alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit
        32.1
 
 
 
 
 CERTIFICATION
        PURSUANT TO
 18
        U.S.C.
§ 1350
 AS
        ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
 SECTION
        906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 
 In
        connection with the Quarterly Report of Point.360 ( the “Company”) on Form 10-Q
        for the period ended March 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
        Commission (the “Report”), I, Haig S. Bagerdjian, Chief Executive Officer of the
        Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
        906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to 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/
        Haig S. Bagerdjian
 Haig
        S.
        Bagerdjian
 Chief
        Executive Officer
 May
        11,
        2006
#### Frank O’BRYAN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. R. WILEY, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 07-1328.

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

Jan. 17, 2008.

Frank O’Bryan, Florence, CO, pro se.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

MICHAEL R. MURPHY, Circuit Judge.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of this appeal. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

Frank O’Bryan, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition. In his § 2241 petition, O’Bryan alleged the respondent warden had miscalculated his sentence by failing to give him credit for time served prior to the imposition of his instant sentence for witness tampering.1 The district court determined O’Bryan was not entitled, as a matter of law, to time-served credit because the time he served in custody prior to the imposition of the instant sentence was credited against previous sentences. 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b) (providing that a defendant shall not be given credit for prior custody if that prior custody was credited against another sentence); *see also United States v. Wilson,*503 U.S. 329, 337, 112 S.Ct. 1351, 117 L.Ed.2d 593 (1992) (“Congress made clear [in enacting § 3585(b) ] that a defendant could not receive a double credit for his detention time.”). The district court’s resolution of O’Bryan’s § 2241 petition is undeniably correct. Accordingly, exercising jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291,2 we AFFIRM. O’Bryan’s request to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis is DENIED.

*

 This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R.App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.

1

. O’Bryan’s sentence for witness tampering was ordered to be served consecutively to sentences he was then serving for violations of conditions of his supervised release.

2

. Because O’Bryan is a federal prisoner, he need not obtain a certificate of appealability before appealing the denial of his § 2241 petition. *McIntosh v. United States Parole Comm’n,*115 F.3d 809, 810 n. 1 (10th Cir.1997).
#### Francis W. BOHAN, d.b.a. F. W. Bohan Agency, Plaintiff, v. UNDERWOOD CORPORATION, Defendant.

Civ. A. No. 8409.

United States District Court D. Connecticut.

Oct 27, 1960.

Sherman Rosenberg, New Haven, Conn., for plaintiff.

Austin K. Wolf, Bridgeport, Conn., for defendant.

TIMBERS, District Judge.

Defendant moves, pursuant to Rule 12(b) (6), F.R.Civ.P., 28 U.S.C.A., to dismiss the amended third count of the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

The action is one to recover a real estate brokerage commission claimed to have been earned pursuant to an exclusive real estate agency agreement or, in the alternative, to recover the reasonable value of services claimed to have been rendered by plaintiff in connection with the sale of defendant’s property.

The first count alleges that an agreement was entered into making plaintiff the exclusive agent to sell defendant’s real estate in North Haven, Connecticut; that prior to the termination of the exclusive agency, the property was sold for $250,000; and defendant has refused to pay plaintiff’s commission although duly demanded.

The second count incorporates by reference the substance of the first count, adding the allegation that the purchaser was secured by plaintiff or was produced by plaintiff’s efforts.

The amended third count, without reference to the agreement alleged in the» first and second counts, sounds in quantum meruit, alleging that plaintiff performed, at the request of defendant, certain services in connection with the sale of the property and claiming the fair and reasonable value of such services.

Defendant, in moving to dismiss the amended third count, contends that plaintiff is precluded from suing in quantum meruit since he has relied on an express contract as the basis for the first and second counts.

Rule 8(e) (2), F.R.Civ.P., provides that “A party may set forth two or more statements of a claim or defense alternately or hypothetically, either in one count or defense or in separate counts or defenses. * * * A party may also state as many separate claims or defenses as he has regardless of consistency and whether based on legal or on equitable grounds or on both.”

In commenting on Rule 8(e) (2), Professor Moore states that “Alternative pleading has been approved where the *228plaintiff seeks recovery under a contract, but if, for some reason, he can secure no relief by virtue of the contract, he seeks *quantum mermt*relief.” 2 Moore’s Federal Practice, 8.31, p. 1705.

Moreover, Rule 18(a), F.R.Civ.P., provides that “The plaintiff in his complaint * * * may join either as independent or as alternate claims as many claims either legal or equitable or both as he may have against an opposing party.”

Defendant’s motion to dismiss the amended third count of the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, is denied.
**Exhibit 23.1**

** **

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENTREGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

** **

We consent to the incorporation by reference inRegistration Statement Nos. 333-163104, 333-135614, 333-129267, 333-116365,333-58162, and 333-92053 on Forms S-8 of our reports dated March 10, 2010,relating to the consolidated financial statements and financial statementschedule of Merit Medical Systems, Inc. and Subsidiaries (which reportexpresses an unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory paragraphregarding the adoption of new accounting guidance) and the effectiveness ofMerit Medical Systems, Inc. and Subsidiaries’ internal control overfinancial reporting, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of MeritMedical Systems, Inc. and Subsidiaries for the year ended December 31,2009.

 

/s/ DELOITTE &TOUCHE LLP

Salt Lake City, Utah

 

March 10, 2010

 

----
Motion Granted; Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed December 18, 

2014.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-14-00367-CV

DONTERIAN G. HECTOR, Appellant

V.

ECONOMY MUD PRODUCTS COMPANY, Appellee

On Appeal from the 334th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2012-36539

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This is an appeal from an order signed April 8, 2014, granting appellee’s 

motion for summary judgment. On December 15, 2014, appellant filed a motion to 

dismiss the appeal because the parties have settled the underlying dispute. See Tex. 

R. App. P. 42.1. The motion is granted.

Accordingly, the appeal is ordered dismissed.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Boyce and McCally.
#### In the Matter of Shawn Green, Appellant, v Glenn S. Goord, as Commissioner of the New York State Department of Correctional Services, Respondent. In the Matter of Shawn Green, Appellant, v Glenn S. Goord, as Commissioner of the New York State Department of Correctional Services, Respondent.

Submitted January 14, 2008;

decided February 12, 2008

Motion for reargument of motions for leave to appeal denied *[see*9 NY3d 999 (2007)].
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 22
- 0212 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. LOUIS TED CAYE,

Defendant and Appellant.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including April 19 , 2023 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

March 13 2023

03/13/2023

Case Number: DA 22-0212
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 Quarterly Report of Charles & Colvard, Ltd. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Randy N. McCullough, Chief Executive 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, to my 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 the Company.











/s/ Randy N. McCullough


Randy N. McCullough


President and Chief Executive Officer


May 12, 2011





This Certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and shall not be deemed “filed” by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and shall not be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, whether made before or after the date of this Report, irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 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.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AS OF MARCH 31, 2000 AND THE CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT
OF OPERATIONS FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS INCLUDED IN THIS FORM 10-QSB
FOR PERIOD.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                       1,065,183
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     48,639
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,149,494
<PP&E>                                         250,507
<DEPRECIATION>                                 147,832
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,323,836
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          547,800
<BONDS>                                      2,000,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        74,722
<OTHER-SE>                                 (1,298,686)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,323,836
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                71,667
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  942,151
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               301,638
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              15,016
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,241,200)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,241,200)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,241,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.17)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.17)


</TABLE>
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2652 

To amend title 5, United States Code, to provide that Members must complete 

12 years of creditable service in order to be vested in an annuity under 

the Federal Employee Retirement System, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 26, 2011 

Mr. COBLE introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on House Administration, and in addition to the Committee on Oversight 

and Government Reform, for a period to be subsequently determined by 

the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To amend title 5, United States Code, to provide that Members must complete 12 years of creditable service in 

order to be vested in an annuity under the Federal 

Employee Retirement System, and for other purposes. 

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 TO FERS ANNUITY FOR MEMBERS 

4 OF CONGRESS. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 8410 of title 5, United 

6 States Code, is amended by striking ‘‘or Member’’ and in7 serting after ‘‘8411’’ the following: ‘‘, and a Member must 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2652 IH

1 complete at least 12 years of such service creditable under 

2 such section,’’. 

3 (b) IMMEDIATE RETIREMENT.—Section 8412 of such 

4 title is amended— 

5 (1) in subsection (c), by striking ‘‘or Member’’ 

6 and by adding at the end the following: ‘‘A Member 

7 who is separated from the service after becoming 62 

8 years of age and completing 12 years of service is 

9 entitled to an annuity.’’; and 

10 (2) in subsection (g), by striking ‘‘or Member’’ 

11 each place it appears. 

12 (c) DEFERRED RETIREMENT.—Section 8413 of such 

13 title is amended— 

14 (1) in subsection (a), by striking ‘‘or Member’’ 

15 each place it appears and by adding at the end the 

16 following: ‘‘A Member who is separated from the 

17 service, or transferred to a position in which the 

18 Member does not continue subject to this chapter, 

19 after completing 12 years of service is entitled to an 

20 annuity beginning at the age of 62 years.’’; and 

21 (2) in subsection (b), by striking ‘‘or Member’’ 

22 each place it appears. 

23 (d) COMPUTATION OF ANNUITY.—Section 8415 of 

24 such title is amended— 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 2652 IH

1 (1) in subsection (b), by striking ‘‘5 years’’ and 

2 inserting ‘‘12 years’’; and 

3 (2) in subsection (c), by striking ‘‘or Member’’ 

4 and inserting the following: ‘‘, or 12 years of service 

5 as a Member,’’. 

6 SEC. 2. APPLICATION AND EFFECTIVE DATE. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—The amendments made by section 

8 1 shall take effect on the first day of the 113th Congress, 

9 but shall not apply to an individual who served as a Mem10 ber at any time before such first day. 

11 (b) DEFINITION.—For purposes of this section, the 

12 term ‘‘Member’’ has the meaning given such term in sec13 tion 8401(20) of title 5, United States Code. 

Æ 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Inconnection with the Annual Report of American Biogenetic Sciences, Inc. (the“Company”) on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2005 (the“Report”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the datehereof, I, Richard Rubin, CEO, CFO and Chairman of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that:

1. TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

2. Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

/s/ Richard Rubin

CEO, CFO and ChairmanDated: March 28, 2006

A signed original of this writtenstatement required by Section 906 has been provided to American Biogenetic Sciences, Inc.and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission or its staff upon request.
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2604 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide for the treatment 

of securities of a controlled corporation exchanged for assets in certain 

reorganizations. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 20, 2011 

Ms. SLAUGHTER (for herself, Mr. WELCH, Mr. KUCINICH, Mr. MICHAUD, Mr. 

JOHNSON of Georgia, Mr. OLVER, Mr. COSTELLO, Mrs. NAPOLITANO, 

Ms. PINGREE of Maine, Ms. SUTTON, Mr. DEFAZIO, Ms. KAPTUR, Mr. 

WALZ of Minnesota, Mr. TIERNEY, Ms. SCHAKOWSKY, Ms. MCCOLLUM, 

and Mr. RAHALL) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 

for the treatment of securities of a controlled corporation 

exchanged for assets in certain reorganizations. 

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

3 SECTION 1. TREATMENT OF SECURITIES OF A CON4 TROLLED CORPORATION EXCHANGED FOR 

5 ASSETS IN CERTAIN REORGANIZATIONS. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 361 of the Internal Rev7 enue Code of 1986 (relating to nonrecognition of gain or 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2604 IH

1 loss to corporations; treatment of distributions) is amend2 ed by adding at the end the following new subsection: 

3 ‘‘(d) SPECIAL RULES FOR TRANSACTIONS INVOLVING

4 SECTION 355 DISTRIBUTIONS.—In the case of a reorga5 nization described in section 368(a)(1)(D) with respect to 

6 which stock or securities of the corporation to which the 

7 assets are transferred are distributed in a transaction 

8 which qualifies under section 355— 

9 ‘‘(1) this section shall be applied by substituting 

10 ‘stock other than nonqualified preferred stock (as 

11 defined in section 351(g)(2))’ for ‘stock or securities’ 

12 in subsections (a) and (b)(1), and 

13 ‘‘(2) the first sentence of subsection (b)(3) shall 

14 apply only to the extent that the sum of the money 

15 and the fair market value of the other property 

16 transferred to such creditors does not exceed the ad17 justed bases of such assets transferred (reduced by 

18 the amount of the liabilities assumed (within the 

19 meaning of section 357(c))).’’. 

20 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Paragraph (3) of 

21 section 361(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is 

22 amended by striking the last sentence. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 2604 IH

1 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

2 this section shall apply to exchanges after the date of en3 actment of this Act. 

Æ 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
<PAGE>
 



                           ENSEC INTERNATIONAL, INC.
             STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
                           SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30,
                                        


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                             1997                   1996
                                                         -----------            -----------
                                                                                
<S>                                                      <C>                    <C>
Loss from operations                                     $(1,224,383)           $(2,094,584)
                                                         ===========            ===========
                                                                                
Weighted average shares outstanding                        5,656,250              3,500,000
                                                                                
Common stock equivalents (1)                                 177,500                404,896
                                                         -----------            -----------
                                                                                
Total weighted average common stock                                             
     equivalents outstanding                               5,833,750              3,904,896
                                                         ===========            ===========
                                                                                
Loss per common share:                                   $      (.21)           $      (.54)
                                                         ===========            ===========
</TABLE>

(1) In accordance with SAB Topic 4(D), the weighted average common stock
    equivalents include options and warrants issued within one year of the
    Company's initial public offering with exercise prices below $6.00 per share
    for all periods presented as calculated under the treasury stock method.