alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
---

CERTIFICATION OF 
  CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICERPURSUANT TO
  18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
  AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Alain Kardos, Chief Executive Officer of Image Innovations
  Holdings Inc. (the Company), hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
  Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
  2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

| | (i)  | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB
        of the Company for the three months ended March 31, 2004, and to which
        this certification is attached (the Report) fully complies
        with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
        Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | ---- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |      |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                
| | (ii) | the information contained in the Report
        fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
        results of operations of the Company.                                                                                                                                           

| | By:    | /s/ Alain Kardos       
| | ------ | -----------------------
| |        |                        
| | Name:  | ALAIN KARDOS           
| |        |                        
| | Title: | Chief Executive Officer
| |        |                        
| | Date:  | May 13, 2004           

This written statement is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission as an exhibit to the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB. A signed original of this statement has been provided to the Company and will be retained by
the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

This certification accompanies this Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"). Such certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that
the Company specifically incorporates it by reference.

---
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 12**  **- 6307** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. WILBERT GRADY LEE, JR., a/k/a Griz , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia , at Clarksburg

. Irene M. Keeley , District Judge. ( 1:06

- cr - 00081

- IMK

- 1 )

Submitted : June 26, 2013 Decided: July 5, 2013

Before AGEE and THACKER , Circuit Judges , HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Wilbert Grady Lee, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Shawn Angus Morgan, Assistant United States Attorney, Clarksburg, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not bind ing precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Wilbert Grady Lee, Jr., appeals the district court’s
order granting, in part, his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006)
motion for sentence reduction. We have reviewed the record and
find no reversible error. Accor dingly, we affirm the district

court ’s order

. United States v. Lee , No. 1:06

- cr - 00081

- IMK

- 1
( N .D. W. Va. Jan. 12, 2012 ). 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
<PAGE>   1

                                                                   EXHIBIT 23.1



                   CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation by
reference of our reports dated February 28, 1997, and to all references to our
firm, included in this Form 10-K, into the Company's previously filed
Registration Statements on Form S-8 (File Nos. 333-00618 and 33-83054) and Form
S-3 (File Nos. 33-90032, 33-89000, 333-40, 333-14329 and 333-13651).



/s/ Arthur Andersen LLP


Atlanta, Georgia
March 26, 1997
Exhibit 32.1



Section 1350 Certification

As Adopted Pursuant to

Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



In connection with the Annual Report of MK Gold Company (the Company) on Form
10-K/A for the period ended December 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, G. Frank Joklik, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive 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 to my knowledge:



| | (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/ G. Frank Joklik                              
|G. Frank Joklik                                  
|Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer
|June 14, 2004
§ 22.12 Interrogatories [Rule 12]. ( a ) *When interrogatories may be served.* After an appeal has been docketed by the Board and a complaint has been filed, a party may serve on an adverse party written interrogatories to be answered by the party served or, if the party served is a public or private corporation or a partnership or association, by any officer or agent who shall furnish such information as is available to the party.
( b ) *Answers.* The interrogatories shall be answered separately and fully in writing, signed under oath by the person answering them, and served on the party submitting the interrogatories. Objections to the interrogatories shall be signed by counsel for the party responding to the interrogatories. An interrogatory is not necessarily objectionable merely because an answer to the interrogatory may involve an opinion or contention that relates to fact or the application of law to fact; however, the Board may order that such interrogatory need not be answered until after discovery has been completed or some other event has occurred.
( c ) *Scope and use as evidence.* Interrogatories may relate to any matters which can be inquired into under § 22.11 of this part [Rule 11] (Depositions), and the answers may be used to the same extent as provided for the use of the deposition of a party.
( d ) *Limits.* The number of interrogatories or sets of interrogatories to be served shall not be limited except as the Board may require to protect a party from annoyance, burden, or harassment.
( e ) *Option to produce business records.* Where the answer to an interrogatory may be derived or ascertained from the business records of the party upon which the interrogatory has been served, and the burden of deriving or ascertaining the answer is substantially the same for the party serving the interrogatory as for the party served, it is a sufficient answer to such interrogatory to specify the record(s) from which the answer may be derived or ascertained and to afford the party serving the interrogatory a reasonable opportunity to examine, audit, or inspect such records and to make copies thereof. Such specification shall be in sufficient detail to permit the interrogating party to locate and to identify, as readily as can the party served, the record(s) from which the answer may be ascertained.
#### § 35.19 Submission of information by reference.

If all or any portion of the information called for in this part has already been submitted to the Commission, substantially in the form prescribed above, specific reference thereto may be made in lieu of re-submission in response to the requirements of this part.
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**1229 KA 12-02178**  PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, SCONIERS, AND VALENTINO, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

TRAVIS MARTIN, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

THE LEGAL AID BUREAU OF BUFFALO, INC., BUFFALO (KRISTIN M. PREVE OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

FRANK A. SEDITA, III, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, BUFFALO (DAVID A. HERATY OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Deborah A. Haendiges, J.), rendered October 18, 2012. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a nonjury verdict, of criminal trespass in the second degree.

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon a nonjury verdict of criminal trespass in the second degree (Penal Law § 140.15 [1]), defendant contends that the conviction is not supported by legally sufficient evidence and that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence based on his assertion that he had permission to enter the victim’s apartment. We reject those contentions. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People ( see People v Williams , 84 NY2d 925, 926), we conclude that it is legally sufficient to support the conviction ( see generally People v Bleakley
, 69 NY2d 490, 495). The victim and her daughter both testified that defendant and the victim had broken up several weeks prior to the incident and that defendant did not have permission to enter the apartment on the date at issue. Further, viewing the evidence in light of the elements of the crime in this nonjury trial ( see People v Danielson , 9 NY3d 342, 349), we conclude that the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence ( see generally Bleakley , 69 NY2d at 495). Although a different verdict would not have been unreasonable ( see Danielson , 9 NY3d at 348), we conclude that, “[b]ased on the weight of the credible evidence, [Supreme C]ourt . . . was justified in finding the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt” ( id. ; see People v Romero , 7 NY3d 633, 642-643). “ ‘Great deference is to be accorded to the [factfinder]’s resolution of credibility issues based upon its superior vantage point and its opportunity to view witnesses, observe demeanor and hear the testimony’ ” ( People v Gritzke , 292 AD2d**-2- 1229 KA 12-02178** 

805, 805-806, lv denied 98 NY2d 697), and we perceive no reason to disturb the court’s credibility determinations.

Entered: November 21, 2014 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
#### STATE v. NEWSOME

No. 138P90

Case below: 97 N.C.App. 507

Petition by defendant for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 denied 13 June 1990.
# C_2011269EN.01003903.xml

| 10.9.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 269/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.9.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 269/39

---

Order of the President of the Court of 7 July 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Frosinone (Italy)) — Procura della Repubblica v Patrick Conteh

(Case C-169/11) (1)

1

2011/C 269/84

Language of the case: Italian

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 173, 11.6.2011.

1

---
#### § 1308.38 Reconsideration.

Motions for reconsideration shall be served not later than 10 days after issuance of the Hearing Officer's decision. This time period cannot be extended. Such a motion shall be heard and decided in the manner provided by Rule 59 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for motions for new trial in actions tried without a jury.
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 42 (Thursday, March 3, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 11764]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-4834]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Navy


Notice of Availability of Government-Owned Inventions; Available 
for Licensing

AGENCY: Department of the Navy, DoD.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The inventions listed below are assigned to the United States 
Government as represented by the Secretary of the Navy. U.S. Patent No. 
7,048,854: Apparatus for the removal of heavy metals from acidic 
wastewater and chemical solutions, Navy Case No. 97424//U.S. Patent No. 
7,105,094: Method for the removal of heavy metals from acidic 
wastewater and chemical solutions, Navy Case No. 97617.

ADDRESSES: Requests for copies of the inventions cited should be 
directed to Andrew Drucker, Naval Facilities Engineering Service 
Center, Code EV12, 1100 23rd Ave., Port Hueneme, CA 93043-4370 and must 
include the Navy Case number.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andrew Drucker supporting the Head of 
Technology Transfer Office, Naval Facilities Engineering Service 
Center, Code EV12, 1100 23rd Ave., Port Hueneme, CA 93043-4370, 
telephone 805-982-1108, Fax 805-982-4832, E-mail: 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#3b5a555f495e4c155f494e58505e497b555a4d4215565257"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="83e2ede7f1e6f4ade7f1f6e0e8e6f1c3ede2f5faadeeeaef">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Authority:  35 U.S.C. 207, 37 CFR 404.7.

    Dated: February 24, 2011.
D.J. Werner,
Lieutenant Commander, Judge Advocate General's Corps, U.S. Navy, 
Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 2011-4834 Filed 3-2-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3810-FF-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
### §635a–4. Guarantees for export accounts receivable and inventory

The Export-Import Bank of the United States is authorized and directed to establish a program to provide guarantees for loans extended by financial institutions or other public or private creditors to export trading companies as defined in section 1843(c)(14)(F)(i) of this title, or to other exporters, when such loans are secured by export accounts receivable, inventories of exportable goods, accounts receivable from leases, performance contracts, grant commitments, participation fees, member dues, revenue from publications, or such other collateral as the Board of Directors may deem appropriate, and when in the judgment of the Board of Directors—

(1) the private credit market is not providing adequate financing to enable otherwise creditworthy export trading companies or exporters to consummate export transactions; and

(2) such guarantees would facilitate expansion of exports which would not otherwise occur.

The Board of Directors shall attempt to insure that a major share of any loan guarantees ultimately serves to promote exports from small, medium-size, and minority businesses or agricultural concerns. Guarantees provided under the authority of this section shall be subject to limitations contained in annual appropriations Acts.

(Pub. L. 97–290, title II, §206, Oct. 8, 1982, 96 Stat. 1239; Pub. L. 98–181, title I [title VI, §616(b)], Nov. 30, 1983, 97 Stat. 1257.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was enacted as part of the Bank Export Services Act, and not as part of the Export-Import Bank Act of 1945 which comprises this subchapter.

#### Amendments

1983—Pub. L. 98–181 substituted "export accounts receivable, inventories of exportable goods, accounts receivable from leases, performance contracts, grant commitments, participation fees, member dues, revenue from publications, or such other collateral as the Board of Directors may deem appropriate," for "export accounts receivable or inventories of exportable goods".
EXHIBIT 99.b



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 Boston Capital Tax Credit Fund Limited Partnership (the "Partnership") on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Marc N. Teal, Sr. Vice President of C&M Management Inc. and Director of Accounting of Boston Capital Corporation, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge, after due inquiry:



|(1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934; and                              
|--- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|    |                                                                                                                                                        
|(2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Partnership.



|                | Boston Capital Tax Credit Fund Limited Partnership
|--------------- | --------------------------------------------------
|                |                                                   
|                | By:                                               
|                |                                                   
|                |                                                   
|                | By:                                               
|                |                                                   
|                |                                                   
|                | By:                                               
|                |                                                   
|                |                                                   
|Date:           |                                                   
|August 20, 2002 | By:                                               
|                |                                                   
|                |                                                   
|                |                                                   
|                |
§ 93.411 Quarantine requirements. ( a ) Except for cattle from Central America and the West Indies, and except for ruminants from Canada and Mexico, all ruminants imported into the United States shall be quarantined for not less than 30 days counting from the date of arrival at the port of entry.
( b ) Wild ruminants shall be subject, during their quarantine, to such inspections, disinfection, blood tests, or other tests as may be required by the Administrator to determine their freedom from disease.
[61 FR 17238, Apr. 19, 1996. Redesignated at 62 FR 56012, Oct. 28, 1997]
§ 52.2 Payment of indemnity. ( a ) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, the Administrator is authorized to agree on the part of the Department to pay indemnity to the owner of herds of swine destroyed because the herds are known to be infected with pseudorabies, or individual breeding sows destroyed because they are known to be infected with pseudorabies. The amount of indemnity paid, together with the amount for net salvage the owner receives when the animals are slaughtered, shall not exceed the fair market value of the swine. Such swine must be sent directly to slaughter under permit in a conveyance closed with an official seal applied and removed by either an APHIS employee, a State representative, an accredited veterinarian, or an individual authorized for this purpose by an APHIS employee. The swine must be sent to a recognized slaughtering establishment.
( b ) If swine from herds that are destroyed because the herds are known to be infected with pseudorabies are not accepted at a recognized slaughtering establishment, or the owner and an APHIS employee or State representative agree they will not be accepted by a recognized slaughtering establishment, the Administrator is authorized to pay 100 percent of the expenses of the purchase, destruction, and disposition of such swine.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 0579-0151) [65 FR 20711, Apr. 18, 2000]
### §5105. Coordination

The Secretary shall coordinate the research and development conducted under this chapter with other research and development being conducted by the Department of Energy and other Federal agencies in order to increase efficiency and avoid duplication of effort.

(Pub. L. 100–680, §6, Nov. 17, 1988, 102 Stat. 4076.)
#   2021-2022 NSDUH: Guide to State Tables and Summary of Small Area Estimation Methodology

Use this guide to help interpret the 2021-2022 state-level estimates from the National Surveys on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH). It includes a summary of the small area estimation (SAE) methodology, as well as sample sizes, response rates, and population estimates for 35 measures of substance use and mental health.

National Survey on Drug Use and Health

### Part of Collection:

2021-2022 NSDUH State Estimates of Substance Use and Mental Disorders

                        -  View/Download Files 
                        -  Other Related Reports 
                        -  Report Resources 

### View/Download Files

                                    - 2021-2022 SAE Methodology Guide(pdf | 656.34 KB)
                                    - 2021-2022 SAE Methodology Guide(htm | 233.14 KB)

### Other Related Reports

2021-2022 NSDUH National Maps of Prevalence Estimates, by State

Collected Date: 2021-2022 | Published Date: February 15, 2024 | Type: National Survey on Drug Use and Health

2021-2022 NSDUH: Model-Based Estimated Prevalence for States

Collected Date: 2021-2022 | Published Date: February 15, 2024 | Type: National Survey on Drug Use and Health

2021-2022 NSDUH: Model-Based Estimated Totals for States (in Thousands):

Collected Date: 2021-2022 | Published Date: February 15, 2024 | Type: National Survey on Drug Use and Health

2021-2022 NSDUH: Other Sources of State-Level Data

Collected Date: 2021-2022 | Published Date: February 15, 2024 | Type: National Survey on Drug Use and Health

2021-2022 NSDUH: State-Specific Tables

Collected Date: 2021-2022 | Published Date: February 15, 2024 | Type: National Survey on Drug Use and Health

Comparison Between 2021-2022 NSDUH State Prevalence Estimates

Collected Date: 2021-2022 | Published Date: February 15, 2024 | Type: National Survey on Drug Use and Health

### Report Resources

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Data Archive (SAMHDA)'s page about NSDUH.

 < Back to Main content