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




Pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and
(b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), each
of the undersigned officers of Highland Ridge, Inc. (the “Company”), does hereby
certify, to such officer’s knowledge, that:




The
quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended December 31, 2009 (the “Form
10-Q”) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the
information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as
of, and for, the periods presented in the Form 10-Q.




Date:
February 22, 2010




/s/
      Jiaojiao
      JiaoJiaojiao
      JiaoPresident
      (Principal Executive Officer and
                Principal
      Financial and Accounting
Officer)
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

TRANS OVA GENETICS, L.C.,

Appellant

v.

XY, LLC,

Appellee

______________________

2019-2312

______________________

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2018-

00250.

______________________

JUDGMENT

______________________

DAVID A. KELLY, Barnes & Thornburg LLP, Atlanta, 

GA, argued for appellant. Also represented by STEVEN 

SHIPE, Washington, DC.

 Z.W. JULIUS CHEN, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld 

LLP, Washington, DC, argued for appellee. Also represented by KIRT S. O'NEILL, GEORGE ANDREW LEVER 

ROSBROOK, San Antonio, TX.

 ______________________

Case: 19-2312 Document: 48 Page: 1 Filed: 09/08/2020
THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is 

ORDERED and ADJUDGED:

 PER CURIAM (REYNA, CLEVENGER, and CHEN, Circuit 

Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT 

September 8, 2020

Date

/s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

Peter R. Marksteiner

Clerk of Court

Case: 19-2312 Document: 48 Page: 2 Filed: 09/08/2020
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Before the

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 

Release No. 92784 / August 27, 2021

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING

File No. 3-20165

In the Matter of

General Electric Company,

Respondent.

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

SECOND EXTENSION ORDER

The Division of Enforcement (“Division”) has requested an extension of time until 

February 28, 2022 to submit a Proposed Plan of Distribution under Rule 1101(a) of the 

Commission’s Rules on Fair Fund and Disgorgement Plans, 17 C.F.R. § 201.1101(a).

On December 9, 2020, the Commission issued an Order Instituting Cease-and-Desist 

Proceedings, Pursuant to Section 8A of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 21C of the 

Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Making Findings, and Imposing Remedial Sanctions and a 

Cease-and-Desist Order (the “Order”)1 against General Electric Company (the “Respondent”). 

In the Order, the Commission found that from 2015 through 2017, the Respondent, a large 

publicly-traded company that operates a number of lines of business, violated the federal 

securities laws when it failed to disclose material information to investors related to two of its 

key reportable segments. The Commission ordered the Respondent to pay a $200,000,000.00

civil money penalty to the Commission. The Commission also created a Fair Fund, pursuant to 

 

1

 Securities Act Rel. No. 10899 (Dec. 9, 2020).
2

Section 308(a) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, so the penalty paid can be distributed to 

harmed investors (the “Fair Fund”).

The Fair Fund consists of the $200,000,000.00 civil penalty paid by the Respondent. The 

Fair Fund has been deposited in an interest-bearing account at the U.S. Department of the 

Treasury’s Bureau of the Fiscal Service, and any accrued interest will be for the benefit of the 

Fair Fund.

On March 2, 2021, the Secretary, pursuant to delegated authority, issued an order 

extending the Division’s time until August 31, 2021 to submit a proposed plan of distribution.2 

The Division now believes an additional six months of time is needed. In its request for an 

extension of time, the Division states that additional time is needed to develop the distribution 

methodology and draft the proposed plan of distribution.

Accordingly, for good cause shown, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Division’s 

request for an extension of time until February 28, 2022 to submit a Proposed Plan of 

Distribution is granted. 

For the Commission, by the Division of Enforcement, pursuant to delegated authority.3

Vanessa A. Countryman

Secretary 

 

2

 Exchange Act Rel. No. 91244 (Mar. 2, 2021).

3

 17 C.F.R. § 200.30-4(a)(21)(i).
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-7516

VIRGIL ATWELL MOTLEY,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

CHARLES E. THOMPSON, Warden,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District

Judge. (CA-01-635-7)

Submitted: March 6, 2003 Decided: March 13, 2003

Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Virgil Atwell Motley, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Carson Vorhis,

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Virgil Atwell Motley seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254

(2000). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude

that Motley has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a

constitutional right. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, U.S. , 2003

WL 431659 (U.S. Feb. 25, 2003) (No. 01-7662), at *10. Accordingly,

we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. See

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) (2000). We dispense with oral argument because

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the

materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

DISMISSED
Exhibit 32.2

Certification Pursuant To 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, As Adopted Pursuant To Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

                            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 Liska Biometry,
Inc. (the "Company") for the quarterly  period ended September 30, 2005 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),
I, Manoj Hippola,  Chief Financial Officer of the Company,  certify,  to my best
knowledge and belief, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.
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 result of operations of the Company.

By: /s/ Manoj Hippola
    Manoj Hippola
    CFO

Dated:  November 11, 2005
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

November 29, 2005 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

129017 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

GREGORY CAMBURN and Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, FRED LEWIS, Trustee of the Justices FREDERICK LEWIS TRUST, 

Plaintiffs-Appellants, 

v SC: 129017 

 COA: 260197 

Lenawee CC: 04-041619-CE 

MACON TOWNSHIP,

Defendant-Appellee. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 26, 2005 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

p1121 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

November 29, 2005 

Clerk
(No. 74-CC-0620

#### James Lewis, Claimant, *v.*State of Illinois, Respondent.

*Opinion filed April 9, 1979.*

Cathleen Cohen and Jan Keleher, Attorneys for Claimant.

William J. Scott, Attorney General; William Webber, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.

*523Polos, C.J.

Claimant, an inmate of an Illinois penal institution, has brought this action to recover the value of certain items of personal property of which he allegedly possessed while incarcerated. Claimant contends that the property in question was lost while in the actual physical possession of the State of Illinois, and that the State is liable as a bailee for the return of that property.

Claimant demonstrated by preponderance of the evidence that during the course of a transfer from Cook County Jail to the Joliet Correctional Center, Claimant turned over to agents of the State of Illinois several items of personal property: including a gold wedding band, a silver ring, and a wrist watch, having a total value of $234.00. Claimant was told that the items would be shipped to his home address, but shortly thereafter the items were stolen from the office of the State employee.

It appears that the thieves who took the items were caught and are to be prosecuted, but the stolen property is still missing.

The Court finds that the State of Illinois took actual physical possession of Claimant’s property, and that a bailment relationship existed with respect to that property. The loss of property while in the possession of a bailee raises a prima facie case of negligence, and the State has failed to come forward with any evidence showing that it took due care in safeguarding that property.

*524It is therefore ordered that Claimant be, and herede is awarded the sum of $234.00.
___________________________________________________________________ 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

Before the 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION 

SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 

Release No. 99929 / April 9, 2024 

WHISTLEBLOWER AWARD PROCEEDING 

File No. 2024-15

_________________________________________________________________ 

In the Matter of the Claim for Award 

in connection with 

Redacted

Notice of Covered Action 

Redacted

ORDER DETERMINING WHISTLEBLOWER AWARD CLAIM 

The Claims Review Staff (“CRS”) issued a Preliminary Determination recommending 

(“Claimant”) receive a whistleblower award equal to thirty percent (30%) of 

the amount collected, or to be collected,1

 in the above-referenced Covered Action (“Covered 

Action”). The recommendation of the CRS is adopted. The record demonstrates that Claimant 

voluntarily provided original information to the Commission and that this original information 

led to the successful enforcement of the Covered Action.2

that 

Redacted Redacted Redacted Redacted Redacted Redacted Redacted

1 The Commission will treat the amounts distributed to harmed investors pursuant to future court orders, if any, as 

monetary sanctions collected under Rules 21F-4(e) and 21F-14(b). See 17 C.F.R. §§ 240.21F-4(e) and 240.21F14(b). 

2 See Exchange Act Section 21F(b)(1), 15 U.S.C. § 78u-6(b)(1); Exchange Act Rule 21F-3, 17 C.F.R. § 240.21F-3. 

3 Redacted
Redacted Redacted Redacted Redacted Redacted Redacted Redacted Redacted

In reaching this determination, the Commission considered that Claimant provided new 

information that significantly contributed to the success of the Covered Action; Claimant’s 

ongoing assistance during the investigation, which included multiple calls and emails, expedited 

the staff’s investigation; and the charges in the Covered Action were based, in part, on 

Claimant’s information. 

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Claimant shall receive an award of thirty 

percent (30%) of the monetary sanctions collected or to be collected in the Covered Action. 

By the Commission. 

Vanessa A. Countryman 

Secretary 

4 

5 

Redacted

***
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Before the

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

September 13, 2021

In the Matter of

ARC Group, Inc.,

File No. 500-1

ORDER OF SUSPENSION

OF TRADING

It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) that there is a 

lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of ARC Group, Inc.

(“RLLY1”) (CIK No. 1452872), a Nevada corporation located in Orange Park, Florida with a 

class of securities registered with the Commission pursuant to Securities Exchange Act of 1934 

("Exchange Act") Section 12(g) because it is delinquent in its periodic filings with the 

Commission, having not filed any periodic reports since it filed a Form 10-K for the period 

ended December 31, 2019. On July 13, 2021, the Commission’s Division of Corporation 

Finance (“Corporation Finance”) sent a delinquency letter to RLLY requesting compliance with 

its periodic filing requirements, which was delivered. As of September 9, 2021, the common 

stock of RLLY was quoted on OTC Link operated by OTC Markets Group Inc. (formerly “Pink 

Sheets”) (“OTC Link”), had five market makers, and was eligible for the “piggyback” exception 

of Exchange Act Rule 15c2-11(f)(3). 

 

1 The short form of each issuer’s name is also its stock symbol.
2

The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the protection of investors 

require a suspension of trading in the securities of the above-listed company. Therefore, it is 

ordered, pursuant to Section 12(k) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that trading in the 

securities of the above-listed company is suspended for the period from 9:30 a.m. EDT on 

September 14, 2021, through 11:59 p.m. EDT on September 27, 2021.

For the Commission, by the Division of Enforcement, pursuant to delegated authority.

Vanessa A. Countryman

Secretary
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of EarthLink, Inc.(the “Company”) for the period ended September 30, 2009 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, RollaP. Huff, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to my knowledge that:

 

(1)   the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)   the information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company.

 

 
| /s/  ROLLA P. HUFF       |   |
|--------------------------|--------|
|                     |
| Rolla  P. Huff           |
| Chief  Executive Officer |
| October 30,  2009   |

 

----
### §459e–3. Retention by owner of right of use and occupancy of improved property for residential purposes

#### (a) Time limit; value of reserved right

Owners of improved property acquired by the Secretary may reserve for themselves and their successors or assigns a right of use and occupancy of the improved property for noncommercial residential purposes for a term that is not more than twenty-five years. The value of the reserved right shall be deducted from the fair market value paid for the property.

#### (b) Termination of right; compensation

A right of use and occupancy reserved pursuant to this section shall be subject to termination by the Secretary upon his determination that the use and occupancy is not consistent with an applicable zoning ordinance approved by the Secretary in accordance with the provisions of section 459e–2 of this title, and upon tender to the owner of the right an amount equal to the fair market value of that portion of the right which remains unexpired on the date of termination.

(Pub. L. 88–587, §4, Sept. 11, 1964, 78 Stat. 931.)
1

Muldoon, Albert (OST)

From: Muldoon, Albert (OST)

Sent: Friday, January 16, 2015 12:22 PM

To: 'dbartolo@pueblo.us'; 'cityadmin@pueblo.us'; sazad@pueblo.us; mlovin@pueblo.us; 

'mayordave@moabcity.org'; 'kharvey@co.uintah.ut.us'; jhill@grandcountyutah.net; 

'uccommission@co.uintah.ut.us'; 'snorton@vernalcity.org'; 'wmjgroff@hotmail.com'; 

'kjfam92@yahoo.com'

Cc: 'Mark Francis'; 'Shawn Simpson'; 'Mike Matthews'; Doug Voss; Chuck Howell; 'Mickey 

Bowman'; Scott Beale; Greg Atkin (Greg.Atkin@skywest.com); Schlemmer, Kevin (OST); 

Martin, Michael (OST); Faulk, Scott (OST)

Subject: EAS at Pueblo, CO, Moab & Vernal, UT - Request for Comments - Due February 19, 

2015

Attachments: ADI EAS BID for DEN Service to PUB.pdf; Boutique CNYVELBid.pdf; Great Lakes CNYVEL-PUB 30 seat EAS bid as of 01-15-15.pdf; RedtailAviation EAS PPL 2014-11-18.pdf; 

SkyWest PUB Bid.pdf

All:  

I would like to update you on the Essential Air Service (EAS) situation at Pueblo, Colorado, and Moab and

Vernal, Utah, and give you an opportunity to submit comments on the record before we submit a

recommendation to the Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International Affairs.  On November 18, 2014,

SkyWest announced that it would terminate its current EAS at Pueblo, CO; Moab and Vernal, UT; and Crescent

City, CA.  In response to that notice, the Department issued Order 2014‐11‐18 (November 25, 2014)

prohibiting SkyWest’s termination of service and requesting proposals from carriers interested in providing

EAS at any or all of these communities.   

The due date for proposals for Crescent City has been extended to February 17, 2015.  Therefore, only

proposals for Pueblo, Moab, and Vernal are included here.  In response to our request, the Department

received the following proposals:

 Aerodynamics, Inc. (ADI) – Pueblo

 SkyWest – Pueblo

 Great Lakes – Pueblo, Moab, and Vernal

 Boutique Air – Moab and Vernal

 Redtail Aviation – Moab

I have attached a copy of each of the proposals to this email for your review.  The proposals will also soon be

available online through the Federal Dockets Management System at www.regulations.gov by searching for

dockets: DOT‐OST‐1999‐6589 (Pueblo), DOT‐OST‐1997‐2827 (Moab), or DOT‐OST‐1997‐2706 (Vernal).

Please carefully review the proposals for your community and submit any comments you may have as soon as

possible, but no later than February 19, 2015.  Please send your comments via email to EAS@dot.gov.  Feel

free to contact myself or Michael Martin if you have any questions and please forward this email to any

relevant parties not included on this email.   
2

Regards,

A.J.

A.J. Muldoon

Office of Aviation Analysis

U.S. Department of Transportation

albert.muldoon@dot.gov

(202) 366‐1058
Appendix L 

CARBON-CARBON DIOXIDE 

Non-Target/Efficacy Papers that Were Accepted for ECOTOX 

Acceptable for ECOTOX and OPP

Andalo, C., Raquin, C., Machon, N., Godelle, B., and Mousseau, M. (1998). Direct and Maternal Effects of Elevated 

CO2 on Early Root Growth of Germinating Arabidopsis thaliana Seedlings. Ann.Bot.(Lond.) 81: 405-411. 

EcoReference No.: 102798 

Chemical of Concern: CBNDO; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: GRO,BCM; Rejection Code: 

TARGET(CBNDO). 

Annis, P. C. and Morton, R. (1997). The Acute Mortality Effects of Carbon Dioxide on Various Life Stages of 

Sitophilus oryzae. J.Stored Prod.Res. 33: 115-124. 

EcoReference No.: 60366 

Chemical of Concern: CBNDO; Habitat: T; Rejection Code: TARGET(CBNDO). 

Arnone III, J. A. (1997). Temporal Responses of Community Fine Root Populations to Long-Term Elevated 

Atmospheric Co2 and Soil Nutrient Patches in Model Tropical Ecosystems. Acta Oecol. 18: 367-376. 

EcoReference No.: 102847 

Chemical of Concern: CBNDO; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: GRO; Rejection Code: TARGET(CBNDO). 

Athie, I., Gomes, R. A. R., Bolonhezi, S., Valentini, S. R. T., and De Castro, M. F. P. M. (1998). Effects of Carbon 

Dioxide and Phosphine Mixtures on Resistant Populations of Stored-Grain Insects. J.Stored Prod.Res. 34: 

27-32. 

EcoReference No.: 64085 

Chemical of Concern: CBNDO; Habitat: T; Rejection Code: TARGET(CBNDO). 

Barrett, D. J., Richardson, A. E., and Gifford, R. M. (1998). Elevated Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations Increase 

Wheat Root Phosphatase Activity when Growth is Limited by Phosphorus. Aust.J.Plant Physiol. 25 : 87-

93. 

EcoReference No.: 102862 

Chemical of Concern: CBNDO; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: BCM,GRO; Rejection Code: 

TARGET(CBNDO). 

Booker, F. L., Reid, C. D., Brunschon-Harti, S., Fiscus, E. L., and Miller, J. E. (1997). Photosynthesis and 

Photorespiration in Soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.] Chronically Exposed to Elevated Carbon Dioxide 

and Ozone. J.Exp.Bot. 48: 1843-1852. 

EcoReference No.: 63625 

Chemical of Concern: CBNDO; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: PHY,BCM; Rejection Code: 

TARGET(CBNDO). 

Bosac, C., Gardner, S. D. L., Taylor, G., and Wilkins, D. (1995). Elevated CO2 and Hybrid Poplar: A Detailed 

Investigation of Root and Shoot Growth and Physiology of Populus euramericana, 'Primo'. 

For.Ecol.Manag. 74: 103-116. 

EcoReference No.: 102804 

Chemical of Concern: CBNDO; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: GRO,PHY,POP; Rejection Code:
Order entered January 9, 2014

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**
No. 05
- 14
- 00033
- CV
IN RE MARY CANDACE EVANS, Relator
Original Proceeding from the County Court at Law No. 3 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC
- 12
- 062 68
- C 

### O RDER The Court has before it Relator’s Petition for Writ of Mandamus. The Court requests that Real Party in Interest and Respondent file any responses by January 20, 2014.

/s/ JIM MOSELEY JUSTICE
Exhibit 10(a)(xxiii)
 Named Executive Officer Salaries
 Name
    
    
    AmountWilliam R. JohnsonChairman, President, and Chief Executive Officer
    
    
    $
    1,250,000David C. MoranExecutive Vice President  President & Chief Executive Officer of Heinz North America
    
    
    $
    651,000C.
Scott OHaraExecutive Vice President and President and Chief Executive Officer
of Heinz Europe
    
    
    $
    621,000Arthur B. WinkleblackExecutive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
    
    
    $
    625,000
#### Elway Company, Respondent, v. Louie R. Pettit and Charles H. Smith, Appellants.

Judgment affirmed, with costs, on the authority of *Shelly*v. *City of New York {ante,*p. 233), decided herewith. Jenks, P. J., Burr, Thomas and Stapleton, JJ., concurred; Hirsehberg, J., not voting.
§ 551.116 Discipline. ( a ) Staff shall require the pretrial inmate to abide by Bureau of Prisons rules on Inmate Discipline (see 28 CFR part 541, subpart B), subject to the limitations of § 551.106 of this part.
( b ) Staff shall advise the court, through the U.S. Marshal, of repeated or serious disruptive behavior by a pretrial inmate.