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 Avalon Holdings Corporation on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Ted Wesolowski, Chief Executive Officer of
Avalon Holdings Corporation, 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 Avalon Holdings Corporation.
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|/s/ Ted Wesolowski     
|-----------------------
|Ted Wesolowski         
|Chief Executive Officer
|November 13, 2003      



25
(No. 21246.

#### The First National Bank of Kewanee, Defendant in Error, *vs.*The Union State Savings Bank and Trust Company, Plaintiff in Error.

*Opinion filed October 22, 1932.*

Thomas J. Welch, and Vera M. Binks, for plaintiff in error.

Sturtz & Ewan, (Martin E. O’Connor, of counsel,) for defendant in error.

Mr. Justice Orr

delivered the opinion of the court:

This court granted *certiorari*to review the action of the Appellate Court for the Second District in affirming a judgment of the city court of Kewanee in an action of replevin. Petitioner perfected its appeal to the Appellate Court and filed the transcript and abstract of the record within the time provided by the rules of that court but failed to file copies of its brief and argument within the time prescribed by the rules, and also failed to obtain an extension of time for that purpose. On October 1, 1931, respondent filed its motion to affirm the judgment for failure of petitioner to file briefs and arguments. On October 5 petitioner’s motion *22for leave to file briefs and arguments instanter was filed and denied. On October 12, three days before the case was reached on the call, petitioner filed a motion to dismiss the appeal. On October 13 this motion was denied, and on October 15 the Appellate Court affirmed the judgment of the city court of Kewanee for failure of appellant to file its briefs and arguments as required by the rules of that court. No decision was rendered on the merits of the case, and the sole question presented is whether the Appellate Court erred in not allowing the motion for dismissal of the appeal.

By numerous decisions this court has held that no right is more clearly established than that of an appellant to dismiss his appeal, regardless of the protest of the appellee. *(Vincent*v. *McElvain,*304 Ill. 160; *Field*v. *Kenneweg,*218 id. 366; *Granat*v. *Kruse,*213 id. 328; *Maplewood Coal Co.*v. *Phillips,*206 id. 451.) The appellant in an appeal and the plaintiff in error in a writ of error may always dismiss the appeal or writ before a decision on the merits, and the effect of such dismissal is to leave the parties where they were before the appeal was taken or the writ of error brought. *Hancock County*v. *Marsh,*2 Scam. 491; Dodd & Edmunds on Appellate Court Procedure, sec. 1182; Quindry on Appellate Court Practice, chap. 3, sec. 7, p. 76.

In the light of these authorities the action of the Appellate Court in denying the motion of appellant to dismiss the appeal was clearly erroneous. Its judgment is therefore reversed and the cause is remanded to that court, with directions to grant the motion to dismiss the appeal.

*Reversed and remanded, with directions.*
§ 162.590 May a WSR lease provide for negotiated remedies if there is a violation? ( a ) A WSR lease of tribal land may provide either or both parties with negotiated remedies in the event of a lease violation, including, but not limited to, the power to terminate the lease. If the lease provides one or both parties with the power to terminate the lease: ( 1 ) BIA approval of the termination is not required;
( 2 ) The termination is effective without BIA cancellation; and
( 3 ) The Indian landowners must notify us of the termination so that we may record it in the LTRO.
( b ) A WSR lease of individually owned Indian land may provide either or both parties with negotiated remedies, so long as the lease also specifies the manner in which those remedies may be exercised by or on behalf of the Indian landowners of the applicable percentage of interests under § 162.012 of this part. If the lease provides one or both parties with the power to terminate the lease: ( 1 ) BIA concurrence with the termination is required to ensure that the Indian landowners of the applicable percentage of interests have consented; and
( 2 ) BIA will record the termination in the LTRO.
( c ) The parties must notify any surety or mortgagee of any violation that may result in termination and the termination of a WSR lease.
( d ) Negotiated remedies may apply in addition to, or instead of, the cancellation remedy available to us, as specified in the lease. The landowners may request our assistance in enforcing negotiated remedies.
( e ) A WSR lease may provide that lease violations will be addressed by the tribe, and that lease disputes will be resolved by a tribal court, any other court of competent jurisdiction, or by a tribal governing body in the absence of a tribal court, or through an alternative dispute resolution method. We may not be bound by decisions made in such forums, but we will defer to ongoing actions and proceedings, as appropriate, in deciding whether to exercise any of the remedies available to us.
### Regional geology of the St. Lawrence County magnetite district, northwest Adirondacks, New York

By: A. F. BuddingtonB. F. Leonard

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/pp376

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plates:                               - **Plate 1**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 2**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 3**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 4**                            (pdf) 
- NGMDB Index Page:  **National Geologic Map Database Index Page**
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

No abstract available.

#### Study Area

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
### §18234. Location and use

No expenditures or contribution may be made for a facility under section 18233 of this title, unless the Secretary of Defense determines that—

(1) the number of units of the reserve components of the armed forces located or to be located in the area within which the facility is to be provided is not and will not be larger than the number that can reasonably be expected to be maintained at authorized strength, considering the number of persons living in the area who are qualified for membership in those reserve units; and

(2) the plan under which the facility is to be provided makes provision for the greatest practicable use of the facility jointly by units of two or more of those components.

(Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 121, §2234; renumbered §18234 and amended Pub. L. 103–337, div. A, title XVI, §1664(b)(2), (6), Oct. 5, 1994, 108 Stat. 3010.)

| Revised section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2234 | 50:883(a). | Sept. 11, 1950, ch. 945, §4(a), 64 Stat. 830. |

The word "community" is omitted as covered by the word "area". The word "program" is omitted as covered by the word "plan". The words "use * * * jointly by units of two or more of those components" are substituted for the words "joint utilization" to reflect 50:886(d). The words "is not and will not be larger than" are substituted for the words "does not exceed". The word "considering" is substituted for the words "taking into account".

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1994—Pub. L. 103–337 renumbered section 2234 of this title as this section and substituted "18233" for "2233" in introductory provisions.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date of 1994 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 103–337 effective Dec. 1, 1994, except as otherwise provided, see section 1691 of Pub. L. 103–337, set out as an Effective Date note under section 10001 of this title.
#### Bank of Long Island, Respondent, v. John Alvin Young, Appellant.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; No opinion. Woodward, Jenks, Hooker, Gaynor and Miller, JJ., concurred.
# C_2017443EN.01022201.xml

| 22.12.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 443/222 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.12.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 443/222

---

P7_TA(2014)0370

Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking *

European Parliament legislative resolution of 15 April 2014 on the proposal for a Council regulation on the Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking (COM(2013)0505 — C7-0255/2013 — 2013/0244(NLE))

(Consultation)

(2017/C 443/51)

The European Parliament,

The European Parliament

| — | having regard to the Commission proposal to the Council (COM(2013)0505), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the Commission proposal to the Council (COM(2013)0505),

| — | having regard to Article 187 and the first paragraph of 188 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C7-0255/2013), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Article 187 and the first paragraph of 188 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C7-0255/2013),

| — | having regard to Rule 55 of its Rules of Procedure, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Rule 55 of its Rules of Procedure,

| — | having regard to the report of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy (A7-0083/2014), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy (A7-0083/2014),

| 1. | Approves the Commission proposal as amended; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Approves the Commission proposal as amended;

| 2. | Calls on the Commission to alter its proposal accordingly, in accordance with Article 293(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Calls on the Commission to alter its proposal accordingly, in accordance with Article 293(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union;

| 3. | Calls on the Council to notify Parliament if it intends to depart from the text approved by Parliament; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Calls on the Council to notify Parliament if it intends to depart from the text approved by Parliament;

| 4. | Asks the Council to consult Parliament again if it intends to substantially amend the Commission proposal; |
| --- | --- |

4.

Asks the Council to consult Parliament again if it intends to substantially amend the Commission proposal;

| 5. | Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council and the Commission. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council and the Commission.

---

P7_TC1-NLE(2013)0244

Position of the European Parliament adopted on 15 April 2014 with a view to the adoption of Council regulation (EU) No .../2014 establishing the Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking

(As an agreement was reached between Parliament and Council, Parliament's position corresponds to the final legislative act, Council Regulation (EU) No 558/2014)

---
#### STATE OF CONNECTICUT *v.*DONALD BROWN

Decided June 23, 2004

*Sebastian O. DeSantis,*special public defender, in support of the petition.

*Michael L. Regan,*supervisory assistant state’s attorney, in opposition.

The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 82 Conn. App. 678 (AC 24145), is denied.
§ 20.205 Can tribes change eligibility criteria or levels of payments for General Assistance? Yes, if you have a redesign plan, you can change eligibility criteria or levels of payment for general assistance. ( a ) The funding level for your redesigned general assistance program will be the same funding received in the most recent fiscal or calendar year, whichever applies.
( b ) If you do not have a prior year level of funding, the Bureau or Office of Self-Governance will establish a tentative funding level based upon best estimates for caseload and expenditures.
( c ) A Bureau servicing office can administer a tribal redesign plan as requested by a tribal resolution.
§ 152.8 Issuance of certificate of competency. ( a ) An application may be approved and a certificate of competency issued if the Secretary, in his discretion, determines that the applicant is competent. The delivery of the certificate shall have the effect of removing the restrictions from the land described therein. (Act of June 25, 1910 (36 Stat. 855), as amended (25 U.S.C. 372).)
( b ) If the application is denied, the applicant shall be notified in writing, given the reasons therefor and advised of his right to appeal pursuant to the provisions of part 2 of this chapter.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-6202

BOBBY HAZEL,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

HARLEY G. LAPPIN, Director, United States Bureau of Prisons; 

JOE DRIVER; CAPTAIN BOYLES, Administrator; JORGES VAZQUEZ, 

Doctor,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern 

District of West Virginia, at Elkins. Robert E. Maxwell, Senior 

District Judge. (2:09-cv-00070-REM)

Submitted: May 20, 2010 Decided: May 28, 2010

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Bobby Hazel, Appellant Pro Se. Rita R. Valdrini, Assistant 

United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Bobby Hazel appeals the district court’s order 

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying 

relief on his complaint filed pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown 

Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). 

We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. 

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district 

court. See Hazel v. Lappin, No. 2:09-cv-00070-REM (N.D.W. Va. 

Jan. 6, 2010). We deny Hazel’s motion for a stay. We dispense 

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before the court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Graham Packaging Holdings Company on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Philip R. Yates, certify, 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 Graham Packaging Holdings Company. |
|--------|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

Date: November 13, 2006

 

 

| By:    | /s/ Philip R. Yates     |
|--------|-------------------------|
|   | Philip R. Yates         |
|   | Chief Executive Officer |

 

 

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
### §583. Definitions

In this chapter:

(1) The term "promotion zone" means a promotion eligibility category consisting of officers on a warrant officer active-duty list in the same grade (or the same grade and competitive category) who—

(A) in the case of grades below chief warrant officer, W–⁠5, have neither (i) failed of selection for promotion to the next higher grade, nor (ii) been removed from a list of warrant officers recommended for promotion to that grade (other than after having been placed on that list after a selection from below the promotion zone); and

(B) are senior to the warrant officer designated by the Secretary concerned to be the junior warrant officer in the promotion zone eligible for promotion to the next higher grade.

(2) The term "warrant officers above the promotion zone" means a group of officers on a warrant officer active-duty list in the same grade (or the same grade and competitive category) who—

(A) are eligible for consideration for promotion to the next higher grade;

(B) are in the same grade as warrant officers in the promotion zone; and

(C) are senior to the senior warrant officer in the promotion zone.

(3) The term "warrant officers below the promotion zone" means a group of officers on a warrant officer active-duty list in the same grade (or the same grade and competitive category) who—

(A) are eligible for consideration for promotion to the next higher grade;

(B) are in the same grade as warrant officers in the promotion zone; and

(C) are junior to the junior warrant officer in the promotion zone.

(4) The active-duty list referred to in section 573(b) of this title includes the active-duty promotion list established by section 41a 1 of title 14.

(Added Pub. L. 102–190, div. A, title XI, §1112(a), Dec. 5, 1991, 105 Stat. 1501; amended Pub. L. 103–337, div. A, title V, §541(f)(7), Oct. 5, 1994, 108 Stat. 2767.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

Section 41a of title 14, referred to in par. (4), was redesignated section 2102 of title 14 by Pub. L. 115–282, title I, §112(b), Dec. 4, 2018, 132 Stat. 4216, and references to section 41a of title 14 deemed to refer to such redesignated section, see section 123(b)(1) of Pub. L. 115–282, set out as a References to Sections of Title 14 as Redesignated by Pub. L. 115–282 note preceding section 101 of Title 14, Coast Guard.

#### Amendments

1994—Par. (4). Pub. L. 103–337 added par. (4).

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date of 1994 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 103–337 effective on the first day of the fourth month beginning after Oct. 5, 1994, see section 541(h) of Pub. L. 103–337, set out as a note under section 571 of this title.

#### Effective Date

Section effective Feb. 1, 1992, see section 1132 of Pub. L. 102–190, set out as an Effective Date of 1991 Amendment note under section 521 of this title.

1 See References in Text note below.
**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 In connection with the Quarterly Report of SkyLynxCommunications, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period endedSeptember 30, 2003, as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report'), I, Gary L. Brown,Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section1350, 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 result of operations of the Company. |

/s/ Gary L. Brown                Gary L. Brown, President,Chief Executive Officer andand Chief Financial OfficerNovember 19, 2003
#### § 2.603 How do I submit an appeal of inaction?

You may appeal the inaction of a decision-maker by sending a written “appeal from inaction of an official” to the next official in the decision-maker's chain of command. You must enclose a copy of the original request for decision to which the decision-maker has not responded and a copy of the request for decision that you sent to the decision-maker pursuant to § 2.600. If filing by email is permitted, “Appeal of Inaction” must appear in the subject line of the email submission.
|                                   | Three Months EndedDecember 31, | Six Months EndedDecember 31,
|---------------------------------- | ------------------------------ | ----------------------------
|                                   | 2000                           | 1999                        
|Net Income                         | $100,282                       | $ 82,642                    
|Weighted average common shares     |                                |                             
|outstanding for basic computation  | 363,975                        | 363,975                     
|Basic earnings per share           | $   0.28                       | $   0.23                    
|Weighted average common shares     |                                |                             
|outstanding for basic computation  | 363,975                        | 363,975                     
|Common stock equivalents due to    |                                |                             
|dilutive effect of stock options   | 3,131                          | 3,598                       
|Weighted average common shares and |                                |                             
|equivalents outstanding for        |                                |                             
|diluted computation                | 367,106                        | 367,573                     
|Diluted earnings per share         | $   0.27                       | $   0.22
#### §§ 102.141-102.148 [Reserved]
IV

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. RES. 320

Recognizing the Korean War Veterans National Museum and Library in

Tuscola, Illinois, as a National Korean War Veterans Museum.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

OCTOBER 1, 1999

Mr. EWING submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the

Committee on Veterans’ Affairs

RESOLUTION

Recognizing the Korean War Veterans National Museum and

Library in Tuscola, Illinois, as a National Korean War

Veterans Museum.

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives hereby

2 recognizes the Korean War Veterans National Museum

3 and Library in Tuscola, Illinois, as a National Korean

4 War Veterans Museum.

Æ