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

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

Pursuant to the requirement set forth in Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of
the United States Code (18 U.S.C. Section 1350), Henry J. Fuchs, M.D., the
President and Chief Executive Officer of IntraBiotics Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the
"Company"), and David J. Tucker the Principal Financial Officer of the Company,
each hereby certifies that, to his knowledge:

1.    The Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31,
2004, to which this Certification is attached as Exhibit 32.1 (the "Periodic
Report"), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

2.    The information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition of the Company at the end of the
periods covered by the Periodic Report and the results of operations of the
Company for the periods covered by the Periodic Report.

This certification accompanies the Form 10-Q to which it relates and shall not
be deemed "filed" by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference
into any filing of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after
the date of the Form 10-Q), irrespective of any general incorporation language
contained in such filing.

In Witness Whereof, the undersigned have set their hands hereto as of the 12th
day of May, 2004.

       /s/ Henry J. Fuchs                           /s/ David J. Tucker
       ------------------                           -------------------
       Henry J. Fuchs, M.D.                         David J. Tucker
       President and Chief Executive Officer        Principal Financial Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Rule 13a-14(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of
Title 18 of the United States Code has been provided to IntraBiotics
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and will be retained by IntraBiotics Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
### §1552. Entry for immediate transportation

Any merchandise, other than explosives and merchandise the importation of which is prohibited, arriving at a port of entry in the United States may be entered, under such rules and regulations as the Secretary of the Treasury may prescribe, for transportation in bond without appraisement to any other port of entry designated by the consignee, or his agent, and by such bonded carrier as he designates, there to be entered in accordance with the provisions of this chapter.

(June 17, 1930, ch. 497, title IV, §552, 46 Stat. 742.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

Provisions similar to those in this section were contained in act Sept. 21, 1922, ch. 356, title IV, §552, 42 Stat. 975. That section was superseded by section 552 of act June 17, 1930, comprising this section, and repealed by section 651(a)(1) of the 1930 act.

Prior provisions for transportation in bond without appraisement of merchandise with certain exceptions, when imported at certain named ports and destined for certain ports, were contained in act June 10, 1880, ch. 190, §§1 (as amended by act June 14, 1880, ch. 214, and act June 20, 1884, ch. 103) 2, 7, and 9, 21 Stat. 173, 174, 175. Sections 5 (as amended by act July 2, 1884, ch. 142, and act Feb. 23, 1887, ch. 215, and act Feb. 2, 1899, ch. 84) and 6 (as amended by act July 2, 1884, ch. 142), regulated the transportation and transfer of the merchandise. The act of June 10, 1880 was amended by act Feb. 23, 1887, ch. 218, 24 Stat. 414, and its provisions were extended by various acts to ports other than those originally named. The act of June 10, 1880, ch. 190, as amended, and the acts of Feb. 23, 1887, ch. 218, and Feb. 2, 1899, ch. 84, were all repealed by act Sept. 21, 1922, ch. 356, title IV, §643, 42 Stat. 989, and the various acts extending the provisions of the act of June 10, 1880, thereupon became inoperative.

R.S. §§2990–2997, as amended by act Feb. 18, 1875, ch. 80, 18 Stat. 319, and as extended by act Mar. 14, 1876, ch. 23, 19 Stat. 7, and act Aug. 14, 1876, ch. 270, 19 Stat. 139, contained provisions somewhat similar to those of the act of June 10, 1880, ch. 190, and were repealed by section 8 of the 1880 act.

R.S. §2581, relative to the transshipment of merchandise transported in bond to the port of Brownsville, by Brazos Harbor; R.S. §§2816–2831, as amended by act Feb. 27, 1877, ch. 69, §1, 19 Stat. 246, 247, and act June 16, 1880, ch. 239, 21 Stat. 283, relative to transportation of merchandise intended to be imported into certain ports of delivery; and R.S. §2998, prescribing a penalty for breaking or entering any car, etc., containing merchandise transported under sections 2990–2997, or defacing any lock or seal, etc.—were all repealed by act Sept. 21, 1922, ch. 356, title IV, §642, 42 Stat. 989.
(No. 77-CC-0080

#### Larry Meyer, Claimant, *v.*State of Illinois, Respondent.

*Order filed March 20, 1978.*

Per Curiam.

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 was allegedly possessed while incarcerated. Claimant contends that his property was lost, misplaced, stolen or destroyed while he was imprisoned, and that the loss of *196his property was proximately caused by the negligence of employees of the State of Illinois.

In *Bargas v. State, 32 Ill.Ct.Cl. ,*this Court held that the State of Illinois does not owe a duty to inmates of its penal institutions to safeguard property which inmates keep in their cells. In the companion case of *Doubling v. State, 32 Ill.Ct.Cl.1,*we further held that only where the State takes actual physical possession of the property of an inmate, as during the course of his transfer between penal institutions, does a duty arise to use reasonable care in protecting the inmate’s property.

The complaint in this action does not allege that Claimant’s property was delivered to agents of the State, but rather that the property disappeared or was damaged in Claimant’s cell. Under our reasoning in *Bargas v. State supra,*and *Doubling v. State supra,*the complaint herein fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

It is therefore ordered that this cause be, and hereby is, dismissed.
Exhibit 32.1

 

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

 

In connection with the Annual Report of VitalStream Holdings, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Paul S. Summers, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Subsection 1350, as adopted pursuant to Subsection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6380

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus GRALING EDWARD ARNOLD, a/k/a Graling Shykia Asante, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge. (CR-00-8; CA-02-677) Submitted: July 29, 2004 Decided: August 4, 2004 Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Graling Edward Arnold, Appellant Pro Se. Brian Ronald Hood, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Graling Edward Arnold seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2255 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Arnold has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Arnold’s motion for appointment of counsel, deny a certificate of appealability, and dismiss the appeal. 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
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen, 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.

 November 25, 2015

d1124

Order 

Clerk

November 25, 2015

152356(76)(78)(79)

TEREES WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 152356

COA: 321677

Muskegon CC: 13-049184-CH

FANNIE MAE, a/k/a FEDERAL NATIONAL

MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION,

Defendant-Appellee. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for immediate consideration is GRANTED. 

The motion for reconsideration of this Court’s October 23, 2015 order is considered, and 

it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was entered erroneously. The 

motion for stay is DENIED.
#### §§ 462.43-462.44 [Reserved]
### Payment of Duty
###### Editorial Note on Part 18

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 18 appear by T.D. ATF-436, 66 FR 5471, 5472, Jan. 19, 2001.

#### § 18.23 Registry of stills.

The provisions of subpart C of part 29 of this chapter are applicable to stills or distilling apparatus located on concentrate plant premises used for the production of concentrate. As provided under § 29.55, the listing of a still in the application, and approval of the application, constitutes registration of the still.

(Sec. 201, Pub. L. 85-859, 72 Stat. 1355, as amended, 1392, as amended (26 U.S.C. 5179, 5511))

[T.D. ATF-207, 50 FR 23681, June 5, 1985, as amended by T.D. ATF-462, 66 FR 42736, Aug. 15, 2001]
§ 668.195 Participation rate index appeals. ( a ) *Eligibility.* ( 1 ) You may appeal a notice of a loss of eligibility under § 668.187(a)(1), based on one cohort default rate over 40 percent, if your participation rate index for that cohort's fiscal year is equal to or less than 0.06015.
( 2 ) You may appeal a notice of a loss of eligibility under § 668.187(a)(2), based on three cohort default rates of 25 percent or greater, if your participation rate index is equal to or less than 0.0375 for any of those three cohorts' fiscal years.
( b ) *Calculating your participation rate index.* ( 1 ) Except as provided in paragraph (b)(2) of this section, your participation rate index for a fiscal year is determined by multiplying your cohort default rate for that fiscal year by the percentage that is derived by dividing— ( i ) The number of students who received an FFELP or a Direct Loan Program loan to attend your institution during a period of enrollment, as defined in 34 CFR 682.200 or 685.102, that overlaps any part of a 12-month period that ended during the 6 months immediately preceding the cohort's fiscal year, by
( ii ) The number of regular students who were enrolled at your institution on at least a half-time basis during any part of the same 12-month period.
( 2 ) If your cohort default rate for a fiscal year is calculated as an average rate under § 668.183(d)(2), you may calculate your participation rate index for that fiscal year using either that average rate or the cohort default rate that would be calculated for the fiscal year alone using the method described in § 668.183(d)(1).
( c ) *Deadline for submitting an appeal.* You must send us your appeal under this section, including all supporting documentation, within 30 days after you receive the notice of your loss of eligibility.
( d ) *Determination.* ( 1 ) You do not lose eligibility under § 668.187 if we determine that you meet the requirements for a participation rate index appeal.
( 2 ) If we determine that your participation rate index for a fiscal year is equal to or less than 0.0375, under paragraph (d)(1) of this section, we also excuse you from any subsequent loss of eligibility under § 668.187(a)(2) that would be based on the official cohort default rate for that fiscal year.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 1845-0022) (Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1082, 1085, 1094, 1099c)
### §2382. Misprision of treason

Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States and having knowledge of the commission of any treason against them, conceals and does not, as soon as may be, disclose and make known the same to the President or to some judge of the United States, or to the governor or to some judge or justice of a particular State, is guilty of misprision of treason and shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than seven years, or both.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 807; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, §330016(1)(H), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)

#### Historical and Revision Notes

Based on title 18, U.S.C., 1940 ed., §3 (Mar. 4, 1909, ch. 321, §3, 35 Stat. 1088).

Mandatory punishment provision was rephrased in the alternative.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1994—Pub. L. 103–322 substituted "fined under this title" for "fined not more than $1,000".
#### § 692.72 May a State use the funds it receives under the SLEAP Program to pay administrative costs?

A State may not use any of the funds it receives under the SLEAP Program to pay any administrative costs.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070c-3a)

[66 FR 34040, June 26, 2001]
(No. 74-CC-457

#### Dreymiller & Kray, Inc., Claimant, *vs.*State of Illinois, Department of Corrections, Respondent.

*Opinion filed April 17, 1974.*

Geister, Schnell, Richards & Brown, Attorney for Claimant.

*359William J. Scott, Attorney General; Saul R. Wexler, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.

Per Curiam.
§ 606.14 How many applications for a development grant may an institution submit? In any fiscal year, an institution of higher education may— ( a ) Submit an application for an individual development grant; and
( b ) Be part of a cooperative arrangement application.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1101 *et seq.*)
[64 FR 70147, Dec. 15, 1999. Redesignated at 85 FR 59981, Sept. 23, 2020]
- All
            - Title
            - Author
            - Subject
            - Date
            - Full-Text

            -                              Explore                            ******                - Educational Resources
              - Archival Collections
              -                                      Themes                                    ******                  - Economic Data
                - Federal Reserve
                - View all 
              - Timelines 
            -                              Browse                            ******                - Titles
              - Authors
              - Subjects
              - Dates 
            -                              About                            ******                - About FRASER
              - FAQ
              - Contact Us
              -                                      FRASER API                                    ******                  - REST API
                - OAI-PMH 
            - Inside FRASER Blog

            - **

Home                 > Browse by Title > History of Wages in the United States From Colonial Times to 1928

              																	United States. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 						*History of Wages in the United States From Colonial Times to 1928 : Bulletin of the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, No. 604*,												Washington, D.C: 								U.S. G.P.O., 										October 1929,									https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/title/4126,			accessed on August 22, 2024.						    

        - **FRASER**
        - About
        - FAQ
        - Legal and Privacy
        - FRASER API

          -                              @FedFRASER 
          - ** Contact Us
          -  **  What's New  
          -  **  Inside FRASER
Exhibit 21.1

                          EnSurge, Inc.

                 SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT

      Subsidiary Name                State or Other     Names Under Which
                                    Jurisdiction of    Each Subsidiary Does
                                    Incorporation or         Business
                                      Organization
   ---------------------------      ----------------   -------------------

   Outbound Enterprises, Inc.             Utah                Same

   iShopper Internet Services, Inc.       Utah                Same

   NowSeven.com, Inc.                     Delaware            Same

   Stinkyfeet.com, Inc.                   Utah                Same

   Uniq Studios, Inc.                     Nevada              Same

   Totalinet.net, Inc.                    Nevada              Same

   Atlantic Technologies                  Florida             Same
   International, Inc.

   Internet Software Solutions, Inc.      Florida             Same

   KT Solutions, Inc.                     California          Same

   ZaiBon, Inc.                           Nevada              Same
3/26/2020 Petersburg and Wrangell Area Cabins

https://permanent.access.gpo.gov/gpo17655/psgwrgl_map.html 1/1

List of Cabins| Cabin Information | Tongass Home
G. BRAD BECKSTEADCertified Public Accountant

330 E. Warm Springs
Las Vegas, NV 89119
702.528.1984
425.928.2877 (efax)

May 15, 2000

To Whom It May Concern:

The firm of G. Brad Beckstead, CPA, consents to the inclusion of my report of May 15, 2000, on the Financial Statements of Future Carz.com, Inc. for the quarter March 31, 2000, in any filings which are necessary now or in the near future to be filed
with the US Securities and Exchange Commission.

Signed,

/s/G. Brad Beckstead, CPA

Nevada License #2701
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

Cause No. DA 23-0594

__________________________________________________________________

IN THE MATTER OF

A.J.K., J.S.K., M.S.K. and R.A.-H.K.,

Youths in Need of Care.

_________________________________________________________________

ORDER

__________________________________________________________________

Upon consideration of Appellant Mother’s motion for extension of 

time and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including January 8, 2024, to file and serve the opening 

brief.

No further extensions will be granted.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

December 11 2023

12/11/2023
EXHIBIT 31.1

CERTIFICATION OF C.E.O. PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I,
Michael S. Hedge, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of ForeFront Holdings, Inc.

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the
statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.
Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and
for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The small business issuers other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(d)) for the small business issuer and have:

(a)
designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b) evaluated
the effectiveness of the small business issuers disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this
report based on such evaluation; and

(c) disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting
that occurred during the small business issuers most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The small business issuers other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial
reporting, to the small business issuers auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuers board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuers ability
to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

(b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees
who have a significant role in the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting.

November 14, 2006



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ Michael S. Hedge   
|Michael S. Hedge       
|Chief Executive Officer