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

 

**CALIPER LIFE SCIENCES, INC.**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of Caliper Life Sciences, Inc. (the “Company”)on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2008 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, E.Kevin Hrusovsky, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company certify,pursuant to the requirement set forth in Rule 13a-14(b) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”) and 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, tothe best of my knowledge, that:

 

(1)   The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theExchange Act; and

 

(2)   The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and result of operations of the Company.

 

 
|                    | /s/  E.  KEVIN HRUSOVSKY                                                        |
|-------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                    |                                                                                      |
|                    | E.  Kevin Hrusovsky  President and Chief Executive Officer  (Principal Executive Officer) |
|                    |                                                                                      |
|                    |                                                                                      |
| Date:  May 9, 2008 |                                                                                      |

 

----
NO. 07-11-00327-CV IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT AMARILLO
PANEL E AUGUST 31, 2011

IN RE JUSTINO FRUTIS, RELATOR

Before CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ. and BOYD, S.J. 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appearing pro se, relator Justino Frutis, a prison inmate, has filed a petition for writ of mandamus. Finding we lack jurisd iction, we will dismi ss the petition.
In his petition, relator asserts the 137t h District Court of Lubbock County lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to convict him on April 5, 2011, of aggravated assault-serious bodily injury allegedly occu rring on September 7, 1999, because the prosecution was barred by limitations. In the pr ayer of his petition, relator asks that we find the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, order hi s conviction “dismissed,” and notify prison officials so that his ti me record may be reformed. 2 We will dismiss relator’s petition for want of jurisdiction.

1 John T. Boyd, Chief Justice (Ret.), Se venth Court of Appeals, sitting by assignment.

2 Relator’s petition recites that the sentence he received from his April 2011 conviction runs concurrent with a 25- year sentence on another offense.2 Relator has not filed a proper record or appendix with his pet ition. In an original mandamus proceeding, the petition must be acco mpanied by a certified or sworn copy of every document that is material to a rela tor’s claim for relief and that was filed in any underlying proceeding. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.7(a)(1 ). The only supporting document relator filed is an unsworn copy of the front page of a judgment. Ad ditionally, relator’s petition states facts not supported by evid ence included in an appendix or record. A relator’s burden on mandamus in cludes meeting the requirement that “[e]very statement of fact in the petition [is] supported by ci tation to competent evidence included in the appendix or record.” Tex. R. App. P. 52.3(g). In short, a relator must supply a record sufficient to establish the right to mandamus relief. Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex. 1992).
While relator’s failure to comply with Appellate Rule 52 would ordinarily require denial of his petition, we mu st dispose of this proceedi ng on a different ground. The substance of the relief relator seeks by mandamus is a request for post-conviction habeas corpus relief. The Texas Court of Cr iminal Appeals has exclusive jurisdiction over a post-conviction writ of habeas corpus challenging a fina l felony conviction. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 11.07 § 3 (Wes t Supp. 2010). We accordingly dismiss relator’s petition for w ant of jurisdiction.

Per Curiam
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT JFT CORPORATION, Petitioner

v. NEWTEL PAYPHONE OPERATIONS, INC. AND JOHN CORY, Respondents : : : : : : : : : : : : No. 871 MAL 2014 Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER PER CURIAM AND NOW , this 18th day of March, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is DENIED
.
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 32.1


                           GTECH HOLDINGS CORPORATION

                            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 of GTECH Holdings Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending February 28, 2004 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the Date hereof (the "Report"), I, W.
Bruce Turner, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to sections 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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


                                    GTECH HOLDINGS CORPORATION


Date: May 12, 2004                  By /s/ W. Bruce Turner
                                    --------------------------------------------
                                    W. Bruce Turner
                                    President and Chief Executive Officer
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 174 (Monday, September 11, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42682-42683]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-19355]


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

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meetings

AGENCY: Federal Election Commission.

DATE AND TIME:  Thursday, September 14, 2017 at 11:15 a.m.

PLACE:  999 E Street NW., Washington, DC (Ninth Floor).

STATUS:  This meeting will be open to the public.

ITEMS TO BE DISCUSSED: 
    Draft Advisory Opinion 2017-06: Stein and Gottlieb.
    Draft Advisory Opinion 2017-05: Great America PAC and Committee to 
Defend the President.
    Draft Advisory Opinion 2017-09: Libertarian Association of 
Massachusetts.

[[Page 42683]]

    Draft Advisory Opinion 2017-10: Citizens Against Plutocracy.
    Management and Administrative Matters.
    Individuals who plan to attend and require special assistance, such 
as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, 
should contact Dayna C. Brown, Secretary and Clerk, at (202) 694-1040, 
at least 72 hours prior to the meeting date.

PERSON TO CONTACT FOR INFORMATION:  Judith Ingram, Press Officer, 
Telephone: (202) 694-1220.

Dayna C. Brown,
Secretary and Clerk of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2017-19355 Filed 9-7-17; 4:15 pm]
 BILLING CODE 6715-01-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                         388,696
<SECURITIES>                                   855,710
<RECEIVABLES>                                   46,823
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,332,066
<PP&E>                                         801,344
<DEPRECIATION>                                  99,798
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,506,678
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          136,670
<BONDS>                                      2,023,032
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          569,518
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       360,213
<OTHER-SE>                                     599,059
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,506,678
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                48,586
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  119,945
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              50,690
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (102,286)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (102,286)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (102,286)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (2.17)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (2.17)
        

</TABLE>
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON



### O RDER ON 

### M OTION FOR 

### R EHEARING

Cause number: 01

- 1 6

- 00 754

- C V

Style: In the Interest of G.G.

Type of motion: Motion for rehearing filed November 15 , 2017

Part y filing motion: Appellant

It is ordered that the motion for rehearing is denied

.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Jane Bland

Acting for the Court

Panel consists of Justice s Jennings, Bland, and Brown.

Date: February 8 , 2018
#### Donals Ray DAVIS, also known as Donald Davis, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Tye HEATH, Claims Examiner; Lisa Olson, Dispute Review Officer; Paula Norris, Claims Adjuster; Alma Doggett, Claim Analyst, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 07-10251

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Jan. 7, 2008.

Donáis Ray Davis, Rosharon, TX, pro se.

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, STEWART, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Donáis Ray Davis, Texas prisoner # 1326046, appeals from the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint as frivolous and for failure to state a claim. Davis argues that the district court erred in dismissing his complaint against employees of the Texas Workers Compensation Commission because the defendants are not immune from suit. He also contends that the definition of disability in the Texas Workers Compensation Act is unconstitutionally vague. Davis does not challenge findings from the district court that he failed to allege a property interest, that his equal protection claim is without merit, and that he pleaded facts showing that he was not prevented from employment by a disability, but rather incarceration. Because Davis failed to brief these issues, they are deemed abandoned. *See Yohey v. Collins,*985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir.1993); *Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner,*813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir.1987).

Davis’s argument challenging the defendants’ immunity status is without merit. The district court did not determine that the defendants were immune. The judgment from which Davis appeals is not based upon immunity. Additionally, Davis’s argument challenging the constitutionality of the Texas Workers Compensation Act’s definition of disability was not raised before the district court. Therefore, the issue will not be considered on appeal. *See Leverette v. Louisville Ladder Co.,*183 F.3d 339, 342 (5th Cir.1999).

Davis’s appeal is without arguable merit and is therefore dismissed as frivolous. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2; *Howard v. King,*707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir.1983). The district court’s dismissal of Davis’s complaint as frivolous and this court’s dismissal of Davis’s appeal count as two strikes for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). *See Adepegba v. Hammons,*103 F.3d 383, 387-88 (5th Cir.1996). Davis is cautioned that if he accumulates three strikes, he will no longer be allowed to proceed in forma pauperis in any civil action or appeal filed while he is detained or incarcerated in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. *See*28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

*679APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.

*

 Pursuant to Fifth Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and does not constitute precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Fifth Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellee v. Jerry AUSTIN, Appellant.

No. 05-3089.

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

Jan. 11, 2008.

*283Roy Wallace McLeese, III, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Washington, DC, for Appellee.

Elmer Douglass Ellis, The Ellis Law Office, Washington, DC, for Appellant.

BEFORE: ROGERS, GARLAND, and GRIFFITH, Circuit Judges.

*JUDGMENT*

PER CURIAM.

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the briefs filed by the parties. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C.Cir. Rule 34(j). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s judgment, filed May 19, 2005, be affirmed.

The district court committed no legal error, and appellant’s sentence was reasonable in light of the sentencing factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). *See United States v. Olivares,*473 F.3d 1224, 1226 (D.C.Cir. 2006). The district court recognized its authority to depart from the Sentencing Guidelines and declined to do so, which was reasonable in light of the circumstances in this case. *Id.*at 1231. The district court also did not err in calculating the government’s loss in this case. *See*18 U.S.C. § 3664(f); *United States v. Leonzo,*50 F.3d 1086 (D.C.Cir.1995). Further, the court did not abuse its discretion in the restitution order, *see United States v. Rezaq,*134 F.3d 1121, 1141 (D.C.Cir.1998), nor did it commit clear error in imposing the fine, *see United States v. Gewin,*471 F.3d 197, 202 (D.C.Cir.2006). Finally, appellant has not demonstrated that he was prejudiced by his trial counsel’s allegedly deficient performance. *See Strickland v. Washington,*466 U.S. 668, 687, 694, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 41(b); D.C.Cir. Rule 41.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Homeland Security

###### Coast Guard

          - [Docket No. USCG-2017-0767]

# AGENCY:

U.S. Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security.

# ACTION:

Notice of Federal Advisory Committee meeting.

# SUMMARY:

                        The Merchant Mariner Medical Advisory Committee (MEDMAC) meeting scheduled for September 12 and 13, 2017 and announced in the                         **Federal Register**                         on August 22, 2017 (82 FR 39881) has been cancelled. A notice of meeting will be published in the                         **Federal Register**                         when the meeting is rescheduled.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Mr. Davis J. Breyer, Alternate Designated Federal Officer of the Merchant Marine Personnel Advisory Committee, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Ave. SE., Stop 7509, Washington, DC 20593-7509, telephone 202-372-1445, fax 202-372-8382 or                         *davis.j.breyer@uscg.mil.*

Dated: September 7, 2017.

F.J. Sturm,

Acting Director of Commercial Regulations and Standards.

[FR Doc. 2017-19329 Filed 9-7-17; 4:15 pm]

 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
#### Gaby Rubi Moguel MANZANILLA; Jose Dolores Hernandez Cauich, Petitioners, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 04-73522.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 20, 2007.*

Filed Dec. 28, 2007.

Gaby Rubi Moguel Manzanilla, Redwood City, CA, pro se.

Jose Dolores Hernandez Cauich, Redwood City, CA, pro se.

CAC-District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Mary Jane Candaux, Esq., Melissa Neiman-Kelting, Esq., DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before GOODWIN, WALLACE, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Gaby Rubi Moguel Manzanilla and Jose Dolores Hernandez Cauich petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming an immigration judge’s order denying their application for cancellation of removal. We dismiss the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to review the discretionary determination that Moguel Manzanilla and Hernandez Cauich failed to show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to a qualifying relative, *see Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft,*327 F.3d 887, 890 (9th Cir.2003), and they do not raise a colorable due process claim, *see Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales,*424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir.2005) (“traditional abuse of discretion challenges recast as alleged due process violations do not constitute colorable constitutional claims that would invoke our jurisdiction.”). We do not consider petitioners’ contention regarding moral character because their failure to establish hardship is dispositive.

We further lack jurisdiction to review petitioners’ contention that they were unable to present all of their evidence regarding hardship because they failed to raise that issue before the BIA and thereby failed to exhaust their administrative remedies. *See Barron v. Ashcroft,*358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004) (explaining that this court lacks jurisdiction to review contentions not raised before the agency)

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Exhibit 32.2

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

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANESOXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, as the Chief Financial Officer of HQ Sustainable Maritime Industries, Inc. (the Company), certifies that, to
his knowledge on the date of this certification:



| | 1. | This Amendment No. 2 to the Annual Report on Form 10K/A of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on this date (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.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The foregoing certifications are made pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.
§1350) and shall not be relied upon for any other purpose.

Dated: October 16, 2009



|                        
|------------------------
|/s/ JeanPierre Dallaire
|JeanPierre Dallaire    
|Chief Financial Officer
exhibit_10h4.htm



Exhibit 10(h)4


 


 




ALLETE Executive Annual Incentive Plan


Form of Award


Effective 2011


[Eligible Executive Employees]


 

 







Target Award Opportunity













	
Base Salary

	
$


	  	  
	
Times

	  
	  	  
	
Award Opportunity (percent of base salary)

	
%             


	  	  
	
Equals

	  
	  	  
	
Target Award

	
$












Performance Levels and Award Amounts













	
 


Goal Performance Level

	
Payout as Percent of


Target Award

	
 


Award Amount


	
Superior

	
200%

	
$


	
Target

	
100%

	
$


	
Threshold

	
37.5%

	
$


	
Below Threshold

	
0%

	
$

















Goals








	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	
Goal


	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	
Weighting


	  	
Financial Goals

	  	  	  	  	  
	  	  	
Net Income from Continuing Operations

	
50%


	  	  	
Cash from Operating Activities

	  	
25%


	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  
	  	
Strategic Goals

	  	  	  	
  25% 


	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	
100%












Compensation Subject to Compensation Recovery Policy







Annual Incentive Plan Compensation is subject to recoupment as defined in the Compensation Recovery policy.