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 IVI Communications, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2008 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Kurt
Jensen, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 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 and Exchange Act of 1934; and




(2) The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and result 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.




July 30,
    2008
              /s/ Kurt
      Jensen
                Kurt
      Jensen
                Chief
      Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
**Exhibit 32.(a)****SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION**     In connection with the Annual Report of Huntington Preferred Capital, Inc. (the “Company”) onForm 10-K/A (Amendment No. 1) for the year ended December 31, 2004, as filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Donald R. Kimble, President of theCompany, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, that:          (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and          (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and result of operations of the Company.       /s/ Donald R. Kimble     Donald R. Kimble    (chief executive officer)    December 12, 2005  
24
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION

In connection with the periodic report of Abraxis BioScience, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Lisa Gopalakrishnan, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify as of the
date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, that to the best of my knowledge:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 at the dates and for the periods
indicated.
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                     |  |                           
|-------------------- |  | --------------------------
|Date: March 17, 2008 |  | /s/    LISA
GOPALAKRISHNAN
|                     |  | Lisa Gopalakrishnan       
|                     |  | Chief Financial Officer   

This certification accompanies this Report on Form 10-K pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the Exchange Act). Such certification
will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it by reference.
1 This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Reports. Please

2 see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. 

3 Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated

4 errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of Appeals and does

5 not include the filing date. 

6 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

7 STATE OF NEW MEXICO,

8 Plaintiff-Appellee,

9 v. NO. 30,948

10 TERRY PHILLIPS,

11 Defendant-Appellant.

12 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF SAN JUAN COUNTY

13 Karen L. Townsend, District Judge

14 Gary K. King, Attorney General

15 Santa Fe, NM

16 for Appellee

17 Chief Public Defender

18 Adrianne R. Turner, Assistant Public Defender

19 Santa Fe, NM

20 for Appellant

21 MEMORANDUM OPINION

22 VIGIL, Judge.
2

1 Defendant attempts to appeal an order dismissing his appeal in district court for

2 lack of jurisdiction. We proposed to dismiss the appeal for lack of a final order, as

3 there was a motion for reconsideration of the order still pending. Defendant has

4 timely responded and acknowledges that his appeal was from a non-final order.

5 Therefore, for the reasons stated in the calendar notice, we dismiss the appeal.

6 Mandate shall issue forthwith.

7 IT IS SO ORDERED.

8 _______________________________

9 MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge

10 WE CONCUR:

11 _________________________________

12 CELIA FOY CASTILLO, Chief Judge

13 _________________________________

14 JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge
#### New York Life Insurance Company v. United States Fire Insurance Company of New York.

Present — Peek, P. J., Glennon, Cohn, Callahan and Yan Yoorhis, JJ. [See companion case in *New York Life Ins. Co.*v. *Glens Falls Ins. Co.,*274 App. Div. 1045.]
#### § 3430.6-2 Bonding.

The lease bond for a preference right lease shall be set in accordance with subpart 3474 of this title.
§ 3191.4 Standards of delegation. ( a ) The Director shall establish minimum standards to be used by a State in carrying out activities established in the delegation.
( b ) The delegation shall identify functions, if any, that are to be carried out jointly.
( c ) A delegation shall be made in accordance with the requirements of this section.
( d ) Copies of delegations shall be on file in the Washington Office of the Bureau and shall be available for public inspection.
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, Joshua Ralston, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of General
Enterprise Ventures, Inc. for the quarterly period ending June 30, 2017  fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in
all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of General Enterprise Ventures Inc.





|Date: April 6, 2023 |  |  | /s/ Joshua Ralston                      | 
|------------------- |  |  | --------------------------------------- | 
|                    |  |  | Joshua Ralston, Chief Financial Officer |
#### Mary H. McGunn, as Administratrix of the Estate of Arthur McGunn, Deceased, Appellant, v. American Mutual Liability Insurance Company et al., Respondents.

Close, P. J., Hagarty, Johnston, Adel and Taylor, JJ., concur.
### §608a. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, act July 28, 1955, ch. 423, §2, 69 Stat. 393; Pub. L. 88–540, §2, Aug. 31, 1964, 78 Stat. 748, which related to sale of tribal trust lands, was omitted from the Code as being of special and not general application.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-12-00079-CV

The BLANCO NATIONAL BANK, Its Successors, Assigns, and Predecessors in Interest,

Appellant

v.

Michael R. GONZALEZ,

Appellee

From the 37th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2011-CI-09327

Honorable Antonia Arteaga, Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE STONE, JUSTICE BARNARD, AND JUSTICE CHAPA

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is 

REVERSED and judgment is RENDERED that Michael R. Gonzalez take nothing from The 

Blanco National Bank, Its Successors, Assigns, and Predecessors in Interest. It is ORDERED 

that The Blanco National Bank, Its Successors, Assigns, and Predecessors in Interest recover its 

costs of this appeal from appellee Michael R. Gonzalez. 

SIGNED April 24, 2013.

_____________________________

Catherine Stone, Chief Justice
### §788e. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, Pub. L. 90–506, §1, Sept. 21, 1968, 82 Stat. 85, which related to preparation of roll of Creek Indians who were living on Sept. 21, 1968, and whose names or ancestors' names appear on certain previously prepared rolls, was omitted from the Code as being of special and not general application.
### §565g. Repealed. Pub. L. 117–261, §2, Dec. 21, 2022, 136 Stat. 2393

Section, Pub. L. 89–224, §8, Oct. 1, 1965, 79 Stat. 898, authorized the Secretary of the Interior to prescribe rules and regulations to carry out the provisions of this subchapter.
### §787. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, Pub. L. 90–76, §2, Aug. 29, 1967, 81 Stat. 177, which related to advances and expenditures from funds deposited pursuant to former sections 786 to 788 of this title, was omitted from the Code as being of special and not general application.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-2003

H. LEON MERRITT,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 versus

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Defendant - Appellee,

 and

STEVEN MEYERS; KENNETH DORNER,

 Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District

Judge. (CA-04-442-1)

Submitted: February 25, 2005 Decided: March 16, 2005

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Bernard R. Corbett, LAW OFFICE OF BERNARD R. CORBETT, Alexandria,

Virginia, for Appellant. Paul J. McNulty, United States Attorney,
- 2 -

Dennis C. Barghaan, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney,

Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 3 -

PER CURIAM:

H. Leon Merritt appeals the district court’s orders

dismissing his tort case and denying reconsideration. We have

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we

affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See

Merritt v. United States, No. CA-04-442-1 (E.D. Va. filed June 16

and entered June 18, 2004; filed July 16 and entered July 19,

2004). 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
### §788d. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, Pub. L. 90–504, §4, Sept. 21, 1968, 82 Stat. 855, which authorized the prescription of rules and regulations to carry out the provisions of former sections 788a to 788d of this title, was omitted from the Code as being of special and not general application.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

January 13, 2021

No. 04-20-00526-CV

Patrick MINOR,

Appellant

v.

DIVERSE FACILITY SOLUTIONS,

Appellee

From the 131st Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2019-CI-00808

Honorable Aaron Haas, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Appellant’s brief was due on December 2, 2020. Neither the brief nor a motion for 

extension of time has been filed. On December 23, 2020, this court notified appellant that his 

brief had not been filed and we directed him to respond within ten days with a reasonable 

explanation for his failure to file a brief. Appellant did not respond.

We ORDER appellant to file, no later than January 22, 2021, his appellant’s brief and a 

written response reasonably explaining (1) his failure to timely file the brief and (2) why 

appellee is not significantly injured by appellant’s failure to timely file a brief. If appellant fails 

to file a brief and the written response by January 22, 2021, his appeal will be dismissed for want 

of prosecution. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a); see also TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c) (allowing 

involuntary dismissal if appellant fails to comply with a court order).

_________________________________

Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 13th day of January, 2021.

FILE COPY
___________________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court

FILE COPY
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Justice

###### Antitrust Division

                    Notice is hereby given that, on August 23, 2004, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301*et seq.*                     (“the Act”), the Accredited Standards Committee X9, Inc. (“ASC X9”) has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing (1) the name and principal place of business of the standards development  organization and (2) the nature and scope of its standards development activities. The notifications were filed for the purpose of invoking the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances.                

Pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act, the name and principal place of business of the standards development organization is: Accredited Standards Committee X9, Inc. (“ASC X9”), Annapolis, MD. The nature and scope of ASC X9's standards development activities are to develop and promote standards for the financial services industry in order to facilitate services and products. ASC X9's objectives are to support (maintain, enhance and promote use of) existing standards; facilitate development of new, open standards based upon consensus; incorporate nonproprietary items developed by other organizations where appropriate; provide a common source for all standards affecting the financial services industry; focus on concurrent and future standards needs of the financial services industry standards; and participate in and promote the development of international standards.

Additional information concerning ASC X9 may be obtained from Cynthia L. Fuller, Executive Director, Accredited Standards Committee X9, Inc., P.O. box 4035, Annapolis, MD 21403, Tel. (410) 267-7707.

Dorothy B. Fountain,

Deputy Director of Operations Antitrust Division.

[FR Doc. 04-22294 Filed 10-4-04; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
Four new members appointed to
Ahold Supervisory Board

Ahold shareholders
adopt 2004 financial
statements

Zaandam, The Netherlands, May 18, 2005 - Ahold today welcomed 372 stockholders
representing approximately 895 million shares to its Annual General Meeting in
The Hague.

Shareholders adopted Ahold's 2004 financial statements and all other proposals
on the agenda, including the appointment to the Supervisory Board of Derk
Doijer, Professor Myra Hart, Benno Hoogendoorn and Stephanie Shern.

Ahold Corporate Communications: +31 (0)75 659 5720

                                                                         2005020

[Graphic omitted] Ahold
www.ahold.com

                                  Page 1 of 1
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsCalculation of the Coulomb Fission Cross Sections for Pb-Pb and Bi-Pb Interactions at 158 A GeVThe Weizsacker-Williams (WW) method of virtual quanta is used to make approximate cross section calculations for peripheral relativistic heavy-ion collisions. We calculated the Coulomb fission cross sections for projectile ions of Pb-208 and Bi-209 with energies of 158 A GeV interacting with a Pb-208 target. We also calculated the electromagnetic absorption cross section for Pb-208 ion interacting as described. For comparison we use both the full WW method and a standard approximate WW method. The approximate WW method in larger cross sections compared to the more accurate full WW method.Document ID20020080639Acquisition SourceLangley Research CenterDocument TypeTechnical Publication (TP)AuthorsPoyser, William J.*(Wisconsin Univ. Milwaukee, WI United States)*Ahern, Sean C.*(Wisconsin Univ. Milwaukee, WI United States)*Norbury, John W.*(Wisconsin Univ. Milwaukee, WI United States)*Tripathi, R. K.*(NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 7, 2013Publication DateSeptember 1, 2002Subject CategorySpace RadiationReport/Patent NumberNASA/TP-2002-211929L-182-15NAS 1.60:211929Funding Number(s)PROJECT: RTOP 755-06-00-03CONTRACT_GRANT: NCC1-354CONTRACT_GRANT: NCC1-260Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType20020080639.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
§ 3162.6 Well and facility identification. ( a ) Every well within a Federal or Indian lease or supervised agreement shall have a well identification sign. All signs shall be maintained in a legible condition.
( b ) For wells located on Federal and Indian lands, the operator must properly identify, by a sign in a conspicuous place, each well, other than those permanently abandoned. The well sign must include the well number, the name of the operator, the lease serial number, and the surveyed location (the quarter-quarter section, section, township and range or other authorized survey designation acceptable to the authorized officer, such as metes and bounds or longitude and latitude). When specifically requested by the authorized officer, the sign must include the unit or communitization agreement name or number. The authorized officer may also require the sign to include the name of the Indian allottee lessor(s) preceding the lease serial number.
( c ) All facilities at which oil or gas produced from a Federal or Indian lease is stored, measured, or processed must be clearly identified with a sign that contains the name of the operator, the lease serial number or communitization or unit agreement identification number, as appropriate, and the surveyed location (the quarter-quarter section, section, township and range or other authorized survey designation acceptable to the authorized officer, such as metes and bounds or longitude and latitude). On Indian leases, the sign also must include the name of the appropriate tribe and whether the lease is tribal or allotted. For situations of one tank battery servicing one well in the same location, the requirements of this paragraph and paragraph (b) of this section may be met by one sign as long as it includes the information required by both paragraphs. In addition, each storage tank must be clearly identified by a unique number. With regard to the quarter-quarter designation and the unique tank number, any such designation established by State law or regulation satisfies this requirement.
( d ) All signs must be maintained in legible condition and must be clearly apparent to any person at or approaching the storage, measurement, or transportation point.
( e ) All abandoned wells shall be marked with a permanent monument containing the information in paragraph (b) of this section. The requirement for a permanent monument may be waived in writing by the authorized officer.
[52 FR 5391, Feb. 20, 1987, as amended at 53 FR 17363, May 16, 1988; 81 FR 81420, Nov. 17, 2016]
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-7088

KENNETH WARREN ALLISON,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

MARK A. HENRY, Warden of F.C.I. Cumberland,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson E. Legg, District Judge. (CA-98-

1326-L)

Submitted: October 8, 1998 Decided: October 28, 1998

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kenneth Warren Allison, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Kenneth Allison appeals the district court’s order denying

relief on his petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (1994).

Our review of the record and the district court’s opinion reveals

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

district court. Allison v. Henry, No. CA-98-1326-L (D. Md. June 25,

1998). 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