alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit No. 32.1



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



In connection with the Quarterly Report of United Service Attendants,  Inc. (the
"Company")  on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, Roger
E. Pawson,  Chief Executive and 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:

     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.

January 14, 2005                           By: /s/Roger E. Pawson
                                               ---------------------------
                                               Roger E. Pawson
                                               Chief Executive Officer,
                                               Chief Financial Officer



------------------------
This  certification  accompanies  the  Report  pursuant  to  Section  906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 and  shall not be deemed  filed by the  Company  for
purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

A signed  original of this written  statement  required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the  electronic  version of this written  statement
required by Section 906,  has been  provided to the Company and will be retained
by the Company and furnished to the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission or its
staff upon request.
#### In the Matter of Andrew J. Maloney against William Wilson, as Commissioner of the Department of Housing and Buildings of the City of New York, et al.

Present — Martin, P. J., Townley, Glennon, Untermyer and Dore, JJ.
475 P.2d 320

#### Matias L. CHACON, as Administrator of the Estate of Henry C. Salazar, Sr., Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MOUNTAIN STATES MUTUAL CASUALTY COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 9032.

Supreme Court of New Mexico.

Oct. 9, 1970.

• ' Chavez & Roberts, Santa Fe, for plaintiff-appellant.

Jones, Gallegos, Snead & Wertheim, B. D. Barberousse, Santa Fe, for defendantappellee.

OPINION

.PER CURIAM.

An appeal has been taken from a summary judgment granted defendant-appellee, in an action brought to recover $122,750.00 compensatory damages and $122,750.00 punitive damages. The action was brought by the administrator against his decedent’s • insurer with whom decedent had an insurance policy which provided for the payment of up to $5,000.00 for damages suffered •by the insured as a result of injuries received through the fault of an uninsured motorist.

The complaint alleges that the actions of the insurer, the appellee here, in moving to dismiss the insured’s suit against the uninsured motorist was done in bad faith and was done willfully, maliciously, and without due regard for the consequences; and that this bad faith was the proximate cause of the compensatory damage above indicated. We believe the action sounds in tort.

Appellant does not use the word “tort,” and we have been unable to find any cases directly in point. The vast majority of the cases, however, where judgments in excess of the policy limits have gone against insurance companies for their *bad faith*in defending or in refusing to settle have been held to be tort actions, while few have been on the basis of an implied contract. See Comment, 34 N.Y.U.L.Rev. 783 (1959).

Section 16-7-8, N.M.S.A., 1953 Comp. (1969 Supp.), states in part:

> “The appellate jurisdiction of the court of appeals is coextensive with the state, and the court has jurisdiction to review on appeal:

> “A. any civil action which includes a count in which one or more of the parties seeks damages on an issue based on tort, including but not limited to products liability actions;”

For the determination of jurisdiction on this appeal, we believe that this civil action “includes a count in which one * * * seeks damages on an issue based on tort * * *»

Thus, as in Balizer v. Shaver, 81 N.M. 53, 475 P.2d 319 (1970), we direct the transfer of this case to the Court of Appeals.

It is so ordered.

TACKETT, WATSON and SISK; JJ„ concur.
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

I,
Robert deRose, Chief Executive Officer of Education Lending Group, Inc. (the Company ), do hereby certify in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1.             The Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the quarter ending September 30, 2002 (the Periodic 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 Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

|Date: November 13, 2002 | By:    | /s/ Robert deRose      
|----------------------- | ------ | -----------------------
|                        |        |                        
|                        | Name:  | Robert deRose          
|                        | Title: | Chief Executive Officer

20
### Part B—General Provisions
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

DAY HIGH

 680

 1,463

 1,570

 2,235

 4,160

 3,671

 1,535

 1,283

 569

 436

 363

 295

 223

 198

 180

 310

 448

 454

 355

 304

 298

 290

 229

 207

 190

 175

 182

 196

 207

 221

 231

 277

 317

 360

 398

 438

 407

 393

 291

 296

 282

 261

 215

 180

 163

 167

 170

 182

 248

 249

 201

 174

 171

 186

 184

 168

 167

 171

 179

 195

 206

 216

 339

 496

 571

 744

 1,389

 1,301

 587

 513

 416

 313

 295

 239

 194

 178

 175

 194

 232

 299

 289

 254

 223

 200

 199

 190

 177

 169

 178

 188

 201

 212

 222

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

JANUARY 2019 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: February 11, 2019

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

14 DAY

ACCUM

MEAN

14 DAY

AVG

MEAN

 11,016

 10,218

 9,863

 9,522

 9,737

 9,852

 9,000

 8,516

 8,245

 8,129

 8,068

 7,930

 7,740

 7,575

 7,411

 7,109

 6,770

 6,325

 5,225

 4,178

 3,814

 3,501

 3,284

 3,161

 3,043

 2,973

 2,957

 2,967

 2,993

 3,011

 3,001

 787

 730

 705

 680

 696

 704

 643

 608

 589

 581

 576

 566

 553

 541

 529

 508

 484

 452

 373

 298

 272

 250

 235

 226

 217

 212

 211

 212

 214

 215

 214

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

EMMATON TOP ON THE SACRAMENTO RIVER
### §4104. Transfer of offenders on probation

(a) Prior to consenting to the transfer to the United States of an offender who is on probation, the Attorney General shall determine that the appropriate United States district court is willing to undertake the supervision of the offender.

(b) Upon the receipt of an offender on probation from the authorities of a foreign country, the Attorney General shall cause the offender to be brought before the United States district court which is to exercise supervision over the offender.

(c) The court shall place the offender under supervision of the probation officer of the court. The offender shall be supervised by a probation officer, under such conditions as are deemed appropriate by the court as though probation had been imposed by the United States district court.

(d) The probation may be revoked in accordance with section 3565 of this title and the applicable provisions of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. A violation of the conditions of probation shall constitute grounds for revocation. If probation is revoked the suspended sentence imposed by the sentencing court shall be executed.

(e) The provisions of sections 4105 and 4106 of this title shall be applicable following a revocation of probation.

(f) Prior to consenting to the transfer from the United States of an offender who is on probation, the Attorney General shall obtain the assent of the court exercising jurisdiction over the probationer.

(Added Pub. L. 95–144, §1, Oct. 28, 1977, 91 Stat. 1215; amended Pub. L. 107–273, div. B, title IV, §4002(e)(6), Nov. 2, 2002, 116 Stat. 1810.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2002—Subsec. (d). Pub. L. 107–273 substituted "section 3565 of this title and the applicable provisions of" for "section 3653 of this title and rule 32(f) of".
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

DAY HIGH

 451

 407

 491

 484

 463

 438

 491

 508

 558

 482

 389

 378

 365

 352

 369

 375

 459

 611

 982

 1,897

 1,672

 1,590

 2,492

 2,863

 2,608

 1,537

 1,075

 1,050

 1,306

 1,615

 194

 185

 178

 175

 167

 165

 167

 181

 177

 160

 165

 167

 175

 179

 182

 192

 192

 187

 194

 200

 218

 244

 275

 264

 254

 255

 256

 228

 226

 215

 256

 228

 223

 233

 231

 232

 270

 293

 293

 248

 230

 221

 227

 222

 222

 221

 230

 252

 323

 520

 552

 518

 726

 825

 845

 600

 489

 394

 398

 413

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

JUNE 2009 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: July 29, 2009

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

14 DAY

ACCUM

MEAN

14 DAY

AVG

MEAN

 3,489

 3,561

 3,634

 3,713

 3,761

 3,757

 3,768

 3,778

 3,755

 3,715

 3,647

 3,564

 3,469

 3,407

 3,373

 3,366

 3,373

 3,392

 3,484

 3,772

 4,054

 4,279

 4,712

 5,289

 5,904

 6,283

 6,545

 6,717

 6,893

 7,085

 249

 254

 260

 265

 269

 268

 269

 270

 268

 265

 261

 255

 248

 243

 241

 240

 241

 242

 249

 269

 290

 306

 337

 378

 422

 449

 468

 480

 492

 506

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

EMMATON BOTTOM ON THE SACRAMENTO RIVER
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

DAY HIGH

 2,149

 2,433

 3,338

 4,538

 2,678

 2,195

 2,276

 1,279

 1,511

 1,594

 2,146

 2,391

 1,946

 289

 3,606

 5,016

 5,660

 5,893

 6,217

 6,179

 5,432

 4,533

 4,366

 3,296

 2,726

 3,174

 3,844

 4,688

 4,652

 5,547

 5,795

 354

 361

 369

 475

 392

 321

 345

 310

 315

 311

 319

 308

 280

 287

 300

 364

 402

 527

 511

 610

 513

 543

 392

 449

 405

 386

 393

 415

 415

 462

 545

 734

 856

 1,068

 1,476

 956

 726

 690

 539

 531

 616

 877

 756

 686

 288

 1,229

 1,561

 1,790

 2,062

 2,472

 2,646

 2,361

 2,176

 1,581

 1,379

 1,091

 1,129

 1,356

 1,791

 1,876

 2,122

 2,524

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

OCTOBER 2012 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: February 7, 2013

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

14 DAY

ACCUM

MEAN

14 DAY

AVG

MEAN

 10,475

 10,622

 11,048

 11,884

 12,204

 12,253

 12,260

 12,081

 11,890

 11,642

 11,641

 11,450

 11,252

 10,799

 11,294

 11,999

 12,721

 13,307

 14,823

 16,743

 18,414

 20,051

 21,101

 21,864

 22,078

 22,451

 23,121

 24,624

 25,271

 25,832

 26,566

 748

 759

 789

 849

 872

 875

 876

 863

 849

 832

 832

 818

 804

 771

 807

 857

 909

 951

 1,059

 1,196

 1,315

 1,432

 1,507

 1,562

 1,577

 1,604

 1,652

 1,759

 1,805

 1,845

 1,898

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

EMMATON BOTTOM ON THE SACRAMENTO RIVER
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANTTO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of Beacon Power Corporation (the “Company”)on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2009 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, F.William Capp, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

 

(1) TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2) Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| /s/  F. William Capp     |   |
|--------------------------|--------|
| F.  William Capp         |   |
| Chief  Executive Officer |   |
|                     |   |
| August 6,  2009     |   |

 

----
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection with the QuarterlyReport of Adsero Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended September 30, 2005 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Yvon Léveillé, Chief Executive Officer of theCompany, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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. |
|--------|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

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

 

 

/s/ Yvon Léveillé
| Name: | Yvon Léveillé |  
Title:

Chief Executive Officer

Date:

November 18, 2005

  |
|-------|-------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------|
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 62 (Thursday, March 31, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 17996]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-7536]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service


Open Meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Small Business/Self 
Employed Correspondence Exam Toll Free Project Committee

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Treasury.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: An open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Small Business/
Self Employed Correspondence Exam Toll Free Project Committee will be 
conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comments, 
ideas, and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal 
Revenue Service.

DATES: The meeting will be held Monday, May 16, 2011 and Tuesday, May 
17, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Timothy Shepard at 1-888-912-1227 or 
206-220-6095.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 
10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) 
that an open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Small Business/Self 
Employed Correspondence Exam Toll Free Project Committee will be held 
Monday, May 16, 2011 from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. and Tuesday, May 17, 2011 
from 8 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. Pacific Time in Seattle, WA. The public is 
invited to make oral comments or submit written statements for 
consideration. Notification of intent to participate must be made with 
Timothy Shepard. For more information and site location please contact 
Mr. Shepard at 1-888-912-1227 or 206-220-6095, or write TAP Office, 915 
2nd Avenue, MS W-406, Seattle, WA 98174 or post comments to the web 
site: http://www.improveirs.org.
    The agenda will include various IRS issues.

    Dated: March 24, 2011.
Shawn Collins,
Director, Taxpayer Advocacy Panel.
[FR Doc. 2011-7536 Filed 3-30-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
### §3482. Evidence and witnesses—(Rule)

#### See Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure

Competency and privileges of witnesses and admissibility of evidence governed by principles of common law, Rule 26.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 833.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, referred to in text, was amended in 1972. The subject matter is covered by the Federal Rules of Evidence, set out in the Appendix to Title 28, Judiciary and Judicial Procedure.
No. 12,302.

#### Barber *v.*Meyer, et al.

Decided June 17, 1929.

Mr. L. E. Kenworthy, for plaintiff in error.

Messrs. Smith, Brook, Akolt & Campbell, Mr. H. A. Lindsley, for defendants in error.

*Department One.*

Mr. Justice Adams

delivered the opinion of the court.

Action in tort brought by Barber against Meyer, George and Scott, who are officers, directors and stockholders of the Seott-George Grain Company, a Colorado corporation, to recover judgment for money which *176plaintiff alleges belonged to bim, and which he. claims was converted by defendants to their own use.'' Defendants’ motion for nonsuit was sustained and the action dismissed. Plaintiff brings error. ' : .

Counsel for plaintiff says- that this case- is the same in principal as *Scott v. Shook,*80 Colo. 40, 249 Pac. 259, 47 A. L. R. 1108. We think he has taken too'much for granted. The allegations of the complaint are similar, but not the evidence. Plaintiff fell into the mistake against which we particularly cautioned on petition for rehearing in *Scott v. Shook, supra.*We said at page 46 of the opinion: “Counsel for -defendants erroneously assume that we have held that defendants were liable solely because they were directors of the Scott-George Grain Company. We did not so hold; *.* *” In the present action, plaintiff rested after the presentation of that which his counsel termed a “prima facie” ease, but he assumed too much. There was an absence of proof of the board of trade. transactions detailed at length in the other suit, brought by .another-plaintiff, but not in evidence here. We do not say that proof such as offered in the instant case might not have’been used, at one- time or another, as the basis for a judgment against the Scott-George Grain Company; but we do not need to sa.y that it would, for that company is not a defendant. The parties defendant in this case are not sued on contract, nor were there any contractual relations between them and the plaintiff, as far as the evidence discloses, and the proof wholly failed to support the allegations of tortious conduct. We are in accord with the trial court in sustaining the motion, for non-suit. Since this is our view of it, additional reasons for dismissal argued by defendants’ counsel need' not be considered.

Judgment affirmed.

Mr. Chief Justice Whitford, Mr. Justice Alter and Mr. Justice Campbell concur.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

DAY HIGH

 1,433

 994

 686

 472

 371

 345

 326

 318

 478

 467

 689

 1,301

 1,669

 1,225

 1,803

 1,908

 2,480

 2,576

 2,981

 2,586

 2,462

 2,824

 1,533

 1,722

 2,061

 2,568

 2,507

 2,848

 2,575

 2,993

 340

 303

 268

 240

 238

 235

 225

 237

 249

 252

 262

 264

 261

 263

 258

 265

 287

 321

 354

 341

 354

 395

 327

 335

 339

 338

 389

 323

 390

 473

 497

 390

 335

 312

 295

 280

 272

 280

 322

 311

 331

 433

 447

 452

 511

 596

 734

 878

 1,024

 803

 852

 1,036

 678

 727

 860

 877

 949

 894

 938

 1,166

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

APRIL 2014 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: June 6, 2014

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

14 DAY

ACCUM

MEAN

14 DAY

AVG

MEAN

 6,667

 6,791

 6,823

 6,757

 6,632

 6,468

 6,276

 6,024

 5,765

 5,550

 5,379

 5,201

 5,058

 4,957

 4,971

 5,177

 5,576

 6,142

 6,871

 7,394

 7,974

 8,730

 9,086

 9,502

 10,031

 10,475

 10,977

 11,419

 11,846

 12,416

 476

 485

 487

 483

 474

 462

 448

 430

 412

 396

 384

 372

 361

 354

 355

 370

 398

 439

 491

 528

 570

 624

 649

 679

 717

 748

 784

 816

 846

 887

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

EMMATON BOTTOM ON THE SACRAMENTO RIVER
Exhibit 31.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT  TO SECTION 302

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Paul S. Sidey, certify that:



1.

I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Paramco Financial Group, 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 registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;



4.

The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant 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 registrant, 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 registrant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 registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and



5.

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



(a)    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal controls over financial reporting  which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant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 registrants internal controls.



Date:  August  20, 2004.





By:



Paul S. Sidey

President and

Chief Executive Officer