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

Certification of CEO and CFO  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 Building Materials Corporation of America (the "Company") for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Robert B. Tafaro, as Chief Executive Officer and President of the Company, and John F.
Rebele, as Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Chief Administrative Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of his knowledge and belief:



|                                                                                                                                              |  | 
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 
|/s/ROBERT B. TAFAROName:  Robert B. Tafaro
Title:    Chief Executive Officer and President                                                    |  | 
|Date: March 28, 2008                                                                                                                          |  | 
|/s/JOHN F. REBELEName:  John F. Rebele
Title:    Senior Vice President, Chief Financial
             Officer and Chief Administrative Officer |  | 
|Date: March 28, 2008                                                                                                                          |  | 

---



QuickLinks
* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 02-10189

Summary Calendar

 

PATRICK STARLING

Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

TIMOTHY REVELL, DR; CHARLES RIDGE, DR

Defendants - Appellees

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

(USDC No. 2:02-CV-7)

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

August 15, 2002

Before KING, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Patrick Starling, Texas state prisoner #585248, has appealed

the dismissal as frivolous of his civil rights action alleging

inadequate medical treatment for pain in his shoulder and thigh. 

We AFFIRM.

Starling contends that the district court abused its

discretion by dismissing his action with prejudice. He asserts

that that court has determined that his complaint alleges a claim 

for deliberate indifference to his medical needs, under 42 U.S.C.
No. 02-10189

-2-

§ 1983. The district court actually held that Starling’s claims

are frivolous because he did not allege, and cannot make a valid

allegation of, deliberate indifference.

Because Starling did not raise the issues of deliberate

indifference or seek leave to amend his complaint to so allege,

in the district court, this court will not address these issues

on appeal. See Reeves v. Collins, 27 F.3d 174, 177 (5th Cir.

1994). Furthermore, we reject Starling’s request for remand so

that he can allege deliberate indifference because on appeal, he

“has presented no more than conclusionary allegations in support

of his claim[s].” Booker v. Koonce, 2 F.3d 114, 117, 115-17 (5th

Cir. 1993). Therefore the district court’s judgment must be

AFFIRMED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Starling’s motion for leave to

withdraw or amend his brief is DENIED.

MOTION DENIED; JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2966 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to deny any deduction for 

direct-to-consumer advertisements of prescription drugs. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 19, 2009 

Mr. NADLER of New York 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 deny any 

deduction for direct-to-consumer advertisements of prescription drugs. 

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 ‘‘Say No to Drug Ads 

5 Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION FOR DIRECT-TO7 CONSUMER ADVERTISEMENT OF PRESCRIP8 TION DRUGS. 

9 (a) GENERAL RULE.—Part IX of subchapter B of 

10 chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
2 

•HR 2966 IH

1 to items not deductible) is amended by adding at the end 

2 the following new section: 

3 ‘‘SEC. 280I. DIRECT-TO-CONSUMER ADVERTISEMENT OF 

4 PRESCRIPTION DRUGS. 

5 ‘‘No deduction shall be allowed under this chapter for 

6 any amount paid or incurred for a direct-to-consumer ad7 vertisement of a prescription drug.’’ 

8 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections 

9 for part IX of subchapter B of chapter 1 of such Code 

10 is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new 

11 item: 

‘‘Sec. 280I. Direct-to-consumer advertisement of prescription drugs.’’. 

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

13 this section shall apply to amounts paid or incurred after 

14 December 31, 2009. 

Æ 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Louis Rodriguez, Appellant.

[987 NYS2d 347]

Judgments, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard D. *452Carruthers, J.), rendered July 14, 2011, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of murder in the second degree, attempted murder in the second degree and two counts each of assault in the first degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third and fourth degrees, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to an aggregate term of 80 years to life, unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of directing that the sentence for defendant’s conviction of criminal possession of a weapon under the sixth count of the indictment run concurrently with the sentences on the murder, attempted murder and assault convictions, and otherwise affirmed.

The court conducted a thorough colloquy with a juror who expressed a concern for his safety as a result of his erroneous belief that defendant’s wife had tried to contact him, and, following this inquiry, the court properly concluded that the juror was not grossly unqualified to continue serving. After the juror learned that the call he received (apparently the result of a stranger dialing a wrong number) could not have been from defendant’s wife, he assured the court that this incident would not affect his ability to remain fair and impartial *(see*CPL 270.35 [1]; *People v Buford,*69 NY2d 290 [1987]).

The sentence for defendant’s conviction under Penal Law § 265.03 (1) (b), for possessing a loaded firearm with intent to use it unlawfully against another, must run concurrently with the sentences on the other charges relating to the shootings. The People neither alleged nor proved any unlawful intent that was separate from his intent to shoot the victims *(see People v Wright,*19 NY3d 359 [2012]). However, the court lawfully imposed a consecutive sentence for the conviction under Penal Law § 265.03 (3), because there was a completed possession, within the meaning of that statute, before the shooting took place *(see People v Brown,*21 NY3d 739 [2013]).

We perceive no other basis for reducing the sentences.

Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P, Moskowitz, DeGrasse, ManzanetDaniels and Kapnick, JJ.
#### Hugh Wyatt, Appellant, v Inner City Broadcasting Corporation, Respondent, et al., Defendant.

[987 NYS2d 148]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Lawrence K. Marks, J), entered December 18, 2012, which granted the motion of defendant Inner City Broadcasting Corporation (ICBC) to dismiss the complaint as against it pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1) and (7) and 3016 (b), and directed the Clerk of the Court to enter judgment in ICBC’s favor, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion court properly dismissed so much of the complaint as sought documents. Unlike fraud or breach of fiduciary duty, “seeking documents” is not a cause of action. To the extent plaintiffs pro se complaint, supplemented by his opposition to ICBC’s motion to dismiss, can be read to allege fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, and violation of Business Corporation Law § 713, those claims are derivative rather than direct. His argument that he adequately pled demand futility is unavailing. Demand is excused because of futility when a complaint alleges with particularity that “a majority of the hoard of directors is interested in the challenged transaction” *(Marx v Akers,*88 NY2d 189, 200 [1996]), “the board of directors did not fully inform themselves about the challenged transaction to the extent reasonably appropriate under the circumstances” *(id.),*or “the challenged transaction was so egregious on its face that it could not have been the product of sound business judgment of the directors” *(id.*at 200-201). A corporation’s refusal to provide information to its shareholders is not on the above list of circumstances where demand is excused.

To the extent plaintiff seeks to bring claims for fraud or breach of fiduciary duty against ICBC, the claims are dismissed because they are pled in a conclusory manner.

Concur—Acosta, J.E, DeGrasse, Richter, Manzanet-Daniels and Feinman, JJ.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 23-0528

STATE OF MONTANA, 

Plaintiff and Appellee, 

v. 

ROBERT DAN FRENCH,

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 October 21, 2024, within which to prepare, file, 

and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

September 12 2024

09/12/2024

Case Number: DA 23-0528
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2921 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide for an annual 

review by the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission on geographic 

access to services. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 17, 2009 

Mr. BLUMENAUER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, 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 XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide 

for an annual review by the Medicare Payment Advisory 

Commission on geographic access to services. 

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

3 SECTION 1. MEDPAC ANNUAL REVIEW OF GEOGRAPHIC AC4 CESS. 

5 Section 1805(b)(1) of the Social Security Act (42 

6 U.S.C. 1395b–6(b)(1)) is amended— 

7 (1) by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end of subpara8 graph (C); 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
2 

•HR 2921 IH

1 (2) by striking the period at the end of sub2 paragraph (D); and 

3 (3) by adding at the end the following new sub4 paragraph: 

5 ‘‘(E) by not later than July 15 of each 

6 year (beginning with 2010), submit a report to 

7 Congress containing an evaluation, by Medicare 

8 administrative contractor area, of access to 

9 care, quality of care, increases or decreases in 

10 volume of services among such areas and the 

11 potential effects of the Commission’s most re12 cent policy recommendations under subpara13 graphs (B) through (D) on access to care in 

14 such areas.’’. 

Æ 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
<PAGE>



              CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS



We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statement (No. 
333-11097) on Form S-8 of Mitcham Industries, Inc. of our report dated April 
17, 1998, relating to the balance sheets of Mitcham Industries, Inc., as of 
January 31, 1998, and the related statements of income, changes in 
shareholders' equity, and cash flows for the years ended January 31, 1997 and 
1998, which report appears in the January 31, 1998 annual report on Form 
10-KSB of Mitcham Industries, Inc.



/s/ HEIN + ASSOCIATES LLP
HEIN + ASSOCIATES LLP
Certified Public Accountants
Houston, Texas
May 15, 1998
#### In the Matter of Sabrina H. and Another, Infants. Gail S., Appellant; Niagara County Department of Social Services, Respondent.

[666 NYS2d 531]

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Family Court properly dismissed the petition of the biological mother, who sought to revoke the *1135judicial surrender of her children because the conditions of the surrender were violated. While petitioner may petition the court for enforcement of the surrender’s terms *(see, Matter of Patricia YY. v Albany County Dept. of Social Servs.,*238 AD2d 672; *Matter of Gerald T.,*211 AD2d 17, 20-21), she is not entitled to revocation of the surrender “in the absence of [a showing of] fraud, duress or coercion” *(Matter of Amanda B.,*206 AD2d 636, 636-637; *see, Matter of Baby Boy Joseph,*214 AD2d 1049; Social Services Law § 383-c). (Appeal from Order of Niagara County Family Court, Halpin, J.—Adoption.) Present—Green, J. P., Lawton, Wisner, Callahan and Boehm, JJ.
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 17-2573

___________________________

United States of America,

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

Tiran Rodez Casteel, also known as Tiran R. Casteel; Devan Rodez Casteel,

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellants,

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Iowa - Council Bluffs

____________

 Submitted: June 22, 2018

Filed: July 5, 2018

[Unpublished]

____________

Before LOKEN, BOWMAN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

____________
PER CURIAM.

Federal inmates Tiran Casteel and Devan Casteel appeal the district court’s1

denial of their motion under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(g) for return of

the property seized during their arrest and a subsequent search.

Upon reviewing the district court’s legal conclusions de novo and factual

findings for clear error, see Jackson v. United States, 526 F.3d 394, 396 (8th Cir.

2008), and after careful consideration of the parties’ arguments on appeal, we

conclude that the district court properly denied the Rule 41(g) motion. As to Tiran’s

request for numerous collectible coins, which were determined to be stolen property,

we agree with the district court that Tiran did not establish his lawful entitlement to

any of the coins. See Jackson, 526 F.3d at 396. As to Tiran’s request for a starter

pistol, we agree that, as a felon, he could not possess the starter pistol because it fell

within the statutory definition of a firearm. See 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(3). As to Devan’s

request for eight firearms seized during the search, we agree that, as a felon, he could

not possess the firearms, and we note that he did not provide the district court any

assurance that transferring the firearms to his mother would prevent him from

exercising control over them. See 18 U.S.C. § 922(g); Henderson v. United States,

135 S. Ct. 1780, 1786 (2015). Finally, as to Devan’s request for $600 cash used by

Tiran to purchase weapons from an undercover officer, we agree with the district

court that Devan was not the source of the cash, and we note that a finding to the

contrary would be inconsistent with an earlier decision by this court. See United

States v. Huber, 462 F.3d 945, 953 (8th Cir. 2006); see also Jackson, 526 F.3d at 396.

The judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

1The Honorable Robert W. Pratt, United States District Judge for the Southern

District of Iowa.

-2-
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                          19,123
<SECURITIES>                                       807
<RECEIVABLES>                                   52,305
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                        750
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                76,217
<PP&E>                                          39,623
<DEPRECIATION>                                  12,475
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 122,323
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           25,207
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          3
<COMMON>                                            17
<OTHER-SE>                                      95,146
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   122,323
<SALES>                                         77,342
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                77,342
<CGS>                                           55,325
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   66,024
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (578)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  95
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 11,801
<INCOME-TAX>                                     4,774
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              7,027
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     7,027
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .42
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .42
        

</TABLE>
HEALTH TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL, INC.
                                163 South Street
                          Hackensack, New Jersey 07601
                                (201 ) 457-1221
                           (201) 457-1331 (Facsimile)


April 29, 1997

Zsigmond Sagi
Chief Executive Officer
Scantek Medical, Inc.
19 Longley Court
Mountain Lakes, N.J.

      RE: License Extension

Dear Mr. Sagi:

     This letter agreement sets forth the mutual understanding of Scantek
Medical, Inc. ("Scantek") and Health Technologies International, Inc.
("Licensee") with respect to a certain previously executed license granting the
Licensee exclusive use of the BTAI, and improvements thereto, in Chile and
Singapore. Since both Scantek and the Licensee deem it in their best interest to
extend and modify the License, the License Agreement is hereby amended and it is
the mutual understanding of the parties that:

      1) The License continues to remain in full force and effect;

      2) The $250,000 license fee referred to in Section 3A of the License
Agreement must be paid not later than:

         A) $50,000 upon execution of this Amendment; and

         B) $200,000 on or before May 15,1997.

      3) All other terms and conditions of the License Agreement remain in
effect, except as they should reasonably be modified to conform with the change
in the above dates.

     If your understanding is the same as ours, please sign below to indicate
Scantek's acceptance of these amended terms, your authority to so execute, and
to acknowledge receipt and sufficiency of ten dollars paid in hand, as well as
other good and valuable consideration, including the mutual promises exchanged
hereby.

Yours truly,                        REVIEWED, AGREED TO AND ACCEPTED
                                    this 30th day of April, 1997

HEALTH TECHNOLOGIES                 SCANTEK MEDICAL, Inc.
INTERNATIONAL, INC.


BY:___________________________      BY:___________________________
      ROGER L. FIDLER                     ZSIGMOND SAGI
      PRESIDENT                           PRESIDENT
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2951 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2951

   To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to include vision 
    restoration therapy devices and associated software used in the 
patient's home to treat impaired visual function due to acquired brain 
  injury within the definition of durable medical equipment under the 
                           Medicare Program.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 18, 2009

Mrs. McCarthy of New York (for herself and Mr. Grayson) introduced the 
   following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and 
  Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Ways and Means, 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 XVIII of the Social Security Act to include vision 
    restoration therapy devices and associated software used in the 
patient's home to treat impaired visual function due to acquired brain 
  injury within the definition of durable medical equipment under 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 ``Restorative and Enhanced Vision 
Access for Medicare Patients (REVAMP) Act of 2009''.

SEC. 2. MEDICARE COVERAGE OF VISION RESTORATION THERAPY DEVICES AND 
              ASSOCIATED SOFTWARE AS DURABLE MEDICAL EQUIPMENT.

    (a) In General.--Section 1861(n) of the Social Security Act (42 
U.S.C. 1395x(n)) is amended--
            (1) by striking ``and'' before ``includes''; and
            (2) by inserting before the semicolon the following: ``, 
        and includes vision restoration therapy devices and associated 
        software that are used in the patient's home and that have been 
        cleared or approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the 
        treatment of impaired visual function''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) shall 
apply to items furnished on or after January 1, 2010.
                                 <all>
```