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 annual report of microHelix, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-K for the year ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, James E. Horswill,
President 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.





Date:
March 24, 2009





/s/ James E.
  Horswill


James E.
Horswill


President
and Chief Financial Officer
§ 2.236 Requests for notification of existence of records: Action on. ( a ) *Decisions on request.* ( 1 ) Individuals inquiring to determine whether a system of records contains records pertaining to them shall be promptly advised whether the system contains records pertaining to them unless ( i ) the records were compiled in reasonable anticipation of a civil action or proceeding or
( ii ) the system of records is one which has been excepted from the notification provisions of the Privacy Act by rulemaking (§ 2.79).
( 2 ) If the records were compiled in reasonable anticipation of a civil action or proceeding or the system of records is one which has been excepted from the notification provisions of the Privacy Act by rulemaking, the individuals will be promptly notified that they are not entitled to notification of whether the system contains records pertaining to them.
( b ) *Authority to deny requests.* A decision to deny a request for notification of the existence of records shall be made by the system manager responsible for the system of records concerning which inquiry has been made and shall be concurred in by the bureau Privacy Act officer for the bureau which maintains the system, provided, however that the head of a bureau may, in writing, require ( 1 ) that the decision be made by the bureau Privacy Act officer and/or
( 2 ) that the bureau head's own concurrence in the decision be obtained.
( c ) *Form of decision.* ( 1 ) No particular form is required for a decision informing individuals whether a system of records contains records pertaining to them.
( 2 ) A decision declining to inform an individual whether or not a system of records contains records pertaining to him or her shall be in writing and shall: ( i ) State the basis for denial of the request.
( ii ) Advise the individual that an appeal of the declination may be made to the Assistant Secretary—Policy, Budget and Administration pursuant to § 2.65 by writing to the Privacy Act Officer, Office of the Assistant Secretary—Policy, Budget and Administration, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, DC 20240.
( iii ) State that the appeal must be received by the foregoing official within twenty (20) working days of the date of the decision.
( 3 ) If the decision declining a request for notification of the existence of records involves Department employee records which fall under the jurisdiction of the Office of Personnel Management, the individual shall be informed in a written response which shall: ( i ) State the reasons for the denial.
( ii ) Include the name, position title, and address of the official responsible for the denial.
( iii ) Advise the individual that an appeal of the declination may be made only to the Assistant Director for Workforce Information, Personnel Systems Oversight Group, Office of Personnel Management, 1900 E Street NW., Washington, DC 20415.
( 4 ) Copies of decisions declining a request for notification of the existence of records made pursuant to paragraphs (c)(2) and (c)(3) of this section shall be provided to the Departmental and Bureau Privacy Act Officers.
[48 FR 56584, Dec. 22, 1983, as amended at 53 FR 3749, Feb. 9, 1988]
Appeal Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed September 28 , 2021

.

In The



## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 21

- 00358

- CV

SHARON CRAWFORD , Appellant

V.

TEI HOLDINGS, LLC , Appellee

On Appeal from Co unty Civil C our t at Law No

. 3

Harris County, Texas

Tr ia l C ourt Cause No. 1166680

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This appeal is from a judgment signed May 20 , 20 2 1 . The clerk’s record was

filed July 20 , 20 2 1

. No reporter’s record was filed

. No brief was filed.

On August 10 , 20 2 1 , this court issued an order stating tha t unless appellant

filed a brief on or before September 9 , 20 21 , the court would dismiss the a ppeal for

want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P . 42.3(b).

Appellant filed no brief or other response. We dismiss the appeal.2 PER CURIAM

Panel consists o f Chief Justice Christopher and Justices Hassan and Poissant

.
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19

- 10432 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.

ALEJANDRO LOPEZ

,

Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:18

- CR

- 257

- 1

Before ELROD, COSTA, and ENGELHARDT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent Alejandro Lopez has moved for

leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California

, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011).
Lopez h a s not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the

rele vant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s
assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review.

* 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 December 9, 2019
Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 19-10432 Document: 00515229049 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/09/2019No. 19

- 10432

2 Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is
excused from further respon sibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED.

See 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2. Case: 19-10432 Document: 00515229049 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/09/2019
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsEffects of nozzle exit geometry and pressure ratio on plume shape for nozzles exhausting into quiescent airThe effects of varying the exit geometry on the plume shapes of supersonic nozzles exhausting into quiescent air at several exit-to-ambient pressure ratios are given. Four nozzles having circular throat sections and circular, elliptical and oval exit cross sections were tested and the exit plume shapes are compared at the same exit-to-ambient pressure ratios. The resulting mass flows were calculated and are also presented.Document ID19910014816Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)AuthorsScallion, William I.*(NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateMay 1, 1991Subject CategoryAerodynamicsReport/Patent NumberNAS 1.15:104097NASA-TM-104097Accession Number91N24129Funding Number(s)PROJECT: RTOP 506-40-71-05Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19910014816.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
City ofDevils Lake 423 6th Street NE

POBox1048 City Commission: Richard Johnson, President Rick Morse Devils Lake, ND 58301-1048 Fax:70l-662-7612

www.dvlnd.com Tim Heisler Craig Stromme

Dale Robbins

January 6, 2014
Kevin Schlemmer Chief, Essential Air Service and Domestic Analysis US Department ofTransportation 1200 NewJersey Avenue, SE, W86-308 Washington, DC 20590
Dear

### Mr. Schlemmer, ....•,)

The City ofDevils Lake, North Dakotathanks you for the opportunity to respond to the Essential Air Service proposals for service to the City ofDevils Lake.
The City ofDevils Lake, in conjunction with the State ofNorthDakota and the FAA, has made significantupgrades to our airport. When the current project is completed, together we will have invested over $12M. Improvements include a newTerminal dedicated with SenatorDorgan's assistance, a new ARRF building and majorrunway renovation.
The last piece we need is a strong air service provider. We feel strongly that SKYWEST should be awarded the EAS contract. Ourbookings had been climbing steadily over the years when we were being serviced byDELTA with the SAAB aircraft. Since the switchto GreatLakes Airlines we have seen significant change. Their dependability continues to erode, there have been booking problems and the local travelers have simply lost all trust in them as a carrier. We are very excited aboutthe possibilities that SKYWEST would present. They are a dependable, major carrier withjet service.
The last couple years we have seen a large spike in economic development in our area. Wefeel a strong aircarrier is a bigpart ofthe future growth ofour City. The development ofthe western partofour state is starting to trickle eastward and we are seeingthe impacts ofthat. We have a number ofhousing developments in process and others being planned. Plans have been drawn up to develop another industrial park. A Regional Training Centerhas also been completed at our National Guard Camp which draws students from around the country.
We feel the addition of jet service would capture most ofthe local travelers as well as more from the surrounding communities. We would concur with waiving the 12 round trips perweek required in the current proposal. Thankyou for the opportunity to give our input. ···.·.-\ i•·· ·--:
..

TERRY L. JOHNSTON

City Administrator 701-662-7600 ext I LINDA LYBECK CityAuditor 701-662-7600 ext 1 GARY A MARTINSON MICHAEL E. GRAFSGAARD J. THOMAS TRAYNOR, JR. Assessor/Building Official Engineer 701-662-7600 ext 3 701-662-7600 ext 2 Attorney 701-662-4077
Electrical Conductivity, UMHOS

Day High Low Mean

1 501 369 436

2 530 422 474

3 577 424 492

4 582 408 477

5 496 355 402

6 484 319 391

7 463 344 407

8 449 322 394

9 426 327 376

10 456 322 398

11 454 336 404

12 450 377 422

13 404 324 369

14 445 326 381

15 447 424 434

16 461 400 427

17 461 359 410

18 467 381 419

19 448 377 407

20 438 387 407

21 408 321 360

22 389 341 368

23 391 272 359

24 384 273 349

25 380 297 351

26 385 288 341

27 379 278 322

28 378 325 358

29 397 312 367

COMMENT(S): 0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

Historical Archive and Report Database

Victoria Canal On The Middle River

Run Date: 3/17/2024

February 2024
§ 3800.5 Fees. ( a ) An applicant for a plan of operations under this part must pay a processing fee on a case-by-case basis as described in § 3000.11 of this chapter whenever BLM determines that consideration of the plan of operations requires the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement.
( b ) An applicant for any action for which a mineral examination, including a validity examination or a common variety determination, and their associated reports, is performed under § 3809.100 or § 3809.101 of this part must pay a processing fee on a case-by-case basis as described in section 3000.11 of this chapter for such examination and report.
( c ) An applicant for a mineral patent under part 3860 of this chapter must pay a processing fee on a case-by-case basis as described in § 3000.11 of this chapter for any validity examination and report prepared in connection with the application.
( d ) An applicant for a mineral patent also is required to pay a processing fee under § 3860.1 of this chapter.
[70 FR 58878, Oct. 7, 2005]
(No. 857

Claimant awarded $597.07.)

#### Illinois State Journal Company, Claimant, *vs.*State of Illinois, Respondent.

*Opinion filed April 16, 1925.*

*Contract*— when *State liable for supplies furnished.*The State is liable for printing, supplies and work furnished it at the request of an authorized Department of State.

Will H. McConnell, for claimant.

Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General ; George C. Dixon, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.

Mr. Justice Leech

delivered the opinion of the court:

The declaration filed by the Illinois State Journal, claimant, sets forth that on April 5,1923, the Department of Public Works and Buildings, Division of Printing, State of Illinois, issued order No. 85581, to the Illinois State Journal for the following: Print and Bind: 1000 copies annual report of the ' Illinois Beekeepers’ Association, 22nd Annual Report, 32nd Annual Meeting, size 6x9, bind in red cloth, English finish; order signed by the Superintendent of Printing, H. L. Williamson; that above work was finished and delivered to the State of Illinois, Division of Beekeepers’ Association during the month of June, 1923; bill for this work made in triplicate and delivered to the department for payment; that the Bee- . keepers’ Association overlooked paying this account and that the funds available were turned back to the treasury; that the price for said work was at the regular contract price and that the State of Illinois on account thereof is justly indebted to claimant in the sum of $597.07.

The Attorney General of the State of Illinois filed herein his consent to the payment of award as follows: The Attorney General has had this case investigated by the Superintendent of the Division of Printing, in the Department of Public Works and Buildings. The information furnished the Attorney General is that on April 5,1923, an order was given, No. 85581, directed to the claimant, authorizing the printing and binding of one thousand copies of said report; said report ' was printed and delivered to A. C. Baxter, president of said association on or about July 12, 1923, and on July 19, 1923, the Superintendent of the Division of Printing approved the invoice of the claimant and forwarded same to the Illinois *107Beekeepers’ Association to be vouchered and on August 21, 1923, the Superintendent of the Division of Printing received voucher No. 69 from said Beekeepers’ Association and same was forwarded to the Department of Finance for payment but through an error the said bill was not paid and the appropriation therefor lapsed. The facts show the claimant to be entitled to the amount alleged in the declaration and the Superintendent of the Division of Printing assures the court that the bill is correct and-that an award should be made.

The court therefore awards the claimant the sum of $597.07.
#### § 3465.2-1 Inspections.

The authorized officer or his/her authorized representative shall have the right to enter lands under a lease or license to mine to inspect without advance notice or a search warrant, upon presentation of appropriate credentials, to determine whether the activities and conditions are in compliance with the applicable laws, regulations, notices and orders, terms and conditions of leases, licenses to mine or permits, and the requirements of the approved mining plan.

[44 FR 42638, July 19, 1979. Redesignated and amended at 47 FR 33149, July 30, 1982; 50 FR 8627, Mar. 4, 1985]
#### Mann *v.*Clarke Brothers.

January 11, 1911.

Complaint. Before Judge Seabrook. McIntosh superior court. .October 30, 1909.

*W. T. Burhhalter,*for plaintiff. *W. L. Clay,*for defendants.

Evans, P. J.

The issues made by the pleadings and evidence were fairly subinitted to the jury; the criticisms on the charge and on the rulings on evidence are without merit; and the evidence sustains the verdict.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur, except Pish, O. J., absent.*
### §5395. Disclaimers

#### (a) No funding reduction

Nothing in this subchapter shall be construed to limit or reduce in any way the funding for any program, project, or activity serving an Indian tribe under this or other applicable Federal law. Any Indian tribe that alleges that a compact or funding agreement is in violation of this section may apply the provisions of section 5331 of this title.

#### (b) Federal trust and treaty responsibilities

Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to diminish in any way the trust responsibility of the United States to Indian tribes and individual Indians that exists under treaties, Executive orders, or other laws and court decisions.

#### (c) Obligations of the United States

The Indian Health Service under this chapter shall neither bill nor charge those Indians who may have the economic means to pay for services, nor require any Indian tribe to do so.

(Pub. L. 93–638, title V, §515, as added Pub. L. 106–260, §4, Aug. 18, 2000, 114 Stat. 729.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This chapter, referred to in subsecs. (b) and (c), was in the original "this Act", meaning Pub. L. 93–638, Jan. 4, 1975, 88 Stat. 2203, known as the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, which is classified principally to this chapter. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 5301 of this title and Tables.

#### Codification

Section was formerly classified to section 458aaa–14 of this title prior to editorial reclassification and renumbering as this section.
#### Edith Price, Appellant, v. Paul Herman, Respondent.

No opinion. Present — Nolan, P. J., Johnston, Sneed, Wenzel and MacCrate, JJ.
#### § 3809.801 When may I file an appeal of the BLM decision with OHA?

(a) If you intend to appeal a BLM decision under this subpart, use the following table to see when you must file a notice of appeal with OHA:

| If— | And— | Then if you intend to appeal, you must file a notice of appeal with OHA— |
| --- | --- | --- |
| (1) You do not request State Director review | | Within 30 calendar days after the date you receive the original decision. |
| (2) You request State Director review | The State Director does not accept your request for review | On the original decision within 30 calendar days of the date you receive the State Director's decision not to review. |
| (3) You request State Director review | The State Director has accepted your request for review, but has not made a decision on the merits of the appeal | On the original decision before the State Director issues a decision. |
| (4) You request State Director review | The State Director makes a decision on the merits of the appeal | On the State Director's decision within 30 calendar days of the date you receive, or are notified of, the State Director's decision. |

(b) In order for OHA to consider your appeal of a decision, you must file a notice of appeal in writing with the BLM office where the decision was made.
EXHIBIT 99.1
                                                                FORM 10-Q
                                              QUARTER ENDED JUNE 30, 2002




                        Bucyrus International, Inc.

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


Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Bucyrus International,
Inc. certifies that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the
quarter ended June 30, 2002 (the "Report")

     (1)  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 result of
          operations of the Company.

Dated:  August 12, 2002                 /s/Theodore C. Rogers
                                        Theodore C. Rogers
                                        Chief Executive Officer


This certification accompanies the Form 10-Q pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
IN REPLY 

REFER TO:

United States Department of the Interior

BUREAU OF RECLAMATION 

Mid-Pacific Regional Office

2800 Cottage Way 

Sacramento, California 95825-1898 

July 25, 2003

MP-3400 

FIN-4.00 

«Name» 

«Address» 

«Address1» 

«Address2» 

«Address3» 

Subject: Fiscal Year 2002 Central Valley Project Results of Operations Voluntary 

Payment Program -- Municipal and Industrial (M&I) Contractors 

Dear Water Contractor: 

We have completed the fiscal year 2002 accounting for M&I operations, which includes a 

breakdown of results by individual contractor and service area. Included in the accounting are 

the results of our analysis of the interest impact of the adjustment for the Provision for 

Replacement (PFR) expenses. As you know, the PFR principal was already included as a part of 

the Chief Financial Office audit in the fiscal year 2001 accounting. 

The net results of operations applicable to your contract(s) for fiscal year 2002 is an operation, 

maintenance, and interest (OM&I) deficit in the amount of $ «Amount», including voluntary 

payment(s), if any, applicable to fiscal year 2002 OM&I costs. During fiscal year 2002, you 

made sufficient water payment(s) under your contract(s) to be eligible for the M&I Voluntary 

Payment Program. To voluntarily pay this deficit amount and avoid accruing interest 

charges on the fiscal year 2002 OM&I deficit, your payment must be received by the 

Bureau of Reclamation no later than 30 days from the date of this notification letter. 

The accumulated results through fiscal year 2001 are currently being updated to include the 

fiscal year 2002 results of operations. We anticipate providing you with a statement of your 

accumulated results as of September 30, 2002, in October 2003. 

If you wish to pay the fiscal year 2002 deficit amount, please send your payment to the above 

address, Attention: Accounting Services, MP-3600, with a note explaining that it is a voluntary 
Subject: Fiscal Year 2002 Central Valley Project Results of Operations Voluntary Payment 

Program – Municipal And Industrial (M&I) Contractors 

2

payment for your fiscal year 2002 OM&I deficit. If you have any questions regarding this letter, 

please contact Ms. Masako Altman at 916-978-5365, Ms. Tasia Papajohn at 916-978-5367 or 

either person at TDD 916-978-5608. 

Sincerely, 

Lawrence J. Bauman 

Manager, Ratesetting Services 

Business Resources Center 

Identical Letter sent to: 

 See Attached List 
Name Address Address1 Address2 Address3 Amount 

ShafterWasco 

Irrigation 

District 

Attn: Mr. 

Jerry L. 

Ezell 

 P.O. Box 

1168 

Wasco, CA 

93280 

917.34 

City of 

Redding - 

SR 

Attn: Mr. 

Mike 

Robertson 

 777 

Cypress 

Avenue 

Redding, CA 

96001 

18,152.63 

City of 

West 

Sacramento 

Attn: Mr. 

Jerry Lo 

 1951 South 

River Road 

West 

Sacramento, 

CA 95691 

11,781.04 

Santa Clara 

Valley 

Water 

District – 

IB 

Attn: Ms. 

Lynn Hurley 

 5750 

Almaden 

Expressway 

San Jose, 

CA 95118 

76,812.50 

Centerville 

Community 

Services 

District 

Attn: Jackie 

Dewitt 

 P.O. Box 

990431 

Redding, CA 

96099 

3,654.36