alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"Federal Maritime Commission","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov","author_name":"Catie-Megan Moran","author_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/author\/cmoranfmc-gov\/","title":"Statement Regarding Status of Hanjin Shipping","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"uTUkbGIQX4\"><a href=\"\/statement-regarding-status-of-hanjin-shipping\/\">Statement Regarding Status of Hanjin Shipping<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"\/statement-regarding-status-of-hanjin-shipping\/embed\/#?secret=uTUkbGIQX4\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Statement Regarding Status of Hanjin Shipping” — Federal Maritime Commission\" data-secret=\"uTUkbGIQX4\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script type=\"text\/javascript\">\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(c,l){\"use strict\";var e=!1,o=!1;if(l.querySelector)if(c.addEventListener)e=!0;if(c.wp=c.wp||{},c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage);else if(c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if(!t);else if(!(t.secret||t.message||t.value));else if(\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret));else{for(var r,s,a,i=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),n=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=0;o<n.length;o++)n[o].style.display=\"none\";for(o=0;o<i.length;o++)if(r=i[o],e.source!==r.contentWindow);else{if(r.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message){if(1e3<(s=parseInt(t.value,10)))s=1e3;else if(~~s<200)s=200;r.height=s}if(\"link\"===t.message)if(s=l.createElement(\"a\"),a=l.createElement(\"a\"),s.href=r.getAttribute(\"src\"),a.href=t.value,a.host===s.host)if(l.activeElement===r)c.top.location.href=t.value}}},e)c.addEventListener(\"message\",c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",t,!1),c.addEventListener(\"load\",t,!1);function t(){if(o);else{o=!0;for(var e,t,r,s=-1!==navigator.appVersion.indexOf(\"MSIE 10\"),a=!!navigator.userAgent.match(\/Trident.*rv:11\\.\/),i=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),n=0;n<i.length;n++){if(!(r=(t=i[n]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\")))r=Math.random().toString(36).substr(2,10),t.src+=\"#?secret=\"+r,t.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",r);if(s||a)(e=t.cloneNode(!0)).removeAttribute(\"security\"),t.parentNode.replaceChild(e,t);t.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:r},\"*\")}}}}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n"}
Exhibit
32.1




CERTIFICATION




Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. 1350


(Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)




In
connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of International Stem Cell
Corporation (the “Company”) for the year ended December 31, 2008, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),
Kenneth C. Aldrich, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §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 results of operations of the Company.




Date:
      June 9, 2009
            
            By: /s/ Kenneth C.
      AldrichKenneth
      C. AldrichChief
      Executive Officer




This
certification accompanies each Report pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of §18 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.




A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 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.
**Exhibit 23a**

 

**CONSENTOF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS**

 

As independent publicaccountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation of our report included inthis Form 10-K, into the Company’s previously filed Registration Statements onForm S-3 (Nos. 333-70569, 33-62721, and 33-70526) and in the RegistrationStatement on Form S-8 (No. 33-88410).

 
| /s/  Arthur Andersen LLP |   |
|-------------------------------|--------|
|                          |
| Orange  County, California    |
| March 21,  2002               |

 

----
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Chester GRIFFITHS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 15-7808.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Jan. 14, 2016.

Decided: Jan. 20, 2016.

Chester C. Griffiths, Appellant Pro Se. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Before AGEE, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM.

Chester Griffiths appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) pursuant to Guidelines Amendment 782. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

A district court is authorized to reduce a defendant’s sentence of imprisonment under § 3582(c)(2) only if the defendant’s sentence was “based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission” through a retroactively applicable Guidelines amendment. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2); *see U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual*§ lB1.10(a)(l) *151(2006). As the court determined' at sentencing, Griffiths’ Guidelines range was 120 months’ imprisonment because the Guidelines range established by his total offense level and criminal history category was lower than the statutory mandatory minimum applicable to his offense. . See 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(b)(1)(B), 851 (2012); USSG § 5Gl.l(b); USSG ch. 5, pt. A (sentencing table). Amendment 782 did not lower Griffiths’ mandatory minimum sentence, and his Guidelines range remains 120 months. *See United States v. Black,*737 F.3d 280, 286-87 (4th Cir.2013). Because Griffiths is ineligible for a sentence reduction under § 3582(c)(2), we find no abuse of discretion in the court’s denial of Griffiths’ motion. *See United States Stewart,*595 F.3d 197, 200 (4th Cir.2010) (standard of review).

Accordingly, 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.

*AFFIRMED.*
EXHIBIT 32.01



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350



In connection with the
Quarterly Report of KANA Software, Inc. (the Registrant) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Michael S. Fields, Chief
Executive Officer of the Registrant, certify, in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, that to the best of my knowledge:



(1) The Report, to which this certification is attached as Exhibit 32.01, 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 Registrant.



|                        |  |                              
|----------------------- |  | -----------------------------
|Dated: October 11, 2005 |  | /s/ Michael Fields           
|                        |  | Michael S. Fields            
|                        |  | Chief Executive Officer      
|                        |  | (Principal Executive Officer)
#### Anthony Jo-Allen McCOY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. B. ULEP, Doctor, Sussex I State Prison, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 13-7149.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Nov. 21, 2013.

Decided: Nov. 26, 2013.

Anthony Jo-Allen McCoy, Appellant Pro Se.

Before KING, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Anthony Jo-Allen McCoy appeals the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) action for noncompliance with a court order. A plaintiffs failure to comply with an order of the court may warrant involuntary dismissal. Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b). We review a district court’s dismissal under Rule 41(b) for abuse of discretion. *Ballard v. Carlson,*882 F.2d 93, 95-96 (4th Cir.1989). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *See McCoy v. Ulep,*No. 3:12-cv-00883-JRS (E.D.Va. July 2, 2013). 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.

*AFFIRMED.*
<PAGE>

       EXHIBIT 99.2 -- SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002, SEC.906 CERTIFICATION

     I, Andrew A. Campbell, certify that the Form 10-Q of Pactiv Corporation for
the period ended September 30, 2002, (the "Report"):

     (1) fully complies with the requirements of sec.13(a) or sec.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 operation of
         Pactiv Corporation for the period then ended.

   /s/ ANDREW A. CAMPBELL
--------------------------------
Andrew A. Campbell
Senior Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer

November 14, 2002
--------------------------------
Date
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"Federal Maritime Commission","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov","author_name":"Catie-Megan Moran","author_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/author\/cmoranfmc-gov\/","title":"Commissioner Dye Discusses Carrier Service Contract Filing Exemption & Fact Finding 28 at NCBFAA Conference","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"Lif52BRAZf\"><a href=\"\/commissioner-dye-discusses-carrier-service-contract-filing-exemption-fact-finding-28-at-ncbfaa-conference\/\">Commissioner Dye Discusses Carrier Service Contract Filing Exemption & Fact Finding 28 at NCBFAA Conference<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"\/commissioner-dye-discusses-carrier-service-contract-filing-exemption-fact-finding-28-at-ncbfaa-conference\/embed\/#?secret=Lif52BRAZf\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Commissioner Dye Discusses Carrier Service Contract Filing Exemption & Fact Finding 28 at NCBFAA Conference” — Federal Maritime Commission\" data-secret=\"Lif52BRAZf\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script type=\"text\/javascript\">\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(c,l){\"use strict\";var e=!1,o=!1;if(l.querySelector)if(c.addEventListener)e=!0;if(c.wp=c.wp||{},c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage);else if(c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if(!t);else if(!(t.secret||t.message||t.value));else if(\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret));else{for(var r,s,a,i=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),n=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=0;o<n.length;o++)n[o].style.display=\"none\";for(o=0;o<i.length;o++)if(r=i[o],e.source!==r.contentWindow);else{if(r.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message){if(1e3<(s=parseInt(t.value,10)))s=1e3;else if(~~s<200)s=200;r.height=s}if(\"link\"===t.message)if(s=l.createElement(\"a\"),a=l.createElement(\"a\"),s.href=r.getAttribute(\"src\"),a.href=t.value,a.host===s.host)if(l.activeElement===r)c.top.location.href=t.value}}},e)c.addEventListener(\"message\",c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",t,!1),c.addEventListener(\"load\",t,!1);function t(){if(o);else{o=!0;for(var e,t,r,s=-1!==navigator.appVersion.indexOf(\"MSIE 10\"),a=!!navigator.userAgent.match(\/Trident.*rv:11\\.\/),i=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),n=0;n<i.length;n++){if(!(r=(t=i[n]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\")))r=Math.random().toString(36).substr(2,10),t.src+=\"#?secret=\"+r,t.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",r);if(s||a)(e=t.cloneNode(!0)).removeAttribute(\"security\"),t.parentNode.replaceChild(e,t);t.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:r},\"*\")}}}}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n"}
<PAGE>

                                                                      Exhibit 21

                         SUBSIDIARIES OF BHA GROUP, INC.

BHA International GmbH, a German corporation; PrecipTech, Inc., a Delaware
corporation; PrecipTech, Ltd., a Canadian corporation; BHA Group International,
Inc., a Delaware corporation; BHA Company, Inc., a Missouri corporation; BHA
Group, Ltd., a Canadian corporation; BHA International, Inc., a U.S. Virgin
Islands corporation; BHA-TEX, Inc., a Delaware corporation; and SF Air
Filtration, Inc., a Delaware corporation are the only subsidiaries of the
Company and are wholly-owned. Midwest Precipitator Corporation, an Illinois
corporation; and Tool Rental and Supply Company, Inc., a Delaware corporation,
are wholly-owned subsidiaries of PrecipTech, Inc. BHA Group International Pvt.
Ltd., an India corporation, is a wholly-owned subsidiary of BHA Group
International, Inc. BHA Services, Inc., a Delaware corporation, is a
wholly-owned subsidiary of BHA Company, Inc. SF Air Filtration AG, a Swiss
corporation, is a wholly-owned subsidiary of SF Air Filtration, Inc.




















                                      -38-

<PAGE>
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 Justice

###### Antitrust Division

                    Notice is hereby given that, on October 24, 2017, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301*et seq.*                     (“the Act”) Automation and Public Safety Common Solutions Consortium (“APSCS Consortium”) has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing (1) the identities of the parties to the venture and (2) the nature and objectives of the venture. The notifications were filed for the purpose of invoking the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances.                

Pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act, the identities of the parties to the venture are: General Motors LLC, Warren, MI; Ford Motor Company, Dearborn, MI; Honda R&D Americas, Inc., Torrance, CA; Hyundai-Kia America Technical Center, Inc., Superior Township, MI; Mercedes-Benz Research & Development North America, Ann Arbor, MI; Nissan Technical Center North America, Farmington Hills, MI; Toyota Motor North America, Plano, TX; and Volvo Group North America, Costa Mesa, CA. The general area of APSCS Consortium's planned activity is collaboration to conduct multiple research projects limited to specific areas in which the participants believe common solutions to specifically defined technical goals will speed the development and ultimate consumer access to safe Automated Driving Systems-equipped (ADS-equipped) vehicles. APSCS Consortium's objectives are to gain further knowledge and understanding of ADS-equipped vehicle interactions with public safety through research into common operational use cases.

Patricia A. Brink,

Director of Civil Enforcement, Antitrust Division.

[FR Doc. 2017-24767 Filed 11-15-17; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE P
74 A.3d 1025

#### James L. MARTIN, Petitioner v. PENNSYLVANIA BOARD OF LAW EXAMINERS, Respondent.

No. 109 EM 2013.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Sept. 10, 2013.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 10th day of September, 2013, the Petition for Review is DENIED.
#### BRANTLEY *v.*STATE OF GEORGIA.

ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OTP TOP, STATE OF GEORGIA.

No. 692.

Argued April 6, 1910.

Decided April 11, 1910.

Where one has been tried in a state court for murder and convicted of manslaughter, and, on his own motion, obtains a reversal and new trial, on which he is convicted of a higher offense, and the constitution of the State provides that no . one shall be put in second jeopardy for the same offense save on his own motion for new trial ' or in case of mistrial, there is no question involved of twice in jeopardy under the Constitution of the United States.

132 Georgia, 573, affirmed.

The facts are stated in the opinion.

*Mr. John Randolph Cooper*for plaintiff in error.

*Mr. John C. Hart,*Attorney General of the State of Georgia, for defendant in error, submitted.

Per Curiam:

Brantley was indicted in the Superior Court of Washington County, Georgia, charged with the offense of murder; was tried and found guilty of voluntary manslaughter; filed a motion for new trial, and upon appeal to the state Court of Appeals obtained a reversal of the judgment, and a new trial was ordered.

At the second trial he filed a plea of former jeopardy, claiming that he had been tried for murder, and having been found guilty of a lesser grade of homicide that operated to acquit him of the charge of murder, and to try him again for murder under the same indictment would be to try him again for an *285offense of which he had been previously acquitted, and that he could only be arraigned for voluntary manslaughter. This plea was demurred to and the demurrer sustained by the court. The case then proceeded to trial, and the jury found him guilty of murder, whereupon he was sentenced to life imprisonment. He moved for new trial, which motion was overruled, and thereupon he appealed to the Supreme Court of the State of Georgia, which affirmed the judgment of the lower court. *Brantley*v. *State.,*132 Georgia, 573.

The constitution of the State of Georgia provides that “No . person shall be put in jeopardy of life or liberty more than once for the same offense, save on his or her own motion for new trial, , after conviction, or in case of mistrial.” This writ of error was sued out and plaintiff in error contended that the judgment of the Supreme Court of Georgia was in violation of the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution of the, United States, and that the provision of the constitution of the State of Georgia was null and void as construed by the state Supreme Court.

The contention is absolutely without merit. It was not a case of twice in jeopardy under any view of the Constitution of the United States.

*Jvdgment affirmed.*
Exhibit
23.1





Consent
of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm







To the
Board of Directors and Stockholders


International
Stem Cell Corporation and Subsidiary


Oceanside,
California





We hereby
consent to the incorporation by reference in the Prospectus constituting a part
of the Registration Statements on Form SB-2/A (No. 333-142048) and on Form
S-8 (No. 333-150920) of our report dated March 30, 2009 of International Stem
Cell Corporation and subsidiary (the Company), a development stage company,
relating to the consolidated balance sheets as of December 31, 2008 and 2007,
and the related consolidated statements of operations, members’ deficit and
stockholders’ equity and cash flows for the years then ended and for the period
from inception (August 17, 2001) to December 31, 2008, which report is included
in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.  Our report contains an
explanatory paragraph regarding the Company’s ability to continue as a going
concern.










/s/
Vasquez & Company LLP


Los
Angeles, California


March 30,
2009
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-18-00897-CV

In the Interest of D.E.P., a Child

From the 407th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2018-PA-00219

Honorable Charles E. Montemayor, Judge Presiding

Opinion by: Irene Rios, Justice

Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Irene Rios, Justice

Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice

Delivered and Filed: May 8, 2019

AFFIRMED

In this appeal, appellant challengesthe trial court’s judgment terminating his parental rights

to his child, D.E.P. Appellant’s court-appointed counsel filed a brief in which he discusses the 

applicable law and evaluates the record in this case. In counsel’s professional opinion, this appeal 

is frivolous and without merit. Counsel’s brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 

U.S. 738 (1967). See In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27 (Tex. 2016) (noting Anders procedures apply 

in parental termination cases). Additionally, counsel certified that he provided appellant a copy of 

the brief and informed appellant of his right to review the record and file a pro se brief. Appellant 

did not file a pro se brief.

We have conducted an independent review of the record and agree this appeal is frivolous 

and without merit. Accordingly, the trial court’s judgment is affirmed. 

Irene Rios, Justice
<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT 32.1

               SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002, SEC.906 CERTIFICATION

I, Richard L. Wambold, certify that:

     (1) the Form 10-Q of Pactiv Corporation for the period ended September 30,
         2003 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of sec.13(a)
         or sec.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
         Pactiv Corporation for the period then ended.

                                          /s/ RICHARD L. WAMBOLD
                                          --------------------------------------
                                          Richard L. Wambold
                                          Chairman, President, and Chief
                                          Executive Officer

November 14, 2003

     This certification accompanies this report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and shall not, except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. A signed original
of this written statement required by Section 906 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.