS2d 519]

Present—Hurlbutt, J.P., Smith, Centra, Lunn and Pine, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                              42,942
<SECURITIES>                                        31,926
<RECEIVABLES>                                       60,774
<ALLOWANCES>                                       (4,547)
<INVENTORY>                                         12,710
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   153,747
<PP&E>                                              23,613
<DEPRECIATION>                                    (10,843)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     184,043
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               34,934
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                               258
<OTHER-SE>                                         148,512
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       148,770       
<SALES>                                             28,802
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    61,468
<CGS>                                               17,585
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       36,878
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                         0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     11,874
<INCOME-TAX>                                         4,597
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  7,277
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                         7,277
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                         0.28
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         0.28
                                               


</TABLE>
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED September 20, 2004 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-10503 Summary Calendar

EDWARD MORRIS HARRIS, Petitioner-Appellant,

versus K.J. WENDT, Warden, Seagoville Federal Detention Center, Respondent-Appellee.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:04-CV-582-R

-------------------- Before DAVIS, SMITH, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Edward Morris Harris, federal prisoner # 31832-086, appeals the district court’s order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition seeking his release from incarceration based on the district court’s finding that he acted in contempt of the district court’s order. Harris argues that the district court erred in failing to consider his objections to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation and in determining that it had jurisdiction to hold him in contempt of court.No. 04-10503 -2- Assuming that the district court did not review the objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation, the failure to do so was not reversible error because Harris is making legal arguments or arguments that were addressed in prior proceedings he filed challenging his incarceration for contempt. Thus, the district court’s independent and de novo review of the petition was not reversible error. See Smith v. Collins , 964 F.2d 483, 485 (5th Cir. 1992). Insofar as Harris argues that the district court lacked jurisdiction to issue the order of contempt, this argument was rejected by this court in Harris’ prior habeas action challenging his incarceration for contempt. See SEC v. Resource Development. Int’l L.L.C. , No. 02-11397 (5th Cir. Dec. 23, 2003). Harris has failed to show that he is unable to comply with the district court’s order to disclose the assets of Jade Asset Management to the receiver. He has simply refused to do so. Thus, the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to release Harris from incarceration based on the contempt order.
See Int’l Union, United Mine Workers of America v. Bagwell , 512 U.S. 821, 828 (1994). The judgment of the district court denying the habeas petition is AFFIRMED. Harris’ motion for an expedited appeal is DENIED as moot.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DONALD JEFFERY,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

BENNGE, M.T.A.; et al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 11-16965

D.C. No. 1:06-cv-00752-GBC

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Gerald B. Cohn, Magistrate Judge, Presiding

Submitted May 15, 2012 ** 

Before: CANBY, GRABER and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Donald Jeffery, an inmate at the California Substance Abuse Treatment

Facility, appeals pro se from the district court's summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 action alleging violations of his constitutional rights in connection with a

FILED

MAY 17 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2003 incident in which prison officials used excessive force against him. We have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Jones v. Blanas, 393

F.3d 918, 926 (9th Cir. 2004), and we vacate and remand. 

The district court concluded that Jeffery’s excessive force claim was barred

under Edwards v. Balisok, 502 U.S. 641 648 (1997), because he had failed to set

forth evidence demonstrating that his rule-violation conviction, arising from the

same 2003 incident, had been invalidated. On appeal, appellees acknowledge that

the district court erred in granting their motion for summary judgment because

Jeffery’s rule violation conviction had in fact been invalidated before he filed his §

1983 complaint. Appellees assert therefore that the Edwards bar does not apply

and that this case should be remanded to the district court. Because it appears that

Jeffery’s rule violation conviction in connection with the 2003 incident has been

invalidated, we vacate the grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants on

Jeffery’s excessive force claim and remand for further proceedings.

VACATED and REMANDED.
<PAGE>

                                                                EXHIBIT 10(J)(A)

               SCHEDULE OF CHANGE IN CONTROL EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENTS

          In accordance with the Instructions to Item 601 of Regulation S-K, the
Registrant has omitted filing Change in Control Employment Agreements by and
between P. H. Glatfelter Company and the following employees as exhibits to this
Form 10-K because they are identical to the Form of Change in Control Employment
Agreement by and between P. H. Glatfelter Company and certain employees, which
is filed as Exhibit 10 (j) to our Form 10-K for the year ended December 31,
2008.

                                 David C. Elder
                               Thomas G. Jackson
                                John P. Jacunski
                              Debabrata Mukherjee
                                Dante C. Parrini
                                  Martin Rapp
                                Mark A. Sullivan
                            William T. Yanavitch II
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 53 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 53

 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to clarify eligibility for 
                         the child tax credit.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 7, 2015

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to clarify eligibility for 
                         the child tax credit.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Child Tax Credit Integrity 
Preservation Act of 2015''.

SEC. 2. ELIGIBILITY FOR CHILD TAX CREDIT.

    (a) In General.--Subsection (e) of section 24 of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 is amended to read as follows:
    ``(e) Identification Requirement.--
            ``(1) In general.--No credit shall be allowed under this 
        section to any taxpayer unless--
                    ``(A) such taxpayer includes the taxpayer's valid 
                identification number on the return of tax for the 
                taxable year, and
                    ``(B) with respect to any qualifying child, the 
                taxpayer includes the name and taxpayer identification 
                number of such qualifying child on such return of tax.
            ``(2) Valid identification number.--For purposes of 
        paragraph (1), the term `valid identification number' means a 
        social security number issued to an individual by the Social 
        Security Administration. Such term shall not include a TIN 
        issued by the Internal Revenue Service.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall apply 
to taxable years beginning after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                             462
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     1471
<ALLOWANCES>                                       143
<INVENTORY>                                       1053
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   199
<PP&E>                                            2716
<DEPRECIATION>                                    2013
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    4014
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             4408
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                          3321
<OTHER-SE>                                      (6812)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      4014
<SALES>                                           8379
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  8379
<CGS>                                             6564
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     8992
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                (1237)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 127
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    497
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                497
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       497
<EPS-BASIC>                                      .15
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .13


</TABLE>