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

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of Universal Hospital Services, Inc.(the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2010, asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Gary D.Blackford, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

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

 

(2)           The information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company.

 

Date:May 10, 2010

 
| /s/  Gary D. Blackford    |   |
|---------------------------|--------|
| Gary D. Blackford         |   |
| Chairman of the Board and |   |
| Chief Executive Officer   |   |

 

----
Exhibit 13 . 1



CERTIFICATION



Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, each of the undersigned officers of KUBOTA CORPORATION (the Company), hereby certifies, to such
officers knowledge, that the Companys annual report on Form 20-F for the year ended March 31, 2003 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



Dated: September 17, 2003



/s/ Daisuke HatakakeDaisuke HatakakePresident and Representative Director(Chief Executive Officer)/s/ Yoshiharu NishiguchiYoshiharu NishiguchiDirector(Chief Financial Officer)
Exhibit 11

                              COMMERCE GROUP CORP. AND CONSOLIDATED SUBSIDIARIES

                                SCHEDULE OF COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME PER SHARE
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                                         Years Ended March 31
                                                                    2004                2003                2002
                                                       --------     ----   --------     ----   --------     ----

BASIC

Net income (loss) for primary income per common
<S>                                                       <C>                 <C>                 <C>
share                                                     $     (14,381)      $     (35,886)      $     (43,171)
                                                          ==============      ==============      ==============

Weighted average number of common shares
outstanding during the year - basic                           21,089,812          18,907,958          16,349,170
                                                       ==     ==========   ==     ==========   ==     ==========

Income (loss) per common share - basic                    $      (.0007)      $      (.0019)      $      (.0026)
                                                          ==============      ==============      ==============

DILUTED

Net income (loss) for basic and diluted income per
common share                                               $    (14,381)       $    (35,886)       $    (43,171)
                                                           =============       =============       =============

Weighted average number of common shares used in
calculating income per
common share                                                  21,089,812          18,907,958          16,349,170

Add incremental shares representing:
  Shares issuable upon exercise of stock
  options                                                        210,000             960,000             670,000
                                                       -----     -------   -----     -------   -----     -------

Weighted average number of shares used in
calculation of fully diluted income per share
                                                              21,299,812          19,867,958          17,109,170
                                                              ==========          ==========          ==========

Fully diluted income (loss) per common
share                                                       $    (.0007)        $    (.0018)        $    (.0025)
                                                            ============        ============        ============
</TABLE>
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

DONNA J. WIRS

, Appellant,

v.

JEFFREY D. WIRS

, Appellee

.

No. 4D 20

- 259

[ December 17, 2020 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit,

Broward County ; Dale Cohen , Judge; L.T. Case No. FMCE05

- 3343

.

Steven R. Brenners, Coral Springs, for appellant.

Meaghan K. Marro of Marro Law, P.A., Plantation, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

L EVINE

, C.J., M AY and A RTAU , JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
#### Virginio CHAVEZ-SANTIAGO, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY,* Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 06-72261.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 20, 2007 **.

Filed Dec. 28, 2007.

Theodore A. Mahr, Esq., Moses Lake, *951WA, for Petitioner.

Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, WWS-District Counsel, Immigration and Naturalization Service, Office of the District Counsel, Seattle, WA, Norah Ascoli Schwarz, Esq., DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before GOODWIN, WALLACE, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.

*

 Michael B. Mukasey is substituted for his predecessor, Alberto R. Gonzales, as Attorney General of the United States, pursuant to Fed. R.App. P. 43(c)(2).

**

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See**951Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM ***

Virginio Chavez-Santiago seeks review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals upholding an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order denying his application for cancellation of removal. We dismiss the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to review the IJ’s discretionary determination that Chavez-Santiago failed to show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to a qualifying relative. *See Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft,*327 F.3d 887, 892 (9th Cir.2003). We do not consider Chavez-Santiago’s contention regarding his criminal convictions, because his failure to establish hardship is dispositive.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 776 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 776

 To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to improve access to 
  medication therapy management under part D of the Medicare program.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 18, 2015

   Mr. Roberts (for himself, Mrs. Shaheen, Mr. Kirk, and Mr. Brown) 
introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the 
                          Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to improve access to 
  medication therapy management under part D of the Medicare program.

    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 ``Medication Therapy Management 
Empowerment Act of 2015''.

SEC. 2. IMPROVED ACCESS TO MEDICATION THERAPY MANAGEMENT UNDER PART D 
              OF THE MEDICARE PROGRAM.

    (a) In General.--Section 1860D-4(c)(2)(A)(ii)(I) of the Social 
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w-104(c)(2)(A)(ii)(I)) is amended by 
inserting ``or have a single chronic disease of cardiovascular disease, 
chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, hyperlipidemia, or diabetes'' 
before the semicolon at the end.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
apply to plan years beginning on or after January 1, 2016.
                                 <all>
```
II 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 719 

To rename the Armed Forces Reserve Center in Great Falls, Montana, 

the Captain John E. Moran and Captain William Wylie Galt Armed 

Forces Reserve Center. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 11, 2015 

Mr. TESTER (for himself and Mr. DAINES) introduced the following bill; which 

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To rename the Armed Forces Reserve Center in Great Falls, 

Montana, the Captain John E. Moran and Captain William Wylie Galt Armed Forces Reserve Center. 

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

3 SECTION 1. RENAMING OF THE ARMED FORCES RESERVE 

4 CENTER IN GREAT FALLS, MONTANA, AS THE 

5 CAPTAIN JOHN E. MORAN AND CAPTAIN WIL6 LIAM WYLIE GALT ARMED FORCES RESERVE 

7 CENTER. 

8 (a) RENAMING.—The Armed Forces Reserve Center 

9 in Great Falls, Montana, shall hereafter be known and 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 719 IS

1 designated as the ‘‘Captain John E. Moran and Captain 

2 William Wylie Galt Armed Forces Reserve Center’’. 

3 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in any law, map, 

4 regulation, map, document, paper, other record of the 

5 United States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) 

6 shall be considered to be a reference to the Captain John 

7 E. Moran and Captain William Wylie Galt Armed Forces 

8 Reserve Center. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
FI FTH DI VI SI ON
DI LLA R D, C. J.

, REESE, J.

, and B ETHEL, J.

N O T IC E : M otions for r e c ons i de r a tion m us t be ph y sic a l ly r e ce iv ed i n our c le r k ’s offic e w ithin te n da y s of the da te of de c is ion to be de e m ed tim e ly file d.

http://w w w .ga a ppe a l s .us /r ule s

June 7, 2018



# I n th e Co u r t o f

A p p eals o f

G eo r g ia

A1 6 A0 64 0 . SUM M EROUR v . CITY OF M ARIETTA.

D I LLA R D , Ch i ef J u d g e.

In Ci t y o f Ma r i et t a v. S

u mmer ou r , 1 t he Su p rem e Co u rt of Geo rg i a affi rm ed in

p art an d rev ers ed i n p a r t o u r p rev i o u s d eci s i o n i n S u mmer o ur v. Ci t

y o f Ma r i et t a

. 2

Sp eci fi cal l y , t he Su p re m e C o u r t affi rm ed o u r h o l d i n g rev ers in g t h e Su p eri o r Co u rt

o f Co b b Co u n t y ’ s co n d em n at i o n o rd er o n t h e g ro u n d t h at t h e Ci t y fai l ed to fu l fi l l i t s

o b l i g at i o ns u n d er O CGA § 2 2-1 -9

. Bu t t he Su p rem e Co u rt rev ers ed o u r h o l d i n g

rem an di n g t h e cas e fo r t h e s up eri o r co urt t o co n s i d er wh et her t h e Ci t y ’s fai l u re to

co m p l y wi t h t h e afo rem en t i o n ed o b l ig at i o n s co n s t i t u t ed b ad fai t h

. In s t ead

, t h e

Su p rem e Co urt h el d t hat co m pl i an ce wi t h OCGA § 22 -1 -9 is an es sen t i al p rereq u i si t e

1 3 0 2 Ga. 6 4 5 (8 0 7 SE2 d 3 2 4 ) (2 0 1 7 ).

2 3 3 8 Ga. Ap p . 2 5 9 (7 8 8 SE2 d 9 2 1 ) (2 0 1 6 ).t o t h e fi l in g o f a co nd em n at i on p et i t i on , an d t h u s , t h e Ci t y ’ s fai l u re to co m p l y wi th

t h e s t at ut e req ui red d i s m i s s al o f i t s p et i t i o n reg ard l es s o f w h et h er o r n o t i t act ed in

b ad fai t h

. Acco rd i n g ly

, we ad o p t t h e ju dg m en t o f t h e Su p rem e Co u rt o f Geo rg i a as

o u r o w n an d d i rect t h e s u p eri o r co u rt t o d is m i ss t h e Ci t y ’ s co n dem n at i o n p et i t i o n

.

Ju d g men t r ever sed . Rees e a n d

Bet h el , JJ., co n cu r

.

2
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21
- 6527

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. JOHN ANDREW PIPKIN , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Raleigh

. James C. Dever III, District Judge. ( 5:17

- cr - 00391

- D

- 1 )

Submitted : August 19, 2021 Decided: August 24, 2021

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, FLOYD , and RUSHING , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

. John Andrew Pipkin , Appellant Pro Se. David A. Bragdon, Assistant United States Attorney, Jennifer P. May

- Parker, Assistant U nited S tates Attorney , OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY , Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: John Andrew Pipkin appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for compassionate release pursuant to 18 U.S. C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), as amended by the First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115

- 391, 132 Stat. 5194. We review the district court’s order for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Kibble , 992 F.3d 326, 329 (4th Cir. 2021). “A district court abuses its discretion when it acts arbitrarily or irrationally, fails to consider judicially recognized factors constraining its exercise of discretion, relies on erroneous factual or legal premises, or commits an error of law.” United States v. Dillard , 891 F.3d
1 51, 158 (4th Cir. 2018) (internal quotation marks omitted). Our review of the record shows that the district court properly considered the circumstances presented by the pandemic, Pipkin’s health conditions, and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, before den ying Pipkin’s motion. Therefore, we affirm the district court’s order. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
A FFIRMED
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, July 08, 2020.

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, July 08, 2020

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A20D0405. NANCY GASTEL v. DEKALB COUNTY, GEORGIA et al. .

Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be 

hereby GRANTED. The Appellant may file a Notice of Appeal within 10 days of the date of 

this order. The Clerk of Superior Court is directed to include a copy of this order in the record 

transmitted to the Court of Appeals.

LC NUMBERS:

18CV10479
II 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 782 

To direct the Secretary of the Interior to establish a bison management 

plan for Grand Canyon National Park. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 18, 2015 

Mr. MCCAIN (for himself and Mr. FLAKE) introduced the following bill; which 

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public 

Works 

APRIL 22, 2015 

Committee discharged; referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural 

Resources 

A BILL 

To direct the Secretary of the Interior to establish a bison 

management plan for Grand Canyon National Park. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Grand Canyon Bison 

5 Management Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS. 

7 In this Act: 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

S 782 RCS

1 (1) MANAGEMENT PLAN.—The term ‘‘manage2 ment plan’’ means the management plan published 

3 under section 3(a). 

4 (2) PARK.—The term ‘‘Park’’ means the Grand 

5 Canyon National Park. 

6 (3) SECRETARY.—The term ‘‘Secretary’’ means 

7 the Secretary of the Interior. 

8 (4) SKILLED PUBLIC VOLUNTEER.—The term 

9 ‘‘skilled public volunteer’’ means an individual who 

10 possesses— 

11 (A) a valid hunting license issued by the 

12 State of Arizona; and 

13 (B) such other qualifications as the Sec14 retary may require, after consultation with the 

15 Arizona Game and Fish Commission. 

16 SEC. 3. BISON MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR GRAND CANYON 

17 NATIONAL PARK. 

18 (a) PUBLICATION OF PLAN.—Not later than 180 

19 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary 

20 shall publish a management plan to reduce, through hu21 mane lethal culling by skilled public volunteers and by 

22 other nonlethal means, the population of bison in the Park 

23 that the Secretary determines are detrimental to the use 

24 of the Park. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

S 782 RCS

1 (b) REMOVAL OF ANIMAL.—Notwithstanding section 

2 4 of the Act of March 2, 1929 (16 U.S.C. 198c), or any 

3 other provision of law, a skilled public volunteer may re4 move a full bison harvested from the Park. 

5 (c) COORDINATION.—The Secretary shall coordinate 

6 with the Arizona Game and Fish Commission regarding 

7 the development and implementation of the management 

8 plan. 

9 (d) NEPA COMPLIANCE.—In developing the manage10 ment plan, the Secretary shall comply with all applicable 

11 Federal environmental laws (including regulations), in12 cluding the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

13 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). 

14 (e) LIMITATION.—Nothing in this Act applies to the 

15 taking of wildlife in the Park for any purpose other than 

16 the implementation of the management plan. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
remedy to challenge the legality of one's restraint or detention.' See NRS 

34.160; NRS 34.170; NRS 34.360. Accordingly, we 

ORDER the petition DENIED. 

Pickering 

j. 

Parraguirre 

Saitta 

J. 

cc: Brian Turner 

Nye County District Attorney 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Nye County Clerk 

'Notably, a petition for a writ of habeas corpus should be filed in the 

district court in the first instance. See Nev. Const. art. 6, § 6(1); NRAP 22. 

If there was an error in including case 11TR00027 in the plea negotiations 

in CR7099, that error should have been litigated within CR7099. We 

express no opinion as to whether there is any available remedy in CR7099 

at this time. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 2 

(0) 1947A
Women's median usual weekly earnings as percent of men's, 
full-time wage and salary workers, by age, 1979 and 2008


				1979	2008

Total, 16 years and older	62.3	79.9
16 to 19 years			85.2	87.3
20 to 24 years			76.3	92.5
25 to 34 years			67.5	88.5
35 to 44 years			58.3	74.5
45 to 54 years			56.8	74.9
55 to 64 years			60.6	75.4
65 years and older		77.6	74.8
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be

published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 4, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-40893

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

PlaintiffAppellee,

versus

JUAN CARLOS GARCIA-RAMIREZ,

DefendantAppellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:04-CR-2330-ALL

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

Before DeMOSS, STEWART and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Juan Carlos Garcia-Ramirez appeals his sentence following his guilty-plea conviction for

illegal reentry into the United States following deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He

argues that his sentence is unreasonable because the district court failed to properly weigh the
-2-

sentencing factorsset forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and imposed a term of imprisonment greater than

necessary to meet § 3553(a)’s objectives. 

We review the sentence imposed for reasonableness. United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220,

261-62 (2005). As Garcia-Ramirez was sentenced at the low end of the applicable guidelines range,

and he identifies no error in the guidelines calculations, we give great deference to the sentence

imposed. See United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 519-20 (5th Cir. 2005). Contrary to GarciaRamirez’s arguments, we find that the district court did not improperly balance the sentencing factors

and the sentence imposed was not greater than necessary to satisfy the purposes of § 3553(a)(2).

Therefore, we conclude that the 46-month sentence imposed was reasonable.

Garcia-Ramirez’s challenge to the constitutionality of 

§ 1326(b)’s treatment of prior felony and aggravated felony convictions as sentencing factors rather

than elements of the offense that must be found by a jury is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v.

United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998). Although Garcia-Ramirez contends that

Almendarez-Torres wasincorrectly decided and that a majorityofthe SupremeCourt would overrule

Almendarez-Torres in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), we have repeatedly

rejected such arguments on the basis that Almendarez-Torres remains binding. See United States v.

Garza-Lopez, 410 F.3d 268, 276 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 298 (2005). Garcia-Ramirez

properly concedes that his argument is foreclosed in light of Almendarez-Torres and circuit

precedent, but he raises it here to preserve it for further review.

AFFIRMED.