alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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
  (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.
 Date:  September 10, 2009
    By:
    /s/ Fernando L. FernandezFERNANDO L. FERNANDEZSenior Vice President 
Finance, Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer and Secretary
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


     We consent to the  incorporation  by  reference in  Registration  Statement
     Number in Registration  Statement  Number 33-47593 on Form S-8 dated May 1,
     1992, in Registration Statement Number 33-61896 on Form S-8 dated April 29,
     1993, in Registration Statement Number 33-78258 on Form S-8 dated April 28,
     1994, in Registration Statement Number 33-91294 on Form S-8 dated April 17,
     1995,  Registration  Statement  Number 33-02531 on Form S-8 dated April 16,
     1996,  Registration  Statement  Number 33-50275 on Form S-8 dated April 16,
     1998, and in Registration Statement Number 33-XXXXX on Form S-8 dated March
     26,  1999 of our  report  dated  February  24,  1999,  with  respect to the
     consolidated  financial  statements  and schedule of Mid  Atlantic  Medical
     Services,  Inc. and subsidiaries included in the Annual Report on Form 10-K
     for the year ended December 31, 1998.




                                                   /s/ Ernst & Young LLP
Washington, D.C.                                   ---------------------
March 23, 1999                                       Ernst & Young LLP
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1765 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1765

  To exempt from the antitrust laws, mergers and service allocations 
       entered into by certain hospitals in low population areas.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 21, 1993

   Mr. Slattery (for himself, Mr. Synar, Mr. Thomas of Wyoming, Mr. 
Roberts, Mr. Bereuter, and Mr. Stenholm) introduced the following bill; 
          which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To exempt from the antitrust laws, mergers and service allocations 
       entered into by certain hospitals in low population areas.

    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 ``Hospital Antitrust Fairness Act''.

SEC. 2. ANTITRUST EXEMPTION.

    The antitrust laws shall not apply with respect to--
            (1) the combination of, or the attempt to combine, 2 or 
        more hospitals,
            (2) a contract entered into solely by 2 or more hospitals 
        to allocate hospital services, or
            (3) the attempt by only 2 or more hospitals to enter into a 
        contract to allocate hospital services.
If each of such hospitals satisfies all of the requirements of section 
3 at the time such hospitals engage in the conduct described in 
paragraph (1), (2), or (3), as the case may be.

SEC. 3. REQUIREMENTS.

    The requirements referred to in section 1 are as follows:
            (1) The hospital is located outside of a city, or in a city 
        that has less than 150,000 inhabitants, as determined in 
        accordance with the most recent data available from the Bureau 
        of the Census.
            (2) In the most recently concluded calendar year, the 
        hospital received more than 40 percent of its gross revenue 
        from payments made under Federal programs.
            (3) There is in effect with respect to the hospital a 
        certificate issued by the Health Care Financing Administration 
        specifying that such Administration has determined that Federal 
        expenditures would be reduced, and consumer costs would not 
        increase, if the 2 or more hospitals that request such 
        certificate merge, or allocate the hospital services specified 
        in such request, as the case may be.

SEC. 3. DEFINITION.

    For purposes of this Act, the term ``antitrust laws'' has the 
meaning given such term in subsection (a) of the first section of the 
Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. 12), except that such term includes section 5 of 
the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 45) to the extent that such 
section 5 applies with respect to unfair methods of competition.

                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 99.2

                  Certification of Chief Financial Officer
                     Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350


In connection with the Annual Report of Farmstead Telephone Group, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2002, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Robert G. LaVigne, Chief Financial 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, 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.



/s/  Robert G. LaVigne
----------------------
Robert G. LaVigne
Chief Financial Officer
Farmstead Telephone Group, Inc.

March 21, 2003


<PAGE>
#### Dirk Alan CHRISTIANSON, Appellant, v. Barb MOROVITS, Appellee, Tompkins Rehabilitation and Corrections Center (TRCC), Defendant.

No. 10-3391.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: Dec. 29, 2010.

Filed: Jan. 11, 2011.

Dirk Alan Christianson, Bismarck, ND, pro se.

Before WOLLMAN, MELLOY, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

(UNPUBLISHED)

PER CURIAM.

North Dakota inmate Dirk Christianson appeals from the district court’s1 28 U.S.C. § 1915A dismissal with prejudice of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against Barb Morovits, a licensed counselor at the Tompkins Rehabilitation and Corrections Center. Upon careful de novo review, we find no basis for reversal. *See Will v. Mich. Dep’t of State Police,*491 U.S. 58, 70-71, 109 S.Ct. 2304, 105 L.Ed.2d 45 (1989) (because Eleventh Amendment immunizes state from suit, neither state nor its officials acting in their official capacities are “persons” under § 1983 when sued for damages); *Gibson v. Weber,*433 F.3d 642, 646 (8th Cir.2006) (Eighth Amendment claim based on inadequate medical attention requires proof that officials knew about excessive risks to inmate’s health but disregarded them and that their unconstitutional actions in fact caused inmate’s injuries; showing of deliberate indifference requires more than gross negligence); *Cooper v. Schriro,*189 F.3d 781, 783 (8th Cir.1999) (per curiam) (§ 1915A dismissal reviewed de novo); *Miner v. Brackney,*719 F.2d 954, 955 (8th Cir.1983) (per curiam) (claims for defamation are not cognizable under § 1983); *see also Stone v. Harry,*364 F.3d 912, 914 (8th Cir.2004) (in general, claims not presented in district court may not be advanced for first time on appeal).

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed. *See*8th Cir. R. 47B.

1

. The Honorable Ralph R. Erickson, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the District of North Dakota, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Karen K. Klein, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of North Dakota.
**FEDERALMINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION**

**1331PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, NW**

**SUITE520N**

**WASHINGTON,DC 20004**

** **

 

 

February 26, 2014

 

 

TIMEAND DATE:��������������� 10:00 a.m., Thursday, March 6, 2014

 

PLACE:��������������������������������� TheRichard V. Backley Hearing Room, Room 511N, 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW,Washington, DC 20004 (entry from� F Street entrance)

 

STATUS:������������������������������� Open

 

MATTERSTO BE 

CONSIDERED:�������������������� TheCommission will hear oral argument in the following matters: *Secretary ofLabor v. Twentymile Coal Co.,* Docket Nos. WEST 2009-241, et al., and*Secretaryof Labor v. Twentymile Coal Co., Docket Nos. WEST 2009-1323, et al.*(Issuesinclude whether the Administrative Law Judge erred in affirming citations forfailing to provide additional insulation for a communications circuit.) Oralargument in these matters has previously been postponed twice because of severeweather problems.

 

 

Any person attending this oral argument who requiresspecial accessibility features and/or auxiliary aids, such as sign languageinterpreters, must inform the Commission in advance of those needs. Subject to29 C.F.R. � 2706.150(a)(3) and � 2706.160(d).

 

 

CONTACTPERSON 

FOR MORE INFO:��������������� Jean Ellen������� (202) 434-9950 / (202) 708-9300 for TDD Relay / 1-800-877-8339 for toll free.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 December 26, 2019

Order 

Clerk

December 26, 2019

159510(60)

159511

SKANSKA USA BUILDING, INC.,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

SC: 159510, 159511

v COA: 340871, 341589

Midland CC: 13-009864-CK

M.A.P. MECHANICAL CONTRACTORS, INC.,

AMERISURE INSURANCE COMPANY, and

AMERISURE MUTUAL INSURANCE

COMPANY,

Defendants-Appellees.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of defendants-appellees to extend the time 

for filing their brief is GRANTED. The brief will be accepted as timely filed if submitted 

on or before February 14, 2020.
<PAGE>

                                                        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 Technology Funding Venture Partners IV, An
Aggressive Growth Fund, L.P. (the Partnership) Quarterly Report on Form
10-Q for the quarter ending June 30, 2004, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission (the Report), I Charles, R. Kokesh, President,
Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer and Chairman of
Technology Funding Inc. and Managing General Partner of Technology
Funding Limited, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as added
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

2. To my knowledge, the information contained in the Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
and results of operations of the Partnership as of and for the
period covered by the Report.


Date:  August 12, 2004  By:     /s/   Charles R. Kokesh
                               --------------------------------
                                     Charles R. Kokesh
                                     President, Chief Executive
                                     Officer, Chief Financial
                                     Officer and Chairman of
                                     Technology Funding Inc. and
                                     Managing General Partner of
                                     Technology Funding Limited

Technology Funding Partners IV, L.P.
(a Delaware limited partnership)

Page 1 of 1
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 22-2114

___________________________

United States of America,

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee,

v.

Gregory Richard Sills,

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant.

 ____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Iowa - Cedar Rapids

 ____________

Submitted: September 30, 2022

Filed: October 27, 2022

[Unpublished]

____________

Before COLLOTON, KELLY, and KOBES, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

Gregory Sills appeals after the district court1 revoked his supervised release and

imposed a term of imprisonment, followed by an additional term of supervised

1The Honorable Linda R. Reade, United States District Judge for the Northern

District of Iowa.
release. His counsel has moved to withdraw and filed a brief challenging the

reasonableness of the sentence.

After reviewing the record under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard, see

United States v. Miller, 557 F.3d 910, 917 (8th Cir. 2009), we conclude the district

court did not impose an unreasonable sentence. The sentence is within the statutory

limits, see 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3), (h); 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(C) (2016), and is

presumptively reasonable because it is within the applicable advisory range under the

sentencing guidelines. See U.S.S.G. § 7B1.4(a); United States v. Petreikis, 551 F.3d

822, 824 (8th Cir. 2009). The district court sufficiently considered the relevant

statutory sentencing factors and did not overlook a relevant factor, give significant

weight to an improper or irrelevant factor, or commit a clear error of judgment in

weighing relevant factors. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e); Miller, 557 F.3d at 917; see also

United States v. Richart, 662 F.3d 1037, 1054 (8th Cir. 2011). The court’s reasoned

decision to impose “a sentence above [the] probation officer’s recommendation does

not render [Sills’s] sentence substantively unreasonable.” United States v. Wrice, 834

Fed. Appx. 301, 302 (8th Cir. 2021) (per curiam).

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. 

______________________________

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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF NUMED HOME HEALTH CARE, INC. AS OF AND FOR
THE SIX MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                                                <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                           1,448
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,460
<ALLOWANCES>                                       305
<INVENTORY>                                         23
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 5,849
<PP&E>                                             777
<DEPRECIATION>                                    4,29
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  10,452
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            3,579
<BONDS>                                            914
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             5
<OTHER-SE>                                       5,954
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    10,452
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 4,746
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    3,544
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,480
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  70
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (305)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (305)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (305)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.06)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.06)
        

</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jerry JACKSON, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.

No. 15-7738.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Jan. 14, 2016.

Decided: Jan. 20, 2016.

Jerry Jackson, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Stanley D. Ragsdale, Julius Ness Richardson, Assistant United States Attorneys, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Before AGEE, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Jerry Jackson, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appeal-ability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Jackson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Jackson’s motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.

*DISMISSED.*
Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 95-10954

(Summary Calendar)

 

BOBBY LEE COLEMAN,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

MOORE, Officer, Dallas County Jail, 

Defendant, 

and 

UNKNOWN NAMED DEFENDANTS DALLAS

COUNTY JAIL; V. L. SPARKS, 

Dallas City Police Detective,

Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

(USDC No. 3:93-CV-63-P)

- - - - - - - - - -

April 9, 1996

Before WIENER, PARKER and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Plaintiff-Appellant Bobby Lee Coleman appeals the district

court’s summary judgment for Defendant-Appellee V. L. Sparks in

Coleman’s civil rights suit. Even giving Coleman’s brief liberal

construction, we view his arguments as failing to raise any

challenge to the dismissal of the suit as to the unserved and
2

unidentified defendants. Thus, any such challenge is deemed

abandoned on appeal. See Eason v. Thaler, 14 F.3d 8, 9 n.1 (5th

Cir. 1994). 

Coleman’s arguments challenge the district court’s conclusion

that he failed to allege specifically such violations of his

constitutional rights that would overcome Sparks’ entitlement to

qualified immunity. We have carefully reviewed the record and the

appellate arguments; and we detect no reversible error.

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district

court. See Coleman v. Sparks, No. 3:CV-93-0063-P(N.D. Tex. July 5,

1995). 

AFFIRMED.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Form S-8 Nos. 333-04731, 333-04733, 333-52565, and 333-118694) of our reports
dated March 14, 2006, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and
schedule of TechTeam Global, Inc., TechTeam Global, Inc. management's assessment
of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, and the
effectiveness over financial reporting of TechTeam Global, Inc., included in the
Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2005.

                                                 /s/ Ernst & Young LLP

Detroit, Michigan
March 14, 2006
<PAGE>

                       SHEFFIELD FORGEMASTERS GROUP PLC
                         REGISTERED IN ENGLAND & WALES
                                  NO 3120721
                                  PO BOX 108
                                THE OLD RECTORY
                                  SCHOOL HILL
                                    WHISTON
                                   ROTHERHAM
                                    S60 1QR

Mr D Fletcher
Dearne Mill House
19A Cuckstool Road
Denby Dale
HUDDERSFIELD
HD8 8RF

                                                                     2 May 1996

Dear David

YOUR SERVICE CONTRACT DATED 31 OCTOBER 1988 (THE "SERVICE CONTRACT")

I refer to your Service Contract that has been novated to us and set out 
below the arrangements that we have agreed in relation to outside interests.

Notwithstanding clauses 3(A) and (B) of the Service Contract, the Company 
consents to:

1.  you being engaged, concerned or interested in other business activities 
    whether by way of investment or otherwise (including directorships); and

2.  your holding shares in quoted or unquoted companies in excess of 5% of 
    the issued share capital of such company or any class of its shares

provided that:

    (a)  (in relation to unquoted securities only and in the case of holdings 
         of quoted companies in excess of as 5% defined above) such companies 
         are not operating in competition with the Company or any of its 
         subsidiaries;

    (b)  (in relation to unquoted securities only and in the case of holdings 
         of quoted companies in excess of as 5% defined above) such companies 
         are not material suppliers to the group;

<PAGE>

    (c)  you do not have day-to-day executive responsibility for its 
         business; and

    (d)  any directorship is in a non-executive capacity.

Please countersign the copy of this letter enclosed by way of agreement to 
the above.

By countersigning this letter the Investor Directors approve the above for 
the purposes of clause 3.1.17 of the Shareholders' Agreement dated 15 March 
1996.

Yours sincerely

/s/ P.M. Wright
-----------------------------
Director


We consent to the above:

-----------------------------                   -------------------------------
Investor Director                               Investor Director



I agree to the above:

/s/ D Fletcher                                  Date                       1996
-----------------------------                       -----------------------
D Fletcher