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



EXHIBIT 32.1 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 In connection with the annual report of The Hertz Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-K for
the period ending December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the Report), I, Craig R. Koch, 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, to which this statement is furnished as an
Exhibit, 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. Date: March 21, 2005 By:
    
    /s/ Craig R. KochCraig R. KochChief Executive Officer
#### 45 Park Avenue, Inc., v. Emil H. Ronay et al.

Present — Martin, P. J., Townley, Glennon, Untermyer and Dore, JJ.
H. R. 4794 

One Hundred Sixteenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE SECOND SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Friday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and twenty 

An Act 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 8320 13th 

Avenue in Brooklyn, New York, as the ‘‘Mother Frances Xavier Cabrini Post 

Office Building’’. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. MOTHER FRANCES XAVIER CABRINI POST OFFICE 

BUILDING. 

(a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States Postal 

Service located at 8320 13th Avenue in Brooklyn, New York, shall 

be known and designated as the ‘‘Mother Frances Xavier Cabrini 

Post Office Building’’. 

(b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 

document, paper, or other record of the United States to the facility 

referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference 

to the ‘‘Mother Frances Xavier Cabrini Post Office Building’’. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
#### In the Matter of the Accounting of Fifth Avenue Bank of New York et al., as Executors of Fritz G. Schmidt, Deceased. Anna D. Schmidt, Appellant; Fifth Avenue Bank of New York, as Executor of Fritz G. Schmidt, Deceased, et al., Respondents.

(Appeal No. 4.)

Close, P. J., Hagarty, Carswell, Johnston and Adel, JJ., concur.
#### In the Matter of Jane G. Cridland, Appellant, against City of Beacon, Respondent.

Present — Carswell, J ohnston, Adel, Taylor and Lewis, J J.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

%efore the 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION 

SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 

Release No. / May 25, 2023 

WHISTLEBLOWER AWARD PROCEEDING 

File No. 2023-6

In the Matter of the Claim for an Award 

in connection with 

Notice of Covered Action 

Redacted

Redacted

Redacted

ORDER DETERMINING WHISTLEBLOWER AWARD CLAIM 

Redacted

***

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

percent ( ***

that (“Claimant”) receive a whistleblower award of more than $600,000 

which represents %) of the monetary sanctions collected, or to be collected, in 

the above-referenced Covered Action (the “Covered Action”). Claimant provided written 

notice of Claimant’s decision not to contest the Preliminary Determination. 

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

voluntarily provided original information to the Commission that led to the successful 

enforcement of the Covered Action.1

Redacted

Redacted

Redacted

Redacted

Redacted

See Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) Section 21F(b)(1), 15 

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

Redacted

Redacted

1 

2 
Redacted

Redacted

Redacted

Redacted

Redacted

Redacted

Redacted

Redacted

Redacted

Redacted

In reaching this determination, the Commission considered that Claimant provided 

substantial, ongoing assistance, including communicating with Commission staff multiple times, 

and providing documents and testimony, which helped expedite the staff’s investigation. 

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

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

By the Commission. 

Vanessa A. Countryman 

Secretary 

3 

4 

Redacted

***
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-7251

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

KELVIN O’NEIL KENNEDY,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Florence. C. Weston Houck, District Judge.

(CR-94-297, CA-98-850-4-12)

Submitted: January 18, 2001 Decided: January 25, 2001

Before WIDENER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kelvin O’Neil Kennedy, Appellant Pro Se. Marshall Prince, OFFICE

OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
* Kennedy alleges for the first time on appeal that his sentence was illegal under Apprendi v. New Jersey, 120 S. Ct. 2348

(2000). Even if this claim was properly before the court, Kennedy

was not sentenced above the statutory maximum for the offense of

conviction. As a result, the sentence does not implicate the concerns raised in Apprendi. United States v. Angle, 230 F.3d 113

(4th Cir. 2000), petition for rehearing filed, Oct. 26, 2000 (No.

96-4662).

2

PER CURIAM:

Kelvin O’Neil Kennedy seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.

2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error.* We note, however, that the

court deemed the motion untimely filed under the Antiterrorism and

Effective Death Penalty Act. We find that it was timely filed on

March 27, 1998. However, the district reviewed the claims raised

on their merits, thus the motion was properly reviewed. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v.

Kennedy, Nos. CR-94-297; CA-98-850-4-12 (D.S.C. July 31, 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
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF REGENCY EQUITIES CORP. FOR THE PERIOD ENDED DECEMBER 31,
1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                       3,068,600
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,472
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,073,072
<PP&E>                                       1,256,441
<DEPRECIATION>                                 437,684
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,891,829
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           31,811
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       872,836
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,987,182
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,891,829
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               189,302
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  124,091
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               150,144
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (84,933)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,820
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (86,753)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (.001)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (.001)


</TABLE>
CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

HELIX TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION

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 Helix Technology Corporation (the "Company") Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Paul Kawa, Interim Chief Financial 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 the best of my knowledge:

(1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(2)  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Ernest O. von Moser, Appellant, against New York State Parole Board, Respondent.

All concur.
FROM: THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE NINETEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT, COUNTY OF LINCOLN,

#### STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, vs. DOM TUMLIN, Defendant.

NO. DC-89-37 DECISION

DATED this 6th day of December, 1990.

On January 22, 1990, the Defendant was sentenced to ten (10) years for Theft; Dangerous Designation.

On December 6, 1990, the Defendant’s application for review of that sentence was heard by the Sentence Review Division of the Montana Supreme Comb.

The Defendant was present and was represented by Cath Steger, of the Montana Defender Project. The state was not represented.

Before hearing the application, the Defendant was advised that the Sentence Review Division has the authority not only to reduce the sentence or affirm it, but also to increase it if such is possible. The defendant was further advised that there is no appeal from a decision of the Sentence Review Division. The defendant acknowledged that he understood this and stated that he wished to proceed.

After careful consideration, it is the unanimous decision of the Sentence Review Division that the Judgment imposed remain the same except to change the Dangerous Designation to Non-Dangerous for purposes of parole eligibility.

The reason for the decision is that the record does not support the Dangerous Designation as imposed by the District Judge.
----

(2004/C 84 E/0532)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0162/03

by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 January 2003)

Subject:   Duties on canned Asiatic tuna

The European canning industry, particularly in Galicia, is extremely concerned about the possible reductions in duties on canned tuna from the Philippines and Thailand which, it appears, may be being considered by the World Trade Organisation (WTO).

Is the Commission aware of the damage this type of measure could cause to the European canning industry, in particular that of Galicia, at a time when Galicia is already burdened with huge economic problems owing to the ‘Prestige’ oil tanker accident?

What steps will the Commission take in order to prevent such a measure from being adopted?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(26 February 2003)

The Commission is aware of the importance of the tuna canning industry in Galicia and appreciates the concern in relation to reduced tariffs for Community imports of canned tuna from Thailand and the Philippines. It also appreciates the difficulties being experienced in that region following the ‘Prestige’ accident.

The Honourable Member will recall that during the Doha Ministerial in November 2001, the Member of the Commission responsible for Trade agreed that the Community would enter into consultations to examine the claims of Thailand and the Philippines that the Community's preferential tariff (duty-free) for imports of canned tuna from the Afriacan, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) States was causing undue impairment. The Member of the Commission also agreed that the Community would enter into mediation if the consultations failed to produce a mutually satisfactory solution. The Honourable Member will also recall that the Commission felt it necessary to take this action in order to secure the agreement of Thailand and the Philippines for a waiver that had been sought by the Community over many months for the Cotonou Agreement.

In January 2003 the Commission informed the Member States of the mediator's ‘opinion’ proposing that the Community should open a non-discriminatory quota of 25 000 tonnes at 12 % tariff rate. The Commission carefully examined the proposal and concluded that the quantity and duty rate suggested by the mediator was fair and reasonable and that it would not have an adverse economic effect on the Community market. It is worth recalling that 25 000 tonnes represents only 9 % of total imports and around 4 % of total consumption in the Community of canned tuna in 2001.

The Commission, therefore, intends making a formal proposal to the Council that the mediator's opinion should be accepted by the opening of a tariff quota as mentioned above.

----
### §7003. United States representation on the scientific review group

#### (a) In general

The Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of State, shall appoint no more than 2 scientific experts to serve on the scientific review group. An individual shall not be eligible to serve on the scientific review group while serving on the joint technical committee.

#### (b) Term

An individual appointed under subsection (a) shall be appointed for a term of not to exceed 4 years, but shall be eligible for reappointment. An individual appointed to fill a vacancy occurring prior to the expiration of a term of office of that individual's predecessor shall be appointed to serve for the remainder of that term.

#### (c) Joint appointments

In addition to individuals appointed under subsection (a), the Secretary, jointly with the Government of Canada, may appoint to the scientific review group, from a list of names provided by the advisory panel—

(1) up to 2 independent members of the scientific review group; and

(2) 2 public advisors.

(Pub. L. 109–479, title VI, §604, Jan. 12, 2007, 120 Stat. 3645.)
Editorial Note on Part 1274a
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 1274a appear at 68 FR 9846, Feb. 28, 2003, and 68 FR 10359, Mar. 5, 2003.

§ 1274a.1 Employer requirements. ( a ) *Applicable regulations.* The regulations of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) relating to the implementation of the employment eligibility and verification provisions of section 274A of the Immigration and Nationality Act (Act) are contained in 8 CFR part 274a.
( b ) *Adjudication of civil penalty proceedings.* The procedures for hearings before an administrative law judge relating to civil penalties sought by DHS under section 274A of the Act are contained in 28 CFR part 68. The regulations governing employment eligibility and verification in 8 CFR part 274a are applicable to hearings before an administrative law judge and, to the extent relevant, to cases before an immigration judge or the Board of Immigration Appeals.
[74 FR 2340, Jan. 15, 2009]
### §718f. Enforcement

For the efficient execution of this subchapter, the judges of the several courts, established under the laws of the United States, United States magistrate judges, and persons appointed by the Secretary to enforce the provisions of this subchapter, shall have, with respect thereto, like powers and duties as are conferred upon said judges, magistrate judges, and employees of the Department of the Interior by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703 et seq.), or any other Act to carry into effect any treaty for the protection of migratory birds with respect to that Act. Any bird or part thereof taken or possessed contrary to this subchapter shall, when seized, be disposed of by the Secretary in accordance with law.

(Mar. 16, 1934, ch. 71, §6, 48 Stat. 452; Pub. L. 90–578, title IV, §402(b)(2), Oct. 17, 1968, 82 Stat. 1118; Pub. L. 95–616, §3(i), Nov. 8, 1978, 92 Stat. 3112; Pub. L. 101–650, title III, §321, Dec. 1, 1990, 104 Stat. 5117; Pub. L. 109–266, §10(g), Aug. 3, 2006, 120 Stat. 677.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

The Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and "that Act", referred to in text, is act July 3, 1918, ch. 128, 40 Stat. 755, which is classified generally to subchapter II (§703 et seq.) of chapter 7 of this title. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see section 710 of this title and Tables.

#### Amendments

2006—Pub. L. 109–266 inserted section catchline, substituted "Secretary to" for "Secretary of Agriculture to" and "Department of the Interior" for "Department of Agriculture", and inserted "(16 U.S.C. 703 et seq.)" after "Migratory Bird Treaty Act".

1978—Pub. L. 95–616 substituted in last sentence "contrary to this subchapter shall, when seized, be disposed of by the Secretary in accordance with law" for "contrary to such Acts shall, when seized, be disposed of as provided by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, or Acts aforesaid".

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Change of Name

"United States magistrate judges" and "magistrate judges" substituted for "United States magistrates" and "magistrates", respectively, in text pursuant to section 321 of Pub. L. 101–650, set out as a note under section 631 of Title 28, Judiciary and Judicial Procedure. Previously, "magistrates" substituted in text for "commissioners" pursuant to Pub. L. 90–578. See chapter 43 (§631 et seq.) of Title 28.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     THIS SCHEDULE  CONTAINS SUMMARY  FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED FROM THE
BALANCE  SHEET OF PREFERRED  INVESTMENTS,  INC. AS OF SEPTEMBER 30, 2000 AND THE
RELATED  STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS  AND CASH FLOWS FOR THE NINE MONTHS THEN ENDED
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                         0
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               0
<PP&E>                                         0
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          1
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       1
<OTHER-SE>                                     (2)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   0
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               0
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               3
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (3)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (3)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (3)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0



</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 21


                      SUBSIDIARIES OF HIBERNIA CORPORATION

Name of Subsidiary                                State or other Jurisdiction of
Incorporation or Organization

Hibernia National Bank                            United States

Hibernia Capital Corporation                      Lousiana

Zachary Taylor Life Insurance                     Lousiana
  Company, Inc.

    Hibernia Investments L.L.C. (formerly
    Hibernia Investment Securities, Inc.) (1)     Lousiana

    Hibernia Insurance Agency L.L.C. (1)          Lousiana

    Hibernia Insurance Agency of Texas, Inc. (1)  Texas
----------
(1)      Subsidiary of Hibernia National Bank
# Official Journal C 427/2016

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 427 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5919 November 2016 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 427

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5919 November 2016

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | II   Information |
| | INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2016/C 427/01 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8177 — AMC UK/Odeon and UCI Cinemas) (
  1
  ) | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

II   Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2016/C 427/01

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8177 — AMC UK/Odeon and UCI Cinemas) (
  1
  )

1

1

---

| | IV   Notices |
| --- | --- |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2016/C 427/02 | Euro exchange rates | 2 |
| 2016/C 427/03 | Explanatory notes to the Combined Nomenclature of the European Union | 3 |
| | European Ombudsman |
| 2016/C 427/04 | Annual Report 2015 | 4 |

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2016/C 427/02

Euro exchange rates

2

2016/C 427/03

Explanatory notes to the Combined Nomenclature of the European Union

3

European Ombudsman

2016/C 427/04

Annual Report 2015

4

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY |
| | European Commission |
| 2016/C 427/05 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8234 — Enel/CDP Equity/Cassa Depositi e Prestiti/Enel Open Fiber/Metroweb Italia) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  ) | 5 |
| | OTHER ACTS |
| | European Commission |
| 2016/C 427/06 | Information Notice — Public Consultation — Geographical indications from the Swiss Confederation | 6 |

V   Announcements

PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY

European Commission

2016/C 427/05

Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8234 — Enel/CDP Equity/Cassa Depositi e Prestiti/Enel Open Fiber/Metroweb Italia) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  )

1

5

OTHER ACTS

European Commission

2016/C 427/06

Information Notice — Public Consultation — Geographical indications from the Swiss Confederation

6

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN