alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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 Global Diversified Industries, Inc.(the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending October 31, 2008 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I , Phil
Hamilton, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify to the best of my
knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
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 and 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.





/s/ Phil
Hamilton


Phil
Hamilton


Chief
Executive Officer




December
19, 2008
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Gentrick James SEMIEN, also known as Gent, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 08-30274

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Nov. 30, 2010.

Cristina Walker, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Louisiana, Shreveport, LA, Richard Allan Willis, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Louisiana, Lafayette, LA, Todd S. Clem*968ons, Lake Charles, LA, for Plaintiff-Appel-lee.

Carol B. Whitehurst, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Western District of Louisiana, Lafayette, LA, for Defendanb-Appel-lant.

Before REAVLEY, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Gentrick James Semien, federal prisoner # 10150-035, has moved for leave to withdraw in Semien’s appeal of the district court’s order denying 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) relief and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Semien has not filed a response. Our independent review of the record and counsel’s brief discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
Roscoe Postle Associates Inc.
 Suite 501, 55 University Avenue, Toronto, ON  M5J 2H7
 T(416) 947-0907F(416) 947-0395
 www.rpacan.com
 
 
 CONSENT OF CHRISTOPHER MORETON
 
 I consent to the inclusion in this annual report on Form 40-F of New Gold Inc., which is being filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission, of references to my name in connection with, and to the use of information derived from, the technical report entitled “Technical Report on the Cerro San Pedro Mine, San Luis Potosí, Mexico” dated February 16, 2010 and amended March 22, 2010, included in the Annual Information Form of New Gold Inc. for the financial year ended December 31, 2011, and I consent to the incorporation by reference of such information in the registration statement on Form S-8 (File No. 333-160500) of New Gold Inc.
  Dated this 26th day of March, 2012
  (Signed) “Christopher Moreton”
  Name: Christopher Moreton
 Title:   Ph.D., P.Geo. and Senior Geologist for Roscoe Postle Associates Inc.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.fmcs.gov","title":"FMCS Issues Joint Statement on Barton Healthcare System and the California Nurses Association Cooling Off Period - Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"UaSU19S9k0\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.fmcs.gov\/fmcs-issues-joint-statement-on-barton-healthcare-system-and-the-california-nurses-association-cooling-off-period\/\">FMCS Issues Joint Statement on Barton Healthcare System and the California Nurses Association Cooling Off Period<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.fmcs.gov\/fmcs-issues-joint-statement-on-barton-healthcare-system-and-the-california-nurses-association-cooling-off-period\/embed\/#?secret=UaSU19S9k0\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“FMCS Issues Joint Statement on Barton Healthcare System and the California Nurses Association Cooling Off Period” — Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service\" data-secret=\"UaSU19S9k0\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script type=\"text\/javascript\">\n\/* <![CDATA[ *\/\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n\/* ]]> *\/\n<\/script>\n","description":"WASHINGTON, D.C. \u2014 On behalf of Barton Healthcare System (Barton Health) and the California Nurses Association (CNA), the U.S. Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (FMCS) has issued the following statement: \u201cOn the request of the mediator, the parties have agreed to abide to a 35-day cooling off period beginning Feb. 19, 2019. During this period, […]"}
{"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":"Revocations – Aug 30, 2019","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"kD8gWEWVnt\"><a href=\"\/oti\/revocations-aug-30-2019\/\">Revocations – Aug 30, 2019<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"\/oti\/revocations-aug-30-2019\/embed\/#?secret=kD8gWEWVnt\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Revocations – Aug 30, 2019” — Federal Maritime Commission\" data-secret=\"kD8gWEWVnt\" 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"}
86 A.3d 861

#### 1212 LUDLOW LP, Respondent v. Robert DUNCAN, Petitioner.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

March 4, 2014.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 4th day of March, 2014, the Emergency Petition to Stay Writ of Possession is hereby DENIED.
73 A.3d 521

#### Rodney WELLS, Petitioner v. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PHILADELPHIA COUNTY, Respondent.

No. 78 EM 2013.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

July 31, 2013.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 31st day of July, 2013, the Application for Leave to File Original Process is GRANTED, and the Petition for Writ of Mandamus and/or Extraordinary Relief is DENIED.
**Exhibit 32.2**CERTIFICATIONPursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, I, Tucker I. Marr, Chief Financial Officer of Pruco Life InsuranceCompany, hereby certify that the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year endedDecember 31, 2007, containing the financial statements of Pruco Life Variable Contract RealProperty Account (a separate account of Pruco Life Insurance Company) and The Prudential VariableContract Real Property Partnership (the “Report”), fully complies with the requirements of Section13 (a) or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operationsof the Pruco Life Variable Contract Real Property Account and The Prudential Variable Contract RealProperty Partnership. Date: March 21,    2008          /s/ Tucker I. Marr    Name: Tucker I. Marr     Title:    Chief Financial    Officer    The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350 and is not beingfiled as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
**EXHIBIT
32.1**
 
 **CERTIFICATION
OF**
 **CHIEF
EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**
 **PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**
 **AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**
 **SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**
 
 
 I, S.
Kumar Chandrasekaran, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual
Report of InSite Vision Incorporated on Form 10-K for the annual period ended
December 31, 2004 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended and that information
contained in such Annual Report of InSite Vision Incorporated on Form 10-K
fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of
operation of InSite Vision Incorporated.
 
 ****By:
    /s/ S. Kumar Chandrasekaran,
      Ph.D.Name:S.
      Kumar Chandrasekaran, Ph.D.
      Title:Chief
      Executive Officer
      Date:March 31,
      2005
 
 I, S.
Kumar Chandrasekaran, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual
Report of InSite Vision Incorporated on Form 10-K for the annual period ended
December 31, 2004 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended and that information
contained in such Annual Report of InSite Vision Incorporated on Form 10-K
fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of
operation of InSite Vision Incorporated.
 ****By:
    /s/ S. Kumar Chandrasekaran,
      Ph.D.Name:S.
      Kumar Chandrasekaran, Ph.D.
      Title:Chief
      Financial Officer
      Date:March
      31, 2005
## I N T H E C O U R T O F C R I M I N A L A P P E A L S O F T E X A S

N O . A P - 7 6 , 7 6 3 & A P - 7 6 , 7 6 4
E x p a r t e J E S U S D E L E O N , A p p l i c a n t
O N A P P L I C A T I O N S F O R H A B E A S C O R P U S C A U S E N O S . 0 6
- C R - 0 4 0 5 - G & 0 6
- C R - 2 7 4 6
- G I N T H E 4 0 4 D I S T R I C T C O U R T

T H F R O M C A M E R O N C O U N T Y
K EL LE R , P . J . , f

i l e d a c o n c u r r i n g o p i n i o n i n w h i c h J O H N S O N a n d C O C H R A N , J J . , j o i n e d .
The plea ag ree ment provided that applicant waived his rig ht to appea l, applicant’ s attorney provided a

n aff idavit say ing tha t his understanding was that no a ppeal would be forthcoming , and the habea s judge found that applicant brea ched the plea ag ree ment by appea ling. I do not think that the pre- printed nature of the waiver of appea l makes it ambig uous, nor do I think that the trial judge

can retroa ctively overr ide a waiver of appea l afte r he has acc epted the plea ag ree ment. The habea s judge ’s finding that applicant brea ched the plea ag ree ment first appea rs to me to be supported by the

rec ord. But it doe s not ma tter. The plea ag ree ment contains no “pa rtial reme dies” c lause. That is, there is no provision tha t sa y s that, if applicant brea ches the ag ree ment by appea ling, the State canDE LEO N CONCURRENCE — 2

prosec ute applicant’ s brother while the rema inder of the plea ag ree ment rema ins in forc e. Absent

a partial reme dies clause , the State has three choice s when a defe ndant brea ches the plea ag ree ment: (1) reque st specific perf

ormanc e, if that is possible, (2) follow its end of the ag ree ment, relinquish 1
any rig hts lost as a result of the defe ndant’s brea ch, and have the rema ining portions of the ag ree ment

rema in in eff

ect, or (3) have the entire ag ree ment set aside. Once the State prosec uted applicant’ s 2 3 brother, it made options (1) and (2 ) i m p o s s i ble. Reg ardle ss of who brea ched the plea ag ree ment first, once the Sta t e ac t ed co n t rary to the plea ag ree ment, it was no longe r entitled to specific perf ormanc e of any part of the ag ree ment, and applicant was entitled to have the ag ree ment set aside in its entirety

. Wit h these c omments, I concur in the Court’s judgme nt.
Filed: June 5, 2013 Publis h

State v. Moore , 240 S.W .3d 248, 252 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007).

1 Ex parte Ervin , 991 S.W .2d 804, 817 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (State can waive an illega l 2 portion of a judg ment and maintain the r emainder of the plea

ag ree ment). W indom v. State , 968 S.W .2d 360, 362 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998). 3
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3040 

To amend the Family and Medical Leave Act and the Emergency Paid 

Sick Leave Act to extend paid leave, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 7, 2021 

Mr. FOSTER (for himself, Ms. NORTON, Mr. COOPER, Ms. LEE of California, 

Mr. CICILLINE, Mr. SOTO, Mr. SMITH of Washington, Mr. EVANS, and 

Ms. ROSS) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Education and Labor, and in addition to the Committees on 

Oversight and Reform, and House Administration, 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 the Family and Medical Leave Act and the Emergency Paid Sick Leave Act to extend paid leave, 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. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Pandemic Leave Ex5 tension Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3040 IH

1 SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF PAID LEAVE. 

2 (a) EMERGENCY PAID SICK LEAVE ACT.—The 

3 Emergency Paid Sick Leave Act (29 U.S.C. 2601 note) 

4 is amended— 

5 (1) in section 5102(b)(2), by inserting ‘‘in each 

6 calendar year’’ after ‘‘paid sick time’’; 

7 (2) in section 5103(b), 

8 (A) by striking ‘‘Not later than’’ and in9 serting ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than’’; 

10 and 

11 (B) by adding at the end the following new 

12 paragraph: 

13 ‘‘(2) UPDATES.—The notice under paragraph 

14 (1) shall be updated and made publicly available not 

15 later than 7 days after the date of the enactment of 

16 the Pandemic Leave Extension Act.’’; 

17 (3) in section 5108, by striking the period at 

18 the end and inserting ‘‘or 15 days after the date of 

19 the enactment of the Pandemic Leave Extension 

20 Act.’’; and 

21 (4) in section 5109, by striking ‘‘December 31, 

22 2020’’ and inserting ‘‘the date that is the end of the 

23 public health emergency related to the coronavirus 

24 declared by the Secretary of Health and Human 

25 Services pursuant to section 319 of the Public 

26 Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 247d)’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 3040 IH

1 (b) FAMILY AND MEDICAL LEAVE ACT.— 

2 (1) AMENDMENT.—The Family and Medical 

3 Leave Act of 1993 (29 U.S.C. 2611 et seq.) is 

4 amended in section 102(a)(1)(F) (29 U.S.C. 

5 2612(a)(1)(F)), by striking ‘‘December 31, 2020’’ 

6 and inserting ‘‘the date that is the end of the public 

7 health emergency related to the coronavirus declared 

8 by the Secretary of Health and Human Services 

9 pursuant to section 319 of the Public Health Service 

10 Act (42 U.S.C. 247d)’’. 

11 (2) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment under 

12 paragraph (1) shall take effect not later than 15 

13 days after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
AMPLICON, INC.
                              
          EXHIBIT 11 - COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE OF COMMON STOCK
                              
                              
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                           Years ended June 30,
                                  ---------------------------------------
                                     1997          1996           1995
                                     ----          ----           ----
<S>                               <C>           <C>            <C>
Net earnings                      $15,739,641   $12,995,629    $11,548,065
                                  ===========   ===========    ===========
Weighted average number of
  common shares outstanding
  assuming no exercise of
  outstanding options               5,844,490     5,848,847      5,859,898

Dilutive stock options using
  the treasury stock method           210,738       (A)            (A)
                                  -----------   -----------    -----------

                                    6,055,228     5,848,847      5,859,898
                                  ===========   ===========     ==========


Primary earnings per common
  share                           $      2.69   $      2.22     $     1.97
                                  ===========   ===========     ==========
Fully diluted earnings per
  share                           $      2.60   $      2.22(A)  $     1.97(A)
                                  ===========   ===========     ==========
</TABLE>


(A)  Dilution is less than 3% and deemed immaterial; therefore,
     stock options are not included for these earnings per
     share calculation.

                                       33
#### In re David UPTON, Petitioner.

Misc. No. 955.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Dec. 8, 2010.

Before LOURIE, MAYER, and DYK, Circuit Judges.

ON MOTION

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

David Upton petitions this court for a writ of mandamus to direct the United States District Court for the Central District of California to reassign to a different judge his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Upton also seeks other relief. The Department of Justice, stating that it represents the United States District Court for the Central District of California as a respondent, submits a motion to waive the requirements of Fed. Cir. R. 27(f) and to dismiss David Upton’s petition for a writ of mandamus for lack of jurisdiction.* Upton opposes. The Department replies. We consider whether we have jurisdiction over this petition for a writ of mandamus.

Upton filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the Central District of California, identifying the warden of the California Institute for Men as the defendant. Subsequently, Upton filed the petition for writ of mandamus in this court, seeking to have a district court judge and a magistrate judge removed from his case for, inter alia, failing to rule on his motion to expedite the proceedings and his motion for summary judgment.

Upton has not shown that this court has jurisdiction over his petition. Under 28 *484U.S.C. § 1651, this court may only issue writs necessary or appropriate in aid of its jurisdiction. This court’s jurisdiction to review district court decisions is limited primarily to cases involving patents and suits against the United States not exceeding $10,000 and does not include review of rulings on petitions for writs of habeas corpus. *See 28*U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1), (2).

Accordingly,

It Is Ordered That:

(1) The petition is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. All sides shall bear their own costs.

(2) All other pending motions are denied as moot.

*

 It appears that the actual respondent in this petition should be the Warden of the California Institute for Men, and not the district court. This court did not invite or order the trial court to respond to the petition pursuant to Fed. R.App. P. 21(b). However, the district court or district court judge might be regarded as a nominal respondent in a petition for a writ of mandamus. *See generally Cotler v. Inter-County Orthopaedic Ass’n,*530 F.2d 536 (3d Cir. 1976) (discussing actual respondent and nominal respondent, under previous version of Fed. R.App. P. 21 that expressly-treated trial courts and trial court judges as respondents). In any event, because we determine that we lack jurisdiction over this petition, and because we did not direct a response to the petition, we need not address this matter further.