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 Alliance Laundry Systems LLC, Alliance Laundry Corporation and
Alliance Laundry Holdings LLC (the Companies) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Thomas F. LEsperance, Chief
Executive Officer and President of the Companies, 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 the Companies.
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|/s/ THOMAS F. LESPERANCE            
|Chief Executive Officer and President

May 10, 2006
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21
- 6936

OSBALDO LEMUS BERRIOS , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. RENE SANDLER; SANDLER & MERCER, P.C. , Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Greenbelt

. Theodore D. Chuang , District Judge. ( 8:20

- cv - 03192

- TDC )

Submitted : December 21, 2021 Decided: December 27, 2021

Before KING and QUATTLEBAUM , Circuit Judges , and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge

.
Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

. Osbaldo Lemus Berrios, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 21-6936 Doc: 12 Filed: 12/27/2021 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM: Osbaldo Lemus Berrios appeals the district court’s order dismissing Berrios’ civil complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court ’s order

. See Berrios v. Sandle r , No

. 8:20

- cv - 03192

- TDC ( D. Md

. May 12 , 2021 ). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED USCA4 Appeal: 21-6936 Doc: 12 Filed: 12/27/2021 Pg: 2 of 2
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

July 18, 2022

No. 04-22-00399-CV

IN RE Richard A. GARCIA

Original Mandamus Proceeding1

O R D E R

Sitting: Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Irene Rios, Justice

Beth Watkins, Justice2

After consideration, we GRANT real party in interest’s “Agreed Motion for Extension of 

Mandamus Response Deadline.”3 Real party in interest’s response is due on or before July 20, 

2022. 

It is so ORDERED on July 18, 2022.

PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO:__________________________

 MICHAEL A. CRUZ, 

 CLERK OF COURT

1

 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2017-CI-12755, styled In the Matter of the Marriage of Elizabeth J. RanftGarcia and Richard Anthony Garcia and in the Interest of J.E.R.G., a Child, pending in the 37th Judicial District 

Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable John D. Gabriel Jr. presiding.

2

 Justice Watkins did not participate in this order. 

3

 A motion for extension of time must state: “the deadline for filing the item in question; the length of the extension 

sought; the facts relied on to reasonably explain the need for an extension; and the number of previous extensions 

granted regarding the item in question.” TEX. R. APP. P. 10.5(b)(1)(A)-(D). Real party in interest did not state the 

number of previous extensions, if any, granted regarding the mandamus response deadline. Notwithstanding, we 

apply Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 2 and disregard these deficiencies. See TEX. R. APP.P. 2. 

FILE COPY
Editorial Note on Part 28
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 28 appear at 76 FR 76873, Dec. 9, 2011.

§ 28.122 Negotiability issues. Where the GAO and an exclusive bargaining representative disagree on whether a matter is subject to negotiation as part of the requirement to bargain in good faith, the matter shall be appealable to the Board under the following procedures: ( a ) When, in connection with negotiations, a proposal is declared nonnegotiable, the party submitting the proposal shall, prior to the close of negotiations, submit to the other party a Request for Formal Negotiability Determination reciting the proposal in question. The party declaring the proposal nonnegotiable shall, within ten (10) days, deliver to the other party a Formal Negotiability Determination stating the basis for the Determination.
( b ) A Formal Negotiability Determination may be appealed to the Board within 20 days of its service by filing a Petition for Review with the Board. A complete statement of argument from the petitioner should accompany the Petition for Review.
( c ) The Board shall serve the Respondent with a copy of the Petition for Review and accompanying argument. Respondent shall reply to the Petition for Review within 20 days of its service upon respondent.
( d ) One or more members of the Board shall review the arguments, hold a hearing if the administrative judge deems it necessary, and issue a decision.
( e ) The decision shall become final in accordance with § 28.87.
[58 FR 61992, Nov. 23, 1993, as amended at 68 FR 69303, Dec. 12, 2003]
II 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 688 

To amend title 28, United States Code, to add Flagstaff and Yuma to 

the list of locations in which court shall be held in the judicial district 

for the State of Arizona. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 6, 2019 

Ms. MCSALLY (for herself and Ms. SINEMA) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend title 28, United States Code, to add Flagstaff 

and Yuma to the list of locations in which court shall 

be held in the judicial district for the State of Arizona. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. DISTRICT COURTS IN THE JUDICIAL DISTRICT 

4 FOR THE STATE OF ARIZONA. 

5 Section 82 of title 28, United States Code, is amend6 ed by striking ‘‘Globe, Phoenix, Prescott, and Tucson’’ 

7 and inserting ‘‘Flagstaff, Globe, Phoenix, Prescott, Tuc8 son, and Yuma’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
**Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record**

**Plant ID 03642**  **Removed from Public**  **(Non-CBI) Docket**  **1 Copyright** 

**Flag 2**  **File Name Description**  x 03642\03642_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook

03642\03642_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist 03642\03642_HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted x 03642\03642_Part A.xls Plant submitted survey file x 03642\03642_Part B.xls Plant submitted survey file x 03642\03642_Part C.xls Plant submitted survey file x 03642\03642_Part D.xls Plant submitted survey file x 03642\03642_Part H.xls Plant submitted survey file

03642\Certification Statement Plant ID 03642.PDF Plant certification statement 03642\Supplemental Documents\03642_2010_9_15 IRPP EPA Effluent ICR Coverletter.PDF Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey 03642\Supplemental Documents\03642_Indian River Part A MAP-1.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 03642\Supplemental Documents\03642_Indian_River_Aerial.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x x 03642\Supplemental Documents\03642_Indian_River_Part_A_WB-1.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x x 03642\Supplemental Documents\03642_Indian_River_Part_D_D-1.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

03642\Supplemental Documents\03642_IRPP.intake_area_detail-1.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey 03642\Supplemental Documents\03642_IRPP.wide_view.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

1Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database

. 2Copyright documents are available from the docket.
§ 1318.403 DEIS preparation, transmittal, and review. ( a ) Based on information obtained and decisions made during the scoping process, the NEPA compliance staff, in cooperation with the initiating TVA entity and other interested TVA entities, will prepare the preliminary DEIS using an appropriate format (see 40 CFR 1502.10).
( b ) During preparation of the DEIS, the NEPA compliance staff will involve any cooperating agencies to obtain their input. If a cooperating agency's analysis of an environmental issue or impact differs from TVA's, those differences should be resolved before the DEIS is released for public comment or the cooperating agency's position should be set forth and addressed in the DEIS.
( c ) After approval of the DEIS by the official responsible for NEPA compliance, the senior manager of the initiating TVA entity, and TVA legal counsel, the NEPA compliance staff will make the DEIS available to the public; other interested Federal, State, and local agencies; and other entities and individuals who have expressed an interest in the type of action or commented on the scope of the EIS. The NEPA compliance staff will then file the DEIS with EPA for publication of its notice of availability in the Federal Register.
( d ) TVA will make the DEIS available on its public website and provide it by other means upon request.
( e ) A minimum of 45 days from the date of publication of the notice of availability in the Federal Register must be provided for public comment. TVA may extend the public comment period in its discretion.
( f ) Materials to be made available to the public should be provided to the public without charge to the extent practicable.
# C_2012287EN.01001102.xml

| 22.9.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 287/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.9.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 287/11

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 5 July 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Södertörns tingsrätt — Sweden) — Torsten Hörnfeldt v Posten Meddelande AB

(Case C-141/11) (1)

1

(Equal treatment in employment and occupation - Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of age - National legislation conferring on employees an unconditional right to work until the age of 67 and providing for automatic termination of the employment relationship at the end of the month in which the employee reaches that age - Account not taken of the amount of the retirement pension)

2012/C 287/18

Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Referring court

Södertörns tingsrätt

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Torsten Hörnfeldt

Applicant:

Defendant: Posten Meddelande AB

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Södertörns tingsrätt — Interpretation of the general principle of law on the prohibition of age discrimination and of Article 6 of Council Directive 2000/78/EC establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16) — National legislation and collective agreement granting employees an unconditional right to work until the age of 67 and providing for automatic termination without notice of the employment relationship at the end of the month in which the employee turns 67, without taking account of the actual pension paid to him

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The second subparagraph of Article 6(1) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation must be interpreted as not precluding a national measure, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which allows an employer to terminate an employee’s employment contract on the sole ground that the employee has reached the age of 67 and which does not take account of the level of the retirement pension which the person concerned will receive, as that measure is objectively and reasonably justified by a legitimate aim relating to employment policy and labour-market policy and constitutes an appropriate and necessary means by which to achieve that aim.

---

(1)  OJ C 152, 21.5.2011.

1

---
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Gilman + Ciocia, Inc. (the
"Company") for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),I, Michael Ryan,
President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, 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.


By:   /s/ Michael Ryan
      --------------------------
Name: Michael Ryan
      Chief Executive Officer

Date: September 28, 2006
129 STAT. 38 PUBLIC LAW 114–3—FEB. 27, 2015 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 33: 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 161 (2015): 

Jan. 12, considered and passed House. 

Feb. 27, considered and passed Senate, amended. House concurred in Senate 

amendment. 

Æ 

Public Law 114–3 

114th Congress 

An Act 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to ensure that emergency services 

volunteers are not taken into account as employees under the shared responsibility 

requirements contained in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. FURTHER CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS. 

The Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2015 (Public Law 

113–164; 128 Stat. 1867) is amended by striking the date specified 

in section 106(3) and inserting ‘‘March 6, 2015’’. 

Approved February 27, 2015. 

128 Stat. 1868. 

Feb. 27, 2015 

[H.R. 33] 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with PUBLAWS
# C_2013344EN.01000601.xml

| 23.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 344/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 344/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 26 September 2013 — European Commission v Italian Republic

(Case C-236/11) (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Taxation - VAT - Directive 2006/112/EC - Articles 306 to 310 - Special regime for travel agencies - Differences between language versions - National legislation providing for the application of the special regime to persons other than travellers - Concepts of ‘traveller’ and ‘client’)

2013/C 344/06

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: C. Soulay and D. Recchia, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, acting as Agent, and G. De Bellis, avvocato dello Stato)

Defendant:

Interveners in support of the defendant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, T. Müller and J. Očková, acting as Agents); Hellenic Republic (represented by: E.-M. Mamouna, acting as Agent); Kingdom of Spain (represented by: S. Centeno Huerta, acting as Agent); French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues and J.-S. Pilczer, acting as Agents); Republic of Poland (represented by: M. Szpunar and B. Majczyna, acting as Agents); Republic of Finland (represented by: J. Heliskoski, acting as Agent)

Interveners in support of the defendant:

Re:

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 306 to 310 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — National legislation under which the special regime for taxation of travel agents applies to transactions carried out by travel agents for recipients other than travellers

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the European Commission to pay the costs incurred by the Italian Republic; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the European Commission to pay the costs incurred by the Italian Republic;

| 3. | Orders the Czech Republic, the Hellenic Republic, the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, the Republic of Poland and the Republic of Finland to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Czech Republic, the Hellenic Republic, the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, the Republic of Poland and the Republic of Finland to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 238, 13.8.2011.

1

---
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

*Notice of Cancellation:*                     This notice was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on December 17, 2010, Volume 75, Number 242, page 78997.                

This SEP previously scheduled to convene on April 15, 2011, is cancelled in its entirety.

*Contact Person for More Information:*                     Donald Blackman, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, CDC, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office of the Director, Extramural Research Program Office, 4770 Buford Highway, NE., Mailstop K-92, Atlanta, Georgia 30341, Telephone: (770) 488-3023, E-mail:                     *DBY7@cdc.gov.*

                    The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign                     **Federal Register**                     notices pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee management activities, for both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.                

Dated: March 4, 2011.

Elaine L. Baker,

Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

[FR Doc. 2011-5628 Filed 3-10-11; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
# C_2010113EN.01006501.xml

| 1.5.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 113/65 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.5.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 113/65

---

Action brought on 17 February 2010 — Cindu Chemicals and others v ECHA

(Case T-95/10)

2010/C 113/97

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Cindu Chemicals BV (Uithoorn, Netherlands), Deza, a.s. (Valašské Meziříčí, Czech Republic), Koppers Denmark A/S (Nyborg, Denmark), Koppers UK Ltd (Scunthorpe, United Kingdom) (represented by: K. Van Maldegem, R. Cana, lawyers and P. Sellar, Solicitor)

Applicants:

Defendant: European Chemicals Agency (ECHA)

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | declare the application admissible and well-founded; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the application admissible and well-founded;

| — | partially annul the contested act, as far as it relates to anthracene oil, anthracene low; |
| --- | --- |

—

partially annul the contested act, as far as it relates to anthracene oil, anthracene low;

| — | order ECHA to pay the costs of these proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order ECHA to pay the costs of these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicants seek the partial annulment of the decision of the European Chemicals Agency (‘ECHA’) (ED/68/2009) to identify anthracene oil, anthracene low (CAS Number 90640-82-7) (‘anthracene oil (low)’) as a substance meeting the criteria set out in Article 57(d) and (e) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (1) (“REACH”), in accordance with Article 59 REACH.

1

On the basis of the contested decision, brought to the applicants’ attention by means of an ECHA’s press release, the anthracene oil (low) was included in the list of 14 chemical substances of the Candidate List of Substance of Very High Concern (‘SVHC’) for eventual inclusion in Annex XIV to the REACH. The reasons stated in the contested act for the identification of anthracene oil, anthracene low as a SVHC are that the substance is carcinogenic, mutagenic and very bioaccumulative (‘vPvB’) in accordance with criteria set out in Annex XIII to the REACH.

The applicants consider that the contested act infringes the applicable rules established for the identification of SVHCs under the REACH and put forward four pleas in law in support of their application which are identical to those raised in Case T-94/10, Rütgers Germany and Others v ECHA.

Rütgers Germany and Others

ECHA

---

(1)  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)

1

---
#### Smith *v.*Smith *et al.*

May 11, 1910.

Complaint for land. Before Judge Mitchell. Berrien superior court.

January 11, 1909.

*Hendricks &*Christian, for plaintiff.

*Buie &*Knight, for defendants.

Atkinson, J.

In an action of complaint for land and mesne profits, the petition, which alleged that the defendant was in possession, claiming title under the plaintiff's mortgagee, who had sold the land under the mortgage, and that the debt secured was the debt of plaintiff’s husband and the sale void, was subject to demurrer, it not being alleged that the purchaser at the mortgage sale had notice at the time of the sale that the debt was that of the husband. To meet the demurrer it was not sufficient to allege that the mortgagee had notice, or that two others, one being the defendant, but neither alleged to be the purchaser at the ' mortgage sale, “likewise knew” all the facts stated in the petition.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*