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

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Avantogen Oncology, Inc., on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ending September 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, Christopher Nowers, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 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.



Date: November 10, 2006By:

/s/ Christopher NowersChristopher NowersChief Executive Officer


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 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.
§ 30.263 May a surviving spouse reserve a life estate when a tribe exercises its statutory option to purchase? Yes. When the heir or devisee whose interests are subject to the tribal purchase option is a surviving spouse, the spouse may reserve a life estate in one-half of the interests. ( a ) To reserve a life estate, the spouse must, within 30 days after the tribe has exercised its option to purchase the interest, file with the agency both: ( 1 ) A written notice to reserve a life estate; and
( 2 ) A certification that copies of the notice have been mailed on the same date to the judge and the tribe.
( b ) Failure to file the notice on time, as required by paragraph (a)(1) of this section, constitutes a waiver of the option to reserve a life estate.
#### Thomas L. Reeve, Defendant in Error, v. Leibrandt Plumbing Company, Plaintiff in Error.

Gen. No. 16,222.

*Evidence*— effect *of hearsay.*Hearsay evidence does not tend to establish, a fact sought to be proven.

Error to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Stephen A. Foster, Judge, presiding.

Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the March term, 1910.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed March 14, 1912.

Harry A. Biossat, for plaintiff in error.

No appearance for defendant in error.

Mr. Justice McSurely

delivered the opinion of the court.

This is a suit by Reeve, hereafter called the plaintiff, against the Leibrandt Plumbing Company, a corporation, hereafter called the defendant, to recover for an alleged breach of contract. Upon the trial by the court below, the issues were found for the plaintiff, the damages assessed at $50, and judgment entered thereon, which judgment we are asked by the defendant to reverse.

It is not disputed that the parties entered into a written agreement for Reeve, the plaintiff, to do certain gas-fitting work at 3443 Wabash avenue for the defendant, for the sum of $50. Neither is it disputed that the plaintiff proceeded to do the work, and while progressing with it and nearing completion he was stopped and prevented by the defendant from doing further work, although the plaintiff was willing and able to complete the job. The explanation of this conduct of the defendant is that before the plaintiff was given the contract he was asked by Fred Leibrandt, the president of the defendant company, “if he was a *542union man, and he said no, but that he had a permit from the union to do work, so I told him that under the circumstances I would give him the contract.” It is claimed that the representation by the plaintiff that he had “a'permit from the union to do work” was untrue, and therefore a misrepresentation which rendered the contract void.

We ag’ree fully with the attorney for plaintiff in error in his statements of the law, but the trouble with his case is that there is no competent evidence that the statement made by the plaintiff was untrue when made. The only thing in the record touching this question is the testimony of Leibrandt, who says, “I was notified by the union that the plaintiff had no permit.” Manifestly this is only hearsay, and no evidence whatever as to the fact of whether or not Eeeve had a permit.

The defendant therefore having failed to justify its interference with plaintiff’s work, the plaintiff was entitled to recover the full amount provided for in the contract. The judgment therefore is affirmed.

*Affirmed.*
CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Michael B. McLaughlin, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial
Officer, of Bernard, Allan & Edwards, Inc. certify that:

I have reviewed this report on Form 10-KSB of Bernard, Allan
& Edwards, Inc.

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.

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

I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls
and procedures for the Company.

I have designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that
material information is made known, particularly during the period in
which the periodic report is being prepared.

I have evaluated the effectiveness of the Company's disclosure controls
and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of
this report; and I have presented in this report conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based
on the required evaluation as of that date.

I have disclosed to the Company's auditors and to the audit committee
of the board of directors (or persons fulfilling the equivalent
function):

 (i) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of
internal controls which could adversely affect the Company's ability
to record, process, summarize and report financial data and have
identified for the Company's auditors any material weaknesses in
internal controls; and

 (ii) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management
or other employees who have a significant role in the Company's internal
controls; and I have indicated in this report whether or not there
were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that
could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of
our evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to
significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.


Dated: March 26, 2004




BY: /s/ Michael B. McLaughlin

Michael B. McLaughlin
Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer
Sacramento River

SSUUTTTTEE RR CCOO

CCOOLLUUSSAA CC OO

T13N R1E T13N R2E

60.4 L

7 8

1 6 5

13 18

12

17

24 19 20

2

14

11

23

Cranmore

Everglade

Fraziers Landing

Contract No. 14-06-200-1042A-R-1

Exhibit B

Howald Farms, Inc.

725-202-73

Note: The Public Land Survey depicted here

was digitized from USGS topographic maps.

0 0.5 1

Miles

Date: November 8, 2004

File Name: N:\districts\contracts\howald_farms_inc\howald_farms_inc.mxd

Contractor's Service Area

Point of Diversion
<PAGE>

Exhibit 21.1

Subsidiaries of Nexstar Finance, L.L.C.

1.  Nexstar Finance, Inc.

2.  Nexstar Broadcasting of Northeastern Pennsylvania, L.L.C.

3.  Nexstar Broadcasting of Joplin, L.L.C.

4.  Nexstar Broadcasting of Erie, L.L.C.

5.  Nexstar Broadcasting of Beaumont/Port Arthur, L.L.C.

6.  Nexstar Broadcasting of Wichita Falls, L.L.C.

7.  Nexstar Broadcasting of Rochester, L.L.C.

8.  Nexstar Broadcasting of Abilene, L.L.C.

9.  Entertainment Realty Corporation

10. Nexstar Broadcasting of the Midwest, Inc.

11. Nexstar Broadcasting of Champaign, L.L.C.

12. Nexstar Broadcasting of Peoria, L.L.C.

13. Nexstar Broadcasting of Midland-Odessa, L.L.C.

14. Nexstar Broadcasting of Louisiana, L.L.C.

15. Nexstar Alabama Acquisition, Inc.

16. Nexstar Arkansas Acquisition, Inc.



Nexstar Finance, Inc. has no subsidiaries.
§ 3506.15 What will BLM do in response to my exploration license application? ( a ) BLM will determine whether to issue the exploration license. If we decide to issue the license, we will name the participants and the acreage covered. We also will establish hole spacing requirements and include any stipulations needed to protect the environment.
( b ) If there are inconsistencies between proposed exploration plans, the approved license will resolve them.
Table 27

U. S. Department of Interior - Bureau of Reclamation

Central Valley Operations Office

Tehama-Colusa Canal

2013

Monthly Deliveries in AF

Water Users Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total

Colusa County WD 37 2832 3732 6015 10643 12430 12268 6222 4973 5856 3407 1562 69977

Cortina WD 0 14 31 44 67 96 72 38 28 19 11 3 423

Davis WD 0 93 170 271 591 650 648 408 277 288 201 66 3663

Dunnigan WD 6 321 914 1119 2177 3123 2497 1216 820 671 403 394 13661

4-M Water District 0 0 190 298 415 389 408 253 268 215 24 55 2515

Glenn-Colusa ID 0 298 2017 9635 9660 8635 4421 3354 2150 126 7 0 40303

Glenn Valley WD 0 10 27 58 365 611 482 283 114 63 15 6 2034

Glide WD 0 43 239 881 3559 3293 3456 2194 499 202 387 95 14848

Holthouse WD 0 2 3 6 99 24 80 9 10 4 4 10 251

Kanawha WD 0 720 927 3506 6657 7120 7082 4547 1467 677 674 551 33928

Kirkwood WD 0 0 19 54 87 88 84 76 21 13 2 0 444

La Grande WD 0 0 0 550 1408 1369 1231 783 79 55 0 0 5475

Myers-Marsh MWC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Orland-Artois WD 12 686 937 3124 8501 10844 11603 7429 2940 3424 1227 1603 52330

Westside WD 104 787 1854 3910 6156 7246 7050 3374 2228 2500 1363 777 37349

Total 159 5806 11060 29471 50385 55918 51382 30186 15874 14113 7725 5122 277201

Note: Delivery data provided by Norther California Area Office.

 Delivery data is based on District turn-out readings and may include water in addition to water service contract deliveries.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED April 12, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-20251 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus SAMUEL SOSA-HERNANDEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:04-CR-486-ALL

-------------------- Before JONES, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * The attorney appointed to represent Samuel Sosa-Hernandez has requested leave to withdraw and has filed a brief as required by Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Sosa-Hernandez received a copy of counsel’s motion but filed no response. Our independent review of the brief and the record discloses no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities, and the appeal is DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2.
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsA Deployable Primary Mirror for Space TelescopesNASA Langley Research Center, Composite Optics, Inc., and Nyma/ADF have developed jointly a deployable primary mirror for space telescopes that combines over five years of research on deployment of optical-precision structures and over ten years of development of fabrication techniques for optical-precision composite mirror panels and structures. The deployable mirror is directly applicable to a broad class of non-imaging "lidar" (light direction and ranging) telescopes whose figure-error requirements are in the range of one to ten microns RMS. Furthermore, the mirror design can be readily modified to accommodate imaging-quality reflector panels and active panel-alignment control mechanisms for application to imaging telescopes. The present paper: 1) describes the deployable mirror concept; 2) explains the status of the mirror development; and 3) provides some technical specifications for a 2.55-m-diameter, proof-of-concept mirror.Document ID19990093139Acquisition SourceLangley Research CenterDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)AuthorsLake, Mark S.*(NASA Langley Research Center Hampton,VA United States)*Phelps, James E.*(NYMA, Inc. Hampton, VA United States)*Dyer, Jack E.*(Composite Optics, Inc. San Diego, CA United States)*Caudle, David A.*(Composite Optics, Inc. San Diego, CA United States)*Tam, Anthony*(Composite Optics, Inc. San Diego, CA United States)*Escobedo, Javier*(Composite Optics, Inc. San Diego, CA United States)*Kasl, Eldon P.*(Composite Optics, Inc. San Diego, CA United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateSeptember 1, 1999Subject CategoryStructural MechanicsReport/Patent NumberL-17881NAS 1.15:209682NASA/TM-1999-209682Funding Number(s)PROJECT: RTOP 632-10-14Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19990093139.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access to publicationsin the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging and locatorservices, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications (CGP). Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event that publicationsare no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****Desert safety**
 
2014 | 2016
 
SuDoc:I 29.21:W 58/12/
Item Number:0650 (online)
CGP systemNumber:001034136
 
November 2, 2017
**Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record**

**Plant ID** 07029 **Removed from Public**  **(Non-CBI) Docket**  **1 Copyright** 

**Flag 2**  **File Name Description**  

### 07029\07029_ Certification Signature.pdf Plant certification statement 

### 07029\07029_ Completeness Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist 

### 07029\07029_HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted 

### x 07029\07029_PartA.xls Plant submitted survey file 

### x 07029\07029_PartE.xls Plant submitted survey file 

### x 07029\07029_PartH.xls Plant submitted survey file 

### x 07029\07029_PlantID_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook



### 07029\SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS\07029_Arial Map 1 Plant ID 07029.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey 

### 07029\SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS\07029_Arial Map 2 Plant ID 07029.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey 

### x 07029\SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS\07029_Final EIS WCCF.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey 

### x 07029\SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS\07029_WB1 Case M Summer Typical Operation.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey 

### x 07029\SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS\07029_WB2 Case 1 Winter Typical Operation.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey 

### x 07029\SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS\07029_WB3 Case P4 Summer Max Operation.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey 

### x 07029\SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS\07029_WB4 Case D Winter Max Operation.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

1Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database

. 2Copyright documents are available from the docket.
Knights Landing

T11N R2E

14

13

23

11

24

12

YYOOLL OO CC OO

SSUUTTTTEE RR CCOO

Colusa Basin Drainage Canal

33.85 R

Contractor's Service Area

Point of Diversion

Contract No. 14-06-200-906A-R-1

Exhibit B

Edson, Wallace L. and Mary O.

725-202-31

Note: The Public Land Survey depicted here

was digitized from USGS topographic maps.

0 0.25 0.5

Miles

Date: November 1, 2004

File Name: N:\districts\contracts\edson_wallace_mary\edson_wallace_mary.mxd
##### 



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 Quarterly Report of SpectraLink Corporation (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2004 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I,
John H. Elms, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify to
the best of my knowledge, 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) 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 result of operations of
the Company for the periods presented therein. /s/ JOHN H. ELMS John H. Elms
President and Chief Executive Officer
November 8, 2004 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to SpectraLink Corporation and will be retained by SpectraLink
Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                  1,000


       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-31-1998  
<PERIOD-END>                    SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                             32
<SECURITIES>                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                    6782     
<ALLOWANCES>                      216        
<INVENTORY>                      1077         
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                 8331            
<PP&E>                          12713              
<DEPRECIATION>                   9675             
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  25566              
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           11230              
<BONDS>                             0         
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>               0          
<PREFERRED>                         0         
<COMMON>                         8694             
<OTHER-SE>                       5065             
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    25566              
<SALES>                         22594              
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                22594              
<CGS>                           15075              
<TOTAL-COSTS>                   21946              
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                    0          
<LOSS-PROVISION>                    0          
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                479            
<INCOME-PRETAX>                   169            
<INCOME-TAX>                        0            
<INCOME-CONTINUING>               169           
<DISCONTINUED>                      0          
<EXTRAORDINARY>                     0          
<CHANGES>                           0          
<NET-INCOME>                      169           
<EPS-PRIMARY>                     .00            
<EPS-DILUTED>                     .00            
        



</TABLE>
#### § 3512.12 Is there a fee for requesting an assignment or sublease?

When you submit your instrument for assignment of record title or operating rights, or for transfer of overriding royalties, you must pay the filing fee for assignment, sublease, or transfer of operating rights found in the fee schedule in § 3000.12 of this chapter. BLM will not accept any instrument without the filing fee.

[64 FR 53536, Oct. 1, 1999, as amended at 72 FR 50888, Sept. 5, 2007]
## NO. 12

- 14

- 00188

- CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

WILBUR LEE BELL, APPELLANT

V.

CARNIVAL CORPORATION , CARNIVAL CRUISE LINE , CARNIVAL CONQUEST, E T AL, APPELLEE S §

§

§ APPEAL FROM THE 44 TH

JUDICIAL DIS TRICT COURT

DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION PER CURIAM In this negligence case, the trial court signed a default judgment in Appellant’s favor on October 30, 2013. On Appellees’ motion, the trial court rendered an order setting aside the defaul t judgment and granting a new trial. Appellant attempts to appeal that order . It is well settled
, however, that an order granting a new trial is not appealable. See, e.g.
, Fruehauf Corp. v.
Carrillo , 848 S.W.2d 83, 84 (Tex. 1993) (per curiam)

. In a let ter dated September 25, 2014, this court notified Appellant, pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 37.2, that the district clerk’s record does not show the jurisdiction of this court. Specifically, Appellant was informed that the record does not c ontain a final judgment or other appealable order. Appellant was further notified that the appeal would be dismissed unless the district clerk’s record was amended, on or before October 27, 2014, to show this court’s jurisdiction. The October 27, 2014 de adline has now passed, the district clerk’s record has not
been amended , and Appellant has not responded to this court’s notice. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 37.2; 42.3( a), (c). Opinion delivered Novemb er 12, 2014. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.
( PUBLISH )

## COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

NOVEMBER 12 , 2014

NO. 12

- 14

- 00188

- CV

WILBUR LEE BELL, Appellant V. CARNIVAL CORPORATION , C ARNIVAL CRUISE LINE,

CARNIVAL CONQUEST, E T AL,

Appellee s

Appeal from the 44th District Court of Dallas County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. DC

- 1309652)
THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record; and the same being considered, it is the opinion of this cour t that this court is without jurisdiction of the appeal, and that the appeal should be dismissed.

It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED by this court that this appeal be, and the same is, hereby dismissed for want of jurisdiction ; and that this dec ision
be certified to the court below for observance.

By per curiam opinion

. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle , J

.
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

**VALUE THE DIFFERENCE**
|  | **Vavrinek, Trine, Day & Co., LLP**Certified Public Accountants & Consultants |
|--|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

# **CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLICACCOUNTING FIRM**

Wehereby consent to the inclusion of our Report of Independent Registered PublicAccounting Firm dated February 15, 2007 regarding the consolidated balancesheets of Coast Bancorp and Subsidiary as of December 31, 2006 and 2005, andthe related consolidated statements of income, changes in stockholders’ equity,and cash flows for the years ended December 31, 2006 and 2005, in the Form10-KSB/A filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
| /s/ Vavrinek, Trine, Day & Co., LLP |   |
|-----------------------------------------|--------|
|                                    |
| Laguna Hills, California                |
| April 18, 2007                          |

 

 

25231 Paseo De Alicia,Suite 100    Laguna Hills, CA  92653   Tel: 949.768.0833    Fax:949.768.8408    www.vtdcpa.com

 

**FRESNO ****·  LAGUNA HILLS ****·  PALO ALTO ****·  PLEASANTON ****·  RANCHO CUCAMONGA**

----