alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit32.1**

**CERTIFICATION**

**PURSUANTTO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

**SUBSECTIONS(a) AND (b) OF SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE**

Pursuant tosection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section1350, chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), the undersigned officers ofCorgenix Medical Corporation, a Nevada corporation (the “Company”), does herebycertify with respect to the Quartely Report of the Company on Form 10-QSB forthe quarter ended September 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities an ExchangeCommission (the “10-QSB Report”) that:

i.      the 10-QSB Report fullycomplies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

ii.   the information contained in the 10-QSB Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company.

Dated:    November 14, 2006

**ThisCertification is made solely for purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, subject tothe knowledge standard contained therein, and not for any other purpose.**

**Asigned original of this written statement required by Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act has been provided to the Company and will be retained by theCompany and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staffupon request. This written statement shall not be deemed to be “filed” as partof the quarterly report on Form 10-QSB that it accompanies.**
| /S/Douglass T. Simpson                            |   |
|---------------------------------------------------|--------|
| President and Chief Executive Officer             |
|                                              |
|                                              |
| /S/William H. Critchfield                         |   |
| Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |
|                                                   |        |  |

 

----
II

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1345

To amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit certain interstate conduct

relating to exotic animals.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JULY 12, 1999

Mr. LAUTENBERG (for himself, Mrs. BOXER, Mr. DURBIN, Mr. MOYNIHAN,

Mrs. FEINSTEIN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. KERRY, Mr. TORRICELLI, Mr.

FEINGOLD, Mr. KOHL, Mr. KENNEDY, and Mr. SCHUMER) introduced

the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee

on the Judiciary

A BILL

To amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit certain

interstate conduct relating to exotic animals.

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 ‘‘Captive Exotic Animal

5 Protection Act of 1999’’.
2

•S 1345 IS

1 SEC. 2. TRANSPORT OR POSSESSION OF EXOTIC ANIMALS

2 FOR PURPOSES OF KILLING OR INJURING

3 THEM.

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 3 of title 18, United

5 States Code, is amended by adding at the end the fol6 lowing:

7 ‘‘§ 48. Exotic animals

8 ‘‘(a) PROHIBITION.—Whoever, in or affecting inter9 state or foreign commerce, knowingly transfers, trans10 ports, or possesses a confined exotic animal, for the pur11 poses of allowing the killing or injuring of that animal for

12 entertainment or for the collection of a trophy, shall be

13 fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 1 year,

14 or both.

15 ‘‘(b) DEFINITIONS.—In this section—

16 ‘‘(1) the term ‘confined exotic animal’ means a

17 mammal of a species not historically indigenous to

18 the United States, that has been held in captivity for

19 the shorter of—

20 ‘‘(A) the greater part of the life of the ani21 mal; or

22 ‘‘(B) a period of 1 year;

23 whether or not the defendant knew the length of the

24 captivity; and

25 ‘‘(2) the term ‘captivity’ does not include any

26 period during which an animal—
3

•S 1345 IS

1 ‘‘(A) lives as it would in the wild, surviving

2 primarily by foraging for naturally occurring

3 food, roaming at will over an open area of not

4 less than 1,000 acres; and

5 ‘‘(B) has the opportunity to avoid hunt6 ers.’’.

7 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The analysis for chap8 ter 3 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by add9 ing at the end the following:

‘‘48. Exotic animals.’’.

Æ
Limited Power of Attorney - Securities Law Compliance


The undersigned, as a director of Solectron Corporation,
(the "Corporation"), hereby constitutes and appoints Michael Grady,
Tim Chu, or Victoria Miranda the undersigned's true and lawful
attorney-in-fact and agent to complete and execute such Forms 3, 4
and 5 and other forms as such attorney-in-fact shall, in his or her
discretion, determine to be required or advisable pursuant to Section
16 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (as amended) and the
rules and regulations promulgated thereunder, or any successor laws and
regulations, as a consequence of the undersigned's ownership,
acquisition or disposition of securities of the Corporation, and to
do all acts necessary in order to file such forms with the Securities
and Exchange Commission, any securities exchange or national
association, the Corporation and such other person or agency as the
attorney-in-fact shall deem appropriate. The undersigned hereby
ratifies and confirms all that said attorney-in-fact and agent shall
do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.


This Limited Power of Attorney is executed at San Francisco,
California, as of the date set forth below.



			Signature:	S/ William R. Graber

			Type or Print Name:	William R. Graber

			Dated: 	January 5, 2004






Witness:

Signature:	S/ Ivan D. Meyerson


Type or Print Name:	Ivan D. Meyerson


Dated: January 5, 2004
STAKEHOLDER ANNOUNCEMENT

USDA Seeks Applications for Grants to Support Rural

Community Development Projects

WASHINGTON, Jan. 11, 2021 – United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Deputy Under Secretary 

for Rural Development Bette Brand today announced that USDA is seeking grant applications for projects to 

improve housing, community facilities, and community and economic development in rural areas.

Subject to the availability of funds, grants will be established through USDA’s Rural Community Development 

Initiative (RCDI) program. Eligible recipients include public bodies, nonprofit organizations, and qualified 

private (for-profit) organizations.

Grants will be awarded to organizations that will use the USDA funding to provide support to entities to 

develop their capacity to undertake projects that will benefit rural communities. Applicants must provide 

matching funds in an amount at least equal to the federal grant. 

For additional information, see the January 11, 2021, Federal Register.

USDA encourages applications that will support recommendations made in the Report to the President of the 

United States from the Task Force on Agriculture and Rural Prosperity (PDF, 5.4 MB) to help improve life in 

rural America. Applicants are encouraged to consider projects that provide measurable results in helping rural 

communities build robust and sustainable economies through strategic investments. Key strategies include:

• Achieving e-Connectivity for Rural America

• Developing the Rural Economy

• Harnessing Technological Innovation

• Supporting a Rural Workforce

• Improving Quality of Life

If you’d like to subscribe to USDA Rural Development updates, visit our GovDelivery subscriber page. 

###

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer and lender.
# C_2014315EN.01004801.xml

| 15.9.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 315/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.9.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 315/48

---

Order of the General Court of 24 June 2014 — PPG and SNF v ECHA

(Case T-1/10 RENV) (1)

1

((Action for annulment - REACH - Identification of acrylamide as a substance of very high concern - Lack of direct concern - Inadmissibility))

2014/C 315/81

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Polyelectrolyte Producers Group GEIE (PPG) (Brussels, Belgium), and SNF SAS (Andrézieux-Bouthéon, France) (represented initially by: K. Van Maldegem and R. Cana, and subsequently by R. Cana, lawyers)

Applicants:

Defendant: European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) (represented by: M. Heikkilä, W. Broere and T. Zbihlej, acting as Agents, assisted by J. Stuyck and A.-M. Vandromme, lawyers)

Defendant:

Interveners in support of the defendant: Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: B. Koopman, acting as Agent); and European Commission (represented by: E. Manhaeve and K. Talabér-Ritz, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision of ECHA identifying acrylamide (EC No 201-173-7) as a substance fulfilling the criteria referred to in Article 57 of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC (OJ 2006 L 396, p. 1), pursuant to Article 59 of that regulation.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | Polyelectrolyte Producers Group GEIE (PPG) and SNF SAS shall bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Polyelectrolyte Producers Group GEIE (PPG) and SNF SAS shall bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA).

| 3. | SNF shall pay the costs relating to the proceedings for interim measures. |
| --- | --- |

3.

SNF shall pay the costs relating to the proceedings for interim measures.

| 4. | The Kingdom of the Netherlands and the European Commission shall bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The Kingdom of the Netherlands and the European Commission shall bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 63, 13.3.2010.

1

---
### §2129. Aviation cadets; appointment as Reserve officers

(a) An aviation cadet designated under section 2317 who fulfills the eligibility requirements of section 2003 of title 10 for designation as a naval aviator may be appointed an ensign in the Coast Guard Reserve and designated a Coast Guard aviator.

(b) Aviation cadets who complete their training at approximately the same time are considered for all purposes to have begun their commissioned service on the same date, and the decision of the Secretary in this regard is conclusive.

(Added Pub. L. 89–444, §1(20), June 9, 1966, 80 Stat. 197, §373; amended Pub. L. 94–546, §1(28), Oct. 18, 1976, 90 Stat. 2521; renumbered §2129 and amended Pub. L. 115–282, title I, §112(b), title III, §313, Dec. 4, 2018, 132 Stat. 4216, 4249.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2018—Pub. L. 115–282, §112(b), renumbered section 373 of this title as this section.

Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 115–282, §313, inserted "designated under section 2317" after "cadet".

1976—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 94–546 substituted reference to section 2003 of title 10 for reference to section 6023(b) of title 10.
<PAGE>

                                                                EXHIBIT 10.34

             SECOND AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT OF LIMITED PARTNERSHIP


      This Second Amendment to Agreement of Limited Partnership (this
"Amendment") dated as of March ___, 1995 amends that certain Agreement of
Limited Partnership of Alexander Haagen Properties Operating Partnership, L.P.,
a California limited partnership, dated December 27, 1994 and amended as of
January 1, 1994, by and among Alexander Haagen Properties, Inc., a Maryland
corporation (the "General Partner"), and the Limited Partners (the "Partnership
Agreement").  Unless otherwise provided herein, all capitalized terms used
herein shall have the meanings given to them in the Partnership Agreement.

                                   RECITALS
                                   --------

      WHEREAS, the Partnership has determined that it is in its best interests
to invest in and form that certain California limited partnership to be known as
Alexander Haagen Properties Finance Partnership, L.P. (the "Finance
Partnership"), the general partner of which is Alexander Haagen Properties
Finance, Inc. ("Finance Company") the sole shareholder of which is the General
Partner; and

      WHEREAS, the Partnership has approved the General Partner's investment in
Finance Company.

                                   AGREEMENT
                                   ---------

1.  The Partners agree as follows:

      Section 7.5.A of the Partnership Agreement is amended to add the following
to the end of the second sentence thereof:

           ; provided, however, that the General Partner may organize
           and own the stock of Alexander Haagen Properties Finance,
           Inc., a Delaware corporation (and any successor entity
           thereto), and do any and all such things as may be
           necessary and appropriate in connection with the formation
           of the Finance Partnership, including the contribution
           of an approximately 7.275% undivided interest in the La
           Verne Towne Center and a demand note for the amount of
           $10,185,000 to the capital of the Finance Company.

                                       1


<PAGE>

II.  Except as set forth in this Amendment, all terms and conditions of the
     Partnership Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.


      IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Partners have caused this Amendment to be executed
effective as of the day and year first above written.


                            ALEXANDER HAAGEN PROPERTIES, INC.
                            a Maryland Corporation
                            General Partner



                            By: /s/ Alexander Haagen
                               -----------------------------
                            Name:
                            Title:
(a)

(b)

N

N

(a)

(b)







(a)

(b)

K


(a)

(b)
K
# C_2007082EN.01000201.xml

| 14.4.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 82/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 82/2

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 15 February 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands

(Case C-34/04) (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Fishing licences - Regulation (EC) No 3690/93 - Vessels Wiron III and Wiron IV - Definitive transfer of those vessels to Argentina)

(2007/C 82/02)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: T. van Rijn and C. Diderich, Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: H.G. Sevenster, Agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Article 5 of Council Regulation (EC) No 3690/93 of 20 December 1993 establishing a Community system laying down rules for the minimum information to be contained in fishing licences (OJ 1993 L 341, p. 93) — Failure to withdraw the fishing licences granted to the vessels Wiron III and Wiron IV following their definitive transfer to Argentina

Wiron III

Wiron IV

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 71, 20.3.2004.

1

---
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Vladimir Zuran, Appellant.

[826 NYS2d 133]

*858Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hall, J.), rendered March 28, 2003, convicting him of murder in the first degree and murder in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

When, during the direct examination of a witness for the People, it became apparent that the witness was reluctant to testify as she had before the grand jury, the prosecutor asserted that the witness had been threatened immediately prior to taking the stand and requested that he be permitted to introduce the witness’s grand jury testimony into evidence. After the jury was excused, the witness testified in the open courtroom in the presence of the defendant, his attorney, and members of his family, about an encounter she had with members of the defendant’s family in the ladies’ room of the courthouse. It was only at this point, when it became clear that the witness was still reluctant to testify because of intimidation, that the trial court conducted an in camera inquiry of the witness in the presence of only a court officer and a court reporter.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, his constitutional right to be present at a material stage of trial was not violated when the trial court conducted the in camera inquiry of the witness about her reluctance to testify at trial (see *People v Grayton,*22 AD3d 598 [2005]; *People v Babb,*226 AD2d 469 [1996]; *People v Chicas,*204 AD2d 476 [1994]; *People v Harrison,*181 AD2d 743 [1992]). Similarly, in light of the witness’s testimony about the threats made to her by two members of the defendant’s family, the trial court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in excluding those two individuals from the courtroom when the trial resumed and the witness again took the stand *(see People v Quezada,*218 AD2d 819 [1995]; *People v Graham,*200 AD2d 686 [1994]; *People v Mack,*178 AD2d 661 [1991]; *People v Ortiz,*173 AD2d 189 [1991]; *People v Bumpus,*163 AD2d 484 [1990]).

Moreover, it was also proper for the court to seal the affidavit supporting the search warrant in order to protect the anonymity of the confidential informants, and to protect them from danger, given the violent nature of the conduct alleged *(see People v Lee,*205 AD2d 708 [1994]; *People v Battista,*197 AD2d 486 [1993]; *People v Williams,*192 AD2d 882 [1993]; *People v Woolnough,*180 AD2d 837 [1992]). In any event, our review of the affidavit reveals that it sufficiently provided probable cause *859for the search of the defendant’s apartment. Krausman, J.E, Rivera, Spolzino and Lifson, JJ., concur.
# C_2012032EN.01002303.xml

| 4.2.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 32/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.2.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 32/23

---

Judgment of the General Court of 14 December 2011 — Commission v Pachtitis

(Case T-361/10 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - Civil service - Officials - Recruitment - Notice of competition - Open competition - Non-admission to participation in the written test following the result obtained in the admission tests - Division of powers between EPSO and the competition selection board)

2012/C 32/46

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented: initially by J. Currall and I. Chatzigiannis, Agents, and subsequently by J. Currall, and by E. Antypas and E. Bourtzalas, lawyers)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: Dimitrios Pachtitis (Athens, Greece) (represented by: P. Giatagantzidis and K. Kyriazi, lawyers); and European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS)

Other parties to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 15 June 2010 in Case F-35/08 Pachtitis v Commission, and for that judgment to be set aside.

Pachtitis

Commission

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Mr Dimitrios Pachtitis in the present proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Mr Dimitrios Pachtitis in the present proceedings.

---

(1)  OJ C 301, 6.11.2010.

1

---
Exhibit 32.2
  CERTIFICATION
OF
 CHIEF FINANCIAL
OFFICER
 PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
  In
connection with this Quarterly Report of Mega
Media Group, 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, Gennady
Pomeranets, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certifies to the best of his knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:
  1. Such
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ending October 31, 2008, 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 such Quarterly  Report on Form 10-Q for the
period ending October 31, 2008, fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of Mega Media Group,
Inc.
  By:
                /s/Gennady
      PomeranetsGENNADY
      POMERANETSChief Financial
      Officer,Date:
                December
      22, 2008
QSchweizerischeEidgenossenschaftFederalDepartmentoftheEnvironment,Transport,EnergyandConfdrationsuisseCommunicationsDETECConfederazioneSvizzeraFederalOfficeofCiviAviationFOCAConfederaziunsvizraAviationPolicyandStrategyFOCA.CH-3003BernMr.PaulGretchDirector,OfficeforInternationalAviationOfficeoftheAssistantSecretaryforAviationanclInternationalAffairsU.S.DepartmentofTransportation4007thStreet,S.W.,Room6402Washington,DC20590USAReference:0/01/01-02.02.187Yourreference:Qurreference:fiuContactperson:LaurenceFontanaJungoTel.+41313230410,Fax+41313259212,Laurence.fontana-jungobazl.admin.chIttigen,27February2014DeciarationofReciprocityDearMr.GretchTheFederalOfficeofCivilAviationofSwitzerlandherewithdeclares,thatitwillconsiderapplicationsbyU.S.aircarriersforapprovaltooperatecharterstoandfromSwitzerlandinaccordancewiththeprovisionsoftheAirTransportAgreementbetweentheSwissConfederationandtheUnitedStatesofAmerica,dated21June2010,and,forthosechartersnotspecifiedintheAnnextotheAgreement,onthebasisofcomityandreciprocity.Yourssincerelygte2MarcelZuckschwerdtLaurenceFontanaJungoDirectorChiefNegotiatorAirServicesAgreementsHeadAviationPolicyandStrategyFederalOfficeofClviiAviationMühlestrasse3,3063IttigenPostaladdress:CH-3003BernTel.+41313258039/40,Fax+41313258032www.aviation.admin.ch
# C_2007096EN.01003602.xml

| 28.4.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 96/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 96/36

---

Order of the Court of First Instance of 16 February 2007 — Dikigorikos Syllogos Ioanninon v European Parliament and Council of the European Union

(Case T-449/05) (1)

1

(Action for annulment - Directive 2005/36/EC of the Parliament and of the Council - Recognition of professional qualifications - Freedom of establishment - Lawyers - Not directly and individually concerned - Inadmissibility)

(2007/C 96/75)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Dikigorikos Syllogos Ioanninon (Greece) (represented by: S. Athanasiou)

Applicant:

Defendants: European Parliament (represented by: U. Rösslein, A. Troupiotis and I. Anagnostopoulou, acting as Agents) and Council of the European Union (represented by: M.C. Giorgi Fort, M. Balta and R. Szostak, acting as Agents)

Defendants:

Re:

Partial annulment of Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications (OJ 2005 L 255, p. 2)

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as inadmissible; |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible;

| 2. | There is no need to adjudicate on the applications to intervene; |
| --- | --- |

2.

There is no need to adjudicate on the applications to intervene;

| 3. | The applicant is to bear its own costs and pay the costs of the Parliament and the Council. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The applicant is to bear its own costs and pay the costs of the Parliament and the Council.

---

(1)  OJ C 60, 11.3.2006.

1

---