alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32.1

                        CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350,  as adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,  each of the  undersigned  officers  of  GreenShift
Corporation (the "Company"), certifies that:

     1.   The  Quarterly  Report on Form  10-QSB of the  Company for the quarter
          ended  June  30,  2006  (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 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.





                    /S/      KEVIN KREISLER
                    ----------------------------------
                             KEVIN KREISLER
                             Chief Executive Officer
Date:                        August 21, 2006


                   /S/      JAMES GRAINER
                   -----------------------------------
                            JAMES GRAINER
                            President and Chief Financial Officer
Date:                       August 21, 2006

This  certification  is made solely for the purpose of 18 U.S.C.  Section  1350,
subject  to the  knowledge  standard  contained  therein,  and not for any other
purpose.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Arthur H. GARRISON, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 02-6218.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted April 25, 2002.

Decided May 8, 2002.

Arthur H. Garrison, Appellant Pro Se. Ray B. Fitzgerald, Jr., Office of the United States Attorney, Charlottesville, Virginia; Ruth Elizabeth Plagenhoef, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before WILLIAMS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM.

Arthur H. Garrison seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion *99filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2001). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Garrison’s motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. *United States v. Garrison,*Nos. CR-97-83; CA-01-332-7 (W.D.Va. filed Jan. 10, 2002 & entered Jan. 11, 2002). We grant Garrison’s motion to construe his memorandum as support for his motion for a certificate of appealability and 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.*
#### In the Matter of City of New York, Appellant and Respondent, Relative to Acquiring Title to Real Property Required for the Addition to the Public Beach, bounded by West 15th Street and Other Streets, in the Borough of Brooklyn. Louise M. Norwood et al., Trustees of Henry N. Henderson, Deceased, et al., Respondents and Appellants.

No opinion. Close, P. J., • Carswell and Lewis, JJ., concur; Johnston and Taylor, JJ., dissent and vote •,to reverse the decree on the law and to remit the proceeding to the trial *678court with a direction to proceed to fix the damages for the taking of the real property of the respondents-appellants, respectively, in accordance with the views expressed in the following memorandum: Although, in our opinion, the learned trial justice was right in refusing to adopt the legal theory presented by the city of New York, incident to which theory was the city’s assertion that its appraisals (the so-called second set) were the only ones which recognized that the respondents-appellants’ property had the same full measure of board•walk advantage after the taking as before, we are of opinion that the justice erred in applying the so-called Fourth avenue rule *(vide Matter of City of New York [Fourth,*Avenue] 255 N. Y. 25) to the factual situation disclosed in this proceeding, to which situation that rule has no application. The attempted application of it, reflected in the decree appealed from, in our opinion resulted in the offsetting, contrary to law, of benefits from the relocated boardwalk improvement against actual damages suffered by claimants respectively by reason of the pre-emption of that part of their real property which was taken in condemnation. The proper legal theory to he employed in the fixation of damages for the taking of a given claimant’s real property herein and the law governing such taking are as follows: Where part of a parcel of real estate is taken by condemnation for public use, the owner is entitled to be compensated for the value of the part taken measured by the difference between the fair market value of the entire property and that of the remainder after the needed portion has been pre-empted, including compensation for any damages resulting to the portion of the premises not taken, not only by reason of the taking of the property required, but also by reason of the use to which the property taken is put. (Condemnation Law, § 14; *South Buffalo R. Co.*v. *Kirkover,*176 N. Y. 301; *Matter of City of New York [Consolidated Gas Co.],*190 N. Y. 350; *County of Erie*v. *Fridenberg,*221 N. Y. 389, 393; *Matter of Board of Water Supply of New York,*277 N. Y. 452, 456; *Matter of City of New York [Whitlock Avenue],*278 N. Y. 276, 282; *Town of Fallsburg*v. *Silverman,*286 N. Y. 594; *Matter of City of New York [Bockaway Beach],*288 N. Y. 75, 77.) Benefits resulting to the portion of a parcel not taken, by reason of the use to which the part taken is put, may be offset only against consequential damages. (Condemnation Law, § 14; *Matter of City of New York [Consolidated Gas Co.], supra,*360; *Matter of City of New York [Exterior St.],*285 N. Y. 455, 460.)
§ 258.3 Action upon arrival. ( a ) The master or agent of the vessel shall state on the manifest at the first port of entry: ( 1 ) Whether or not nonimmigrant crewmen aboard the vessel will perform longshore work at any port before departing the United States; and
( 2 ) If nonimmigrant crewmen will perform longshore work, which exception in section 258 of the Act permits them to do so.
( b ) If nonimmigrant crewmen will perform longshore work, the master or agent of the vessel shall present with the manifest any documentation required by 8 CFR 258.2 for the exception invoked.
( c ) If, at the time of inspection, the master or agent fails to present the documentation required for the exception invoked, then the vessel is prohibited from using nonimmigrant crewmen to perform longshore work. If crewmen aboard the vessel perform longshore work despite the prohibition, the vessel is subject to fine under section 251(d) of the Act.
( d ) The examining immigration officer shall give the master or agent a Receipt for Crew List, Form I-410, on which the officer shall note whether or not nonimmigrant crewmen will do longshore work at any port of call and, if so, under which exception. The officer shall also note which documentation supporting the exception accompanied the manifest, and any failure to present documentation which failure would prohibit crewmen from performing longshore work under the exception that the vessel invoked.
( e ) If a vessel's crewmen perform longshore activity not sanctioned by an exception but performed to prevent the imminent destruction of goods or property; severe damage to vessels, docks, or real estate; possible environmental contamination; or possible injury or death to a person, a concise report of the incident shall be made within 14 days of the incident to the Immigration and Naturalization Service seaport office that performed the inspection. If the Service agrees that the situation was one of imminent danger requiring immediate action, no fine will be imposed for the performance of a longshore activity in this isolated instance.
( f ) Failure to deliver true and complete information on the manifest or any documentation required to support an exception may result in a fine against the owner, agent, consignee, master, or commanding officer under section 251(d) of the Act.
The Honorable Mark W. Bennett, United States District Judge for the Northern 1 District of Iowa. United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 97-1948

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Northern District of Iowa. Scott Bush, * * [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: September 2, 199 7 Filed: September 9, 1997

___________ Bef ore McMILLIAN, BEAM, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD , Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM.
Sc ott Bush appeals the 60-month sentence imposed b y the district co urt after he pleaded guilty to conspiring 1 to di stribute and possess with intent to distribut e-2-

coca ine and marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B), and 846. For reversal, Bush argues that t he district court erred in attributing over 10 0 kilo grams of marijuana to him, thus subjecting him to a mandatory minimum sentence of 60 months pursuant-3-

to section 841(b)(1)(B). We affirm.
The district court based its drug quantit y deter mination on the sentencing testimony of a Dru g Enforcement Administration (DEA) agent who interviewe d Bush. According to the agent, Bush admitted he ha d received 5 to 10 pounds of marijuana per week for a year from one of his connections. The district cour t exp licitly stated it credited the agent & s testimony an d fou nd not credible Bush & s contrary testimony that h e received only 80 pounds total. We thus conclude that the dis trict court did not clearly err in attributing mor e than 10 0 kilograms to Bush. See United States v

. Adipietro , 983 F.2d 1468, 1472 (8th Cir. 1993) (standard of review; district court & s findings as to witnes s cr edibility in making drug quantity determination ar e virtually unreviewable on appeal)

. A true copy.

Attest:
CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHT H CIRCUIT.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, 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.

 June 10, 2015

s0603

Order 

Clerk

June 10, 2015

151383-4

SC: 151383-4

In re KMN, Minor. COA: 322329; 322883

Newaygo CC Family Division:

14-000805-AD

_______________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 26, 2015 

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.
<PAGE>

                                                                Exhibit 10.17(a)

                           FIRST AMENDMENT OF LEASE

This Amendment of Lease made on September 28, 1999, for Lease dated September 1,
1993 between B & K INVESTMENT COMPANY (herein called "Lessor") and SPECIALTY
EXTRUSIONS LIMITED (herein called "Lessee"), who agree as follows:

1.     Paragraph 1 - PARTIES - Shall be modified and inserted in lieu thereof
       is the following:

          This lease, dated for reference purposes only, September 1, 1993, is
          made by and between B & K Investment Company (herein called "Lessor")
          and Wakefield Extrusion Company, (herein called "Lessee").

2.     Paragraph 3.1 - TERM - Shall be modified and inserted in lieu thereof
       is the following:

          The term of this lease shall be for three (3) years commencing on
          September 1, 1999 and ending on August 31, 2002 unless terminated
          pursuant to any provision hereof.

3.     Paragraph 4 - RENT - Shall be deleted in its entirety and inserted in
       lieu thereof is the following new paragraph:

          Lessee shall pay to Lessor as rent for the Premises, monthly payments
          of $7,717.00 in advance, on the first day of each month of the term
          hereof.. Rent for any period during the term hereof which is for less
          than one month shall be a pro rata portion of the monthly installment.
          Rent shall be payable in lawful money of the United States to Lessor
          or other persons as Lessor may designate in writing.

4.     Paragraph 15 - BROKER'S FEE - Shall be deleted in its entirety.

5.     Addendum 1 - RENT ESCALATIONS - Shall be deleted in its entirety.

6      Addendum 2 - OPTION TO EXTEND - Shall be deleted in its entirety.

7.     Addendum 3 - OPTION FOR NEW OWNER TO EXTEND - Shall be deleted in
       its entirety.

8.     Effectiveness of Lease - Except as set forth in this Amendment of Lease,
       all provisions of the Lease shall remain unchanged and in full force and
       effect.

LESSOR:                                         LESSEE:

B & K INVESTMENTS COMPANY                       WAKEFIELD EXTRUSION CORP.

By: /s/ Gordon Bagne                            By: /s/ George G. Wright
   ----------------                               ----------------------
        Gordon Bagne,
        General Partner

Date: 10-26-99                                  Date: 10-26-99
      --------                                        --------


By: /s/ Robert A. Klinger
    ---------------------
        Robert A. Klinger,
        General Partner

Date:  11-29-99
       --------
IDEM INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT 

We Protect Hoosiers and Our Environment. 

100 N. Senate Avenue • Indianapolis, IN 46204 

(800) 451-6027 • (317) 232-8603 • ww.idem.IN.gov 

Michael R. Pence 

Go\'eruor 

Thomas W. Easterly 

Commissim1er 

Susan Hedman 

Regional Administrator 

U.S. EPA, Region 5 

77 West Jackson Boulevard 

Chicago, Illinois 60604 

January 28, 2015 

Re: Clarification on Certain State Implementation 

Plan Submittals for Indiana 

Dear Ms. Hedman: 

The following State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions were submitted to the United 

States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) under the signature of Nancy King, Chief, 

Rules Development Branch, Office of Legal Counsel over the past two years. With this letter, I 

confirm that I am in agreement with, and approve of, each of these submittals. 

Submittal 

SIP Title Date 

Indiana 2012 NAAQS Update, LSA #12-510(F) 01/30/2013 

Indiana Section 111(d)/129 State Plan for Sewage Sludge Incineration Units; 3261AC 02/27/2013 

11-1 0 (LSA #11-586) 

Indiana Degreasing Operations 03/14/2013 

Indiana Minor NSR for Title V and FESOP Sources (326 lAC 2-7-10.5 and 326 lAC 2- 11/07/2013 

8-11.1) 

Indiana Sewage Sludge Incinerator Monitoring; 3261AC 3-5-1(b)(6)(A); (LSA #13-215) 01/22/2014 

Indiana BART revision for Alcoa Power Generating Inc. 07/23/2014 

Indiana Ozone and PM2.5 Standards 08/20/2014 

Indiana 2013 Annual CFR Update 09/17/2014 

Indiana Alternative RACT Requirements for Jeffboat, LLC 10/23/2014 

Indiana Alcoa BART supplement 01/09/2015 

Indiana AEP Rockport, 326 lAC 5, LSA #12-392 01/13/2015 

An Equal Opportunity Employer 0 @ Recycled Paper A State that -Works 
Future submittals for revisions to the SIP will be under my signature. Please contact me 

at (317) 232-8222, if there are any questions about this clarification. 

KB/cep 

cc: John Mooney, U.S. EPA Region V 

Pamela Blakley, U.S. EPA Region V 

Doug Aburano, U.S. EPA Region V 

Steve Rosenthal, U.S. EPA Region V 

Chris Panos, U.S. EPA Region V 

Nancy King, IDEM 

Christine Pedersen, IDEM 

SIP file 

Sincerely, 

�B� 

Keith Baugues 

Assistant Commissioner 

Office of Air Quality
# Official Journal C 143/2018

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 143 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6124 April 2018 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 143

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6124 April 2018

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2018/C 143/01 | Euro exchange rates | 1 |
| 2018/C 143/02 | Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive practices and dominant positions at its meeting on 19 February 2018 concerning the draft decision relating to Case AT.39920 — Braking Systems — Rapporteur: FINLAND | 2 |
| 2018/C 143/03 | Final Report of the Hearing Officer — Braking Systems (AT.39920) | 3 |
| 2018/C 143/04 | Summary of Commission Decision of 21 February 2018 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT.39920 – Braking Systems) (notified under document C(2018) 925) | 4 |

Notice No

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2018/C 143/01

Euro exchange rates

1

2018/C 143/02

Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive practices and dominant positions at its meeting on 19 February 2018 concerning the draft decision relating to Case AT.39920 — Braking Systems — Rapporteur: FINLAND

2

2018/C 143/03

Final Report of the Hearing Officer — Braking Systems (AT.39920)

3

2018/C 143/04

Summary of Commission Decision of 21 February 2018 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT.39920 – Braking Systems) (notified under document C(2018) 925)

(notified under document C(2018) 925)

4

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY |
| | European Commission |
| 2018/C 143/05 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8885 — Carlyle/Accolade Wines Holdings Australia/Accolade Wines Holdings Europe) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  ) | 8 |
| 2018/C 143/06 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8856 — Archer Daniels Midland/Cargill/JV Egypt) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  ) | 10 |

V   Announcements

PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY

European Commission

2018/C 143/05

Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8885 — Carlyle/Accolade Wines Holdings Australia/Accolade Wines Holdings Europe) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  )

1

8

2018/C 143/06

Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8856 — Archer Daniels Midland/Cargill/JV Egypt) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  )

1

10

---

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

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance.

1

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

EN
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.1

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

         In connection with the Quarterly Report of Q Comm International, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB/A for the period ending March 31, 2003 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Paul Hickey, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, 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; 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/ Paul Hickey
---------------
Paul Hickey
Chief Executive Officer


June 12, 2003
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ARTEM PAKHOL,

Petitioner,

 v.

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney

General,

Respondent.

No. 20-71959

Agency No. A201-910-367

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted December 8, 2021** 

San Francisco, California

Before: LUCERO,*** IKUTA, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges. 

Artem Pakhol seeks review of a decision of the Board of Immigration

Appeals (BIA) dismissing his administrative appeal of an Immigration Judge’s (IJ)

FILED

DEC 13 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

*** The Honorable Carlos F. Lucero, United States Circuit Judge for the

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, sitting by designation.
order denying his request for a continuance to obtain counsel, and affirming the

IJ’s denial of Pakhol’s applications for asylum and withholding of removal. We

have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252.

Both parties recognize that Pakhol’s right to counsel claim may be affected

by intervening caselaw, see Usubakunov v. Garland, No. 18-72974, 2021 WL

5045740, at *5 (9th Cir. Nov. 1, 2021), and therefore request remand to the BIA. 

Where, as here, intervening caselaw may affect an agency’s previous decision, the

proper course is to remand to the agency for the “the opportunity to address the

matter in the first instance.” INS v. Orlando Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 17 (2002) (per

curiam). We therefore reject Pakhol’s request to remand to the BIA with directions

to order a new hearing. See Meza-Vazquez v. Garland, 993 F.3d 726, 729 (9th Cir.

2021). Because we remand to the BIA to reconsider Pakhol’s right to counsel

claim in light of Usubakunov, we do not address Pakhol’s additional claims on

appeal. 

REMANDED.1

1

 Each party will bear its own costs on appeal.

2
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

February 19, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

135295 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

CARLTON GORDON, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 135295 

 COA: 277331 

WCAC: 06-000038 

NUCRAFT FURNITURE COMPANY, INC., 

CONNECTICUT INDEMNITY COMPANY, and 

MICHIGAN INSURANCE COMPANY, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 9, 2007 

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

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

0211 

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. 

February 19, 2008 

 Clerk
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-6050

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

ORLANDO DUNCAN,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior

District Judge. (CR-02-86)

Submitted: April 14, 2004 Decided: April 27, 2004

Before WIDENER, WILKINSON, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Orlando Duncan, Appellant Pro Se. Stephen Aubrey West, Assistant

United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Orlando Duncan appeals the district court’s order denying

his motion for return of property. We have reviewed the record and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning

of the district court. See United States v. Duncan, No. CR-02-86

(E.D.N.C. Oct. 30, 2003). 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.

AFFIRMED