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 on Form 10-QSB of Quotemedia, Inc. (the Company)
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, R. Keith Guelpa, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, to my best knowledge and
belief, 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 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); 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/ R. Keith Guelpa    
|    |  | R. Keith Guelpa        
|    |  | Chief Executive Officer
|    |  | November 14, 2006
### §251j. Property retention rights of landowners; use and occupancy improvements; plan to be submitted to Secretary; approval evidenced by issuance of permit and certificate; limitation on acquisition power of Secretary

Notwithstanding the provisions of section 251i of this title, any noncorporate owner or owners, as of January 1, 1976, of property adjacent to Lake Ozette may retain title to such property: Provided, That such owner or owners consent to acquisition by the Secretary or 1 scenic easements or other interests that allow only those improvements that the Secretary finds to be reasonably necessary for continued use and occupancy. Any such owner or owners who elects to improve his property or a portion thereof shall submit to the Secretary a plan which shall set forth the manner in which the property is to be improved and the use to which it is proposed to be put. If, upon review of such plan, the Secretary determines that it is compatible with the limitations of this section, he in his discretion may issue a permit to such owner and a certificate to that effect. Upon issuance of any such certificate and so long as such property is maintained and used in conformity therewith, the authority of the Secretary to acquire such property or interest therein without the consent of the owner shall be suspended.

(Pub. L. 94–578, title III, §320(g), Oct. 21, 1976, 90 Stat. 2741.)

1 So in original. Probably should be "of".
§ 301.309 In-person hearing before the committee. ( a ) The appeal shall be considered to have been abandoned if the claimant fails to appear at the time and place set for the hearing and does not, within 10 days after the time set for that hearing, show good cause for failure to appear.
( b ) In conducting the hearing, the Committee is not bound by common law or statutory rules of evidence, or by technical or formal rules of procedure, but may conduct the hearing in such manner as to best ascertain the rights and obligations of the claimant and the government. At such hearing, the claimant shall be afforded an opportunity to present evidence in support of the claim under review.
( c ) The Committee shall consider all evidence presented by the claimant, and shall, in addition, consider any other evidence as the Committee may determine to be useful in evaluating the claim. Evidence may be presented orally and/or in the form of written statements and exhibits.
( d ) A representative appointed in accordance with the provisions of this section may make or give, on behalf of the claimant, any request or notice relative to any proceeding before the Committee. A representative shall be entitled to present or elicit evidence or make allegations as to fact and law in any proceeding affecting the claimant and to request information with respect to the claim. Likewise, any request for additional information, or notice to any claimant of any administrative action, determination, or decision, may be sent to the representative of such claimant, and shall have the same force and effect as if it had been sent to the claimant.
( e ) In order to fully evaluate the claim, the Committee may question the claimant and any witness(es) appearing before the Committee on behalf of the claimant or government.
( f ) Claimant, or claimant's representative, may question the Committee or any witness(es) appearing before the Committee on behalf of the government, but only on matters determined by the Committee to be relevant to its evaluation of the claim.
( g ) The hearing shall be recorded, and a copy of the recording or, at the discretion of the Committee, a transcript thereof shall be made available to the claimant upon request, provided such request is made not later than 90 days following the date of the hearing.
### §1a–10. Repealed. Pub. L. 113–287, §7, Dec. 19, 2014, 128 Stat. 3272

Section, Pub. L. 101–628, title XII, §1214, Nov. 28, 1990, 104 Stat. 4508, related to consultation with affected agencies and organizations. See section 100505(b) of Title 54, National Park Service and Related Programs.
No. 20,037.

#### Colorado Interstate Gas Company *v.*Sable Water District.

(380 P. [2d] 569)

Decided April 8, 1963.

Mr. Richard L. Greener, Messrs. Holland and Hart, *90Mr. Robert P. Davison, Mr. Robert A. Krantz, Jr., Mr. Robert C. McHugh, for plaintiff in error.

Mr. Harvey P. Wallace, Messrs. Bender and Lubow, for defendant in error.

En *Banc.*

Mr. Justice Hall

delivered the opinion of the Court.

Most of the problems presented in this case are the same as or similar to those presented in *Mountain States Telephone and Telegraph Company v. Animas Mosquito Control District,*152 Colo. 73, 380 P. (2d) 560, and are resolved in the opinion this day entered in that case. The opinion in *Mountain States Telephone and Telegraph Company v. Animas Mosquito Control District*should be read and considered in connection with this opinion.

Here, we have for review a judgment of the trial court denying the petition of the Interstate Gas Company to have its real property, consisting of 20.54 acres, located within the outer boundaries of the Sable Water District excluded from the district, as provided by C.R.S. ’53, 89-5-4:

“ * * * No single tract or parcel of property containing twenty acres or more may be included in any district organized under this article without the consent of the owner or owners thereof.”

The district contends that the 20.54 acres belonging to the Interstate Gas Company do not constitute a “single tract or parcel of property” as contemplated by the statute, but in fact constitute two tracts, being divided by a county road leaving 2.22 acres on one side of the road and 18.32 acres on the other side.

The trial court concluded that Interstate Gas Company did not own a single tract containing more than twenty acres and denied the petition seeking exclusion.

*91Interstate Gas Company is here by writ of error seeking reversal.

We now hold that the above quoted portion of C.R.S. ’53, 89-5-4, is unconstitutional and void, for the same reasons that the exclusion provision contained in 89-3-3 is held void in the Mountain States Telephone Company case.

Unlike a mosquito district, where to omit part of the property from control of the district the whole purpose of the district would fail, we can readily understand that in a water district there might be many properties, large or small, having adequate water facilities, the owners of which would receive no benefits from the district.

C.R.S. ’53, 89-5-21, provides means whereby an owner of property within the district can have his property excluded therefrom on a proper showing. Interstate Gas Company sought exclusion under the discriminatory provisions of C.R.S. ’53, 89-5-4.

For the reasons expressed herein and in *Mountain States Telephone and Telegraph Company v. Animas Mosquito Control District,*the judgment is affirmed.

Mr. Justice McWilliams and Mr. Justice Pringle dissent.

Mr. Justice McWilliams

dissenting:

I dissent for reasons set forth in my dissenting opinion filed in Case No. 19,812 decided this date.

Mr. Justice Pringle concurs in this dissenting opinion.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
"THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF GEORGIA-PACIFIC COROPRATION FOR THE 3 MONTHS ENDED MARCH
31, 1996, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS."
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED> 
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1996
<CASH>                                              12
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      937
<ALLOWANCES>                                        26
<INVENTORY>                                      1,458
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 2,556
<PP&E>                                          12,888
<DEPRECIATION>                                   6,716
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  12,402
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,967
<BONDS>                                          4,545
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            73
<OTHER-SE>                                       3,461
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    12,402
<SALES>                                          3,053
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 3,053
<CGS>                                            2,284
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    2,284
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   212
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 107
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     90
<INCOME-TAX>                                        40
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 50
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                        50
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .55
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .55
        

</TABLE>
### §2109b. Repealed. Pub. L. 115–334, title VIII, §8102(b)(1), Dec. 20, 2018, 132 Stat. 4839

Section, Pub. L. 95–313, §13B, as added Pub. L. 110–234, title VIII, §8008, May 22, 2008, 122 Stat. 1286, and Pub. L. 110–246, §4(a), title VIII, §8008, June 18, 2008, 122 Stat. 1664, 2047, related to competitive allocation of funds for cooperative forest innovation partnership projects.
**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 Annual Report on Form 10-K of Green Mountain Power
      Corporation (the "Company") for the period ending December 31, 2006 as filed
      with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
      I, Christopher L. Dutton, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, 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 result of operations of the Company.











/s/Christopher
                L. DuttonChristopher
                L. Dutton, Chief Executive Officer and PresidentMarch
                12, 2007
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-50993 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus JOSE ALEJANDRO CORDOVA-FLORES, also known as Jesus Martinez-Flores, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. EP-97-CR-341-ALL-DB

- - - - - - - - - - June 17, 1998 Before DAVIS, PARKER, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Jose Alejandro Cordova-Flores appeals his sentence following his conviction for illegally reentering the United States after previously being arrested and deported. He argues that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) defines a separate criminal offense; therefore, in order for him to be sentenced under that provision, the Government must have alleged his prior felony conviction in the indictment.No. 97-50993 - 2 - In Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 118 S. Ct. 1219, 1222, 1226 (1998), the Supreme Court concluded that § 1326(b) was not a separate criminal offense, but merely a penalty provision; therefore, “neither the statute nor the Constitution require the Government to charge . . . an earlier conviction [] in the indictment.” Because Cordova-Flores’s argument is foreclosed by Supreme Court precedent, his conviction and sentence are
AFFIRMED. AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 32.2

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

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the Annual Report of The Goldfield Corporation (the
Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Stephen R. Wherry, Senior Vice President, Treasurer, Assistant Secretary
and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, 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 result of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to The Goldfield Corporation and
will be retained by The Goldfield Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



/s/ STEPHEN R. WHERRYStephen R. WherrySenior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer and Assistant Secretary (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)March 26, 2010
(61 South. 850.)

No. 19,878.

#### HEINTZ v. HOLD. In re HOLD.

(April 14, 1913.

Rehearing Denied May 12, 1913.)

*(Syllabus by the Court.)*

Courts (§ 204*) — Supreme Court — Jurisdiction.

The supervisory jurisdiction of the Supreme Court will not be exercised where the relief sought may be obtained by an appeal from the judgment complained of to the Court of Appeals or by application to said court for remedial writs.

[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Courts, Cent. Dig. §§ 499, 504, 619, 758%, 791; Dec. Dig. § 204.*]

Action by Fred J. Heintz against Fred Hold. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant applies for writs of mandamus and certiorari.

Application dismissed.

H. L. Garland, of Opelousas, for relator. B. M. Miller and F. J. Heintz, both of Covington, for respondent.

LAND, J.

A final judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiff- in the above-entitled suit, from which the relator obtained an order of appeal to the Court of Appeals in and for the parish of St. Tammany. Relator did not perfect the appeal by giving bond,, and in due course execution issued, under-which the sheriff seized and advertised for sale two certain pieces of real estate as the property of the relator. Whereupon the relator brought suit to annul the judgment, and to enjoin the sale. The judge a quo refused to grant the injunction, and thereupon the relator applied to this court for a mandamus to compel the said judge to grant, the injunction as prayed for, and the usual rule nisi issued. The respondent judge has filed a lengthy return to the writ, in which he gives a detailed history of the case of Heintz v. Hold, showing that, after due notice and hearing, judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiff on the evidence adduced on the trial of the cause, from which the relator was granted an appeal to the Court of Appeals, and that relator has not perfected said appeal by giving bond, and the return day has- expired.

Relator’s remedy was by appeal to the Court of Appeals from the order 'refusing the writ of injunction, or by application to said court for mandamus or other remedial writ.

The supervisory jurisdiction of the Supreme Court will not -be exercised where the relief sought may be obtained from an inferior appellate court with jurisdiction over •the particular case. State ex rel. Sample, v. Judge, 43 La. Ann. 936, 9 South. 899; Bank of Houma v. Citizens’ Ice & Mfg. Co., 129 La. 270, 55 South. 879.

It is therefore ordered that the rule nisi and restraining order herein issued be discharged, and relator’s application be dismissed, with costs.
**Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 16 December 2011 – France v Commission**

**(Case T-488/10)**

ERDF – Reduction of financial contribution – Community structural assistance in Martinique – Action for annulment – Public contracts – Directive 93/37/EEC – Concept of ‘direct subsidy’ – Concept of sports, recreation and leisure facilities – Duty to state reasons – Principle of proportionality

1.                     *State aid – Concept – Intervention having effect of relieving burdens on an undertaking – Relevance to the interpretation
of ‘subsidy’ within the meaning of Article 2(1) of Directive 93/37 (Art. 107(1) TFEU; Council Directive 93/37, Art. 2(1))
(see paras 25-33)*

2.                     *Approximation of laws – Procedures for the award of public works contracts – Directive 93/37 – Purpose – Effectiveness (Council
Directive 93/37) (see paras 59-65)*

3.                     *Acts of the institutions – Statement of reasons – Obligation – Scope – Commission decision reducing the amount of Community
financial assistance (Art. 296 TFEU; Council Directive 93/37, Art. 2(2)) (see paras 68-71)*

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | ACTION for annulment of European Commission Decision No C(2010) 5229 of 28 July 2010 concerning the cancellation of part of the contribution of the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) under the single programming document for objective 1 for Community structural assistance in Martinique, France. |

**Operative part**

The Court:

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

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders the French Republic to pay the costs. |
#### § 33.2 Statutory authority.

The statutory authority for the regulations is the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 3701, *et. seq.,* as amended (Pub. L. 90-351, as amended by Pub. L. 93-83, Pub. L. 93-415, Pub. L. 94-430, Pub. L. 94-503, Pub. L. 95-115, Pub. L. 96-157, and Pub. L. 98-473) (hereinafter referred to as the Justice Assistance Act of 1984 or the Act).
<PAGE>


                                                                  EXHIBIT 3(i).6


                              CERTIFICATE OF MERGER
                                     MERGING
                              GOLD MERGER SUB, INC.
                                  WITH AND INTO
                               GLOBAL MARINE INC.

The undersigned corporation, organized and existing under and by virtue of the
General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware, DOES HEREBY CERTIFY AS
FOLLOWS:

FIRST: The name and state of incorporation of each of the constituent
corporations to the merger (the "Constituent Corporations") are as follows:

            Name                                        State of Incorporation
            Global Marine Inc.                          Delaware
            Gold Merger Sub, Inc.                       Delaware

SECOND: That an Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of August 31, 2001 (the
"Merger Agreement"), among Santa Fe International Corporation, a company
incorporated under the laws of the Cayman Islands ("Santa Fe"), Silver Sub,
Inc., a Delaware corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of Santa Fe ("Sub"),
Gold Merger Sub, Inc., a Delaware corporation and wholly owned subsidiary of
Sub, and Global Marine Inc., a Delaware corporation, has been approved, adopted,
certified, executed and acknowledged by each of the Constituent Corporations in
accordance with Section 251 of the General Corporation Law of the State of
Delaware.

THIRD: That the name of the surviving corporation (the "Surviving Corporation")
shall be Global Marine Inc.

FOURTH: The certificate of incorporation of Global Marine Inc. shall be the
certificate of incorporation of the Surviving Corporation.

FIFTH: That an executed copy of the Merger Agreement is on file at the principal
place of business of the Surviving Corporation at the following address:

                       777 N. Eldridge Parkway, 12th Floor
                       Houston, Texas 77079-4493

SIXTH: That a copy of the Merger Agreement will be furnished by the Surviving
Corporation, on request, and without cost, to any stockholder of either
Constituent Corporation.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Global Marine Inc. has caused this Certificate of Merger to
be executed by James L. McCulloch, its Senior Vice President, General Counsel
and Assistant Secretary on this 20th day of November, 2001.

                                 GLOBAL MARINE INC.



                                 By:      /s/ James L. McCulloch
                                      -----------------------------------------
                                       Name:  James L. McCulloch
                                       Title: Senior Vice President, General
                                              Counsel and Assistant Secretary
### **CHAPTER 71A—ATLANTIC STRIPED BASS CONSERVATION**

Sec.
5151.
Findings and purposes.
5152.
Definitions.
5153.
Monitoring of implementation and enforcement by coastal States.
5154.
Moratorium.
5155.
Continuing studies of striped bass populations.
5156.
Authorization of appropriations; cooperative agreements.
5157.
Public participation in preparation of management plans and amendments.
5158.
Protection of striped bass in the exclusive economic zone.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

This chapter is comprised of Pub. L. 98–613, Oct. 31, 1984, 98 Stat. 3187–3190, as amended, which was formerly set out as a note under section 1851 of this title.