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 CarePayment Technologies, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, James T. Quist, Chief Executive 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 1, 2011/s/ James T. QuistJames T. QuistChief Executive Officer
HomeAbout NRCRadiation ProtectionHow the NRC Protects YouHealth Physics Positions Based on 10 CFR Part 20

# Application of 10 CFR 40.13 (c) (1) (vi)

## HPPOS-029 PDR-9111210151

See the memorandum from R. L. Fonner to J. Joyner dated December 14, 1982. This memorandum states the OELD opinion that 10 CFR 40.13 (c) (1) (vi) applies only to rare earth products containing <0.25% source material by weight. The exemption does not apply to incoming ore or to waste streams.

The health physics position was written in the context of 10 CFR 20.301, but it also applies to "new" 10 CFR 20.2001. In its licensing application, Molybdenum Corporation of America was urging a view of 10 CFR 40.13 (c) (1) (vi) that would permit it to include both incoming raw material for rare earth processing and end of processing waste streams under the exemption for rare earth products that do not exceed 0.25% source material by weight.

OELD ruled that 10 CFR 40.13 (c) (1) (vi) applies only to rare earth products containing less than 0.25% source materials by weight. The exemption does not apply to incoming ore or to waste streams. In justifying their decision, OELD stated that 10 CFR 40.13 (c) (1) (vi) has identical wording to that contained in 10 CFR 40.60 Schedule I, first promulgated by the Atomic Energy Commission on March 20, 1947. Schedule I stated:
> 
" (f) Rare earth metals and compounds, mixtures and products containing not more than 0.25% by weight thorium, uranium, or any combination of these."

Therefore, items referred to in 10 CFR 40.13 (c) (1) (vi) are finished commercial products of the rare earth refining process. An exemption for raw material (e.g., for ores or concentrates used as raw material) has to be justified in terms of either 10 CFR 40.13 (a) or (b). The disposal of radioactive waste should be regulated under 10 CFR 20.301 [or, at present, under the requirements of the 10 CFR 20.2001 (a) and (b)] and 10 CFR61.

**Regulatory references:** 20.301, 10 CFR 20.2001, 10 CFR 40.13, 10 CFR 61

**Subject codes:** 3.8, 9.0, 11.6

**Applicability:** Source Material

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Monday, October 02, 2017
March 23 , 2015

Mr. Bryan Byler

Occupational Safety & Health, Inc.

511 Flagstone Boulevard

Lenoir City, TN 37772

Dear Mr. Byler :

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption. It

explains why we cannot process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can n o t Process Your Request

We entered your January 30, 2015 exemption request on behalf of Occupational Safety &

Health, Inc. into the public docket (No. FAA

- 20 15

- 0271 ) , but we are unable to process your

request any further. The information you sent does not comply with the requirements of

§ 11.81 (copy enclosed) . For us to consider the request any further, you must send us all of

the following:

• The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief and th e extent of

the relief you seek

.

• The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would

benefit the public as a whole.

• The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption

would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you

seek an exempti on.

• Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

W hat You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described

earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your

petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.2

If We Do No t Hear From You

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you

further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267

- 9521

.

Sincerely,

/s/

Jake Troutman

Program Analyst , Airmen and

Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

 CASE NO. 20-61239-CIV-ALTMAN/Hunt 

NEWTON JOSEPH, individually and 

on behalf of all others similarly situated, 

 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS 

MANAGEMENT, LLC, 

 Defendant. 

________________________________________/ 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the Plaintiff’s Notice of Voluntary 

Dismissal with Prejudice (“Notice”) [ECF No. 7]. The Plaintiff seeks a voluntary dismissal of 

this action with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41. As a result, the Notice 

is self-executing. Accordingly, the Court hereby 

ORDERS that the above-styled case be DISMISSED with prejudice. The case shall 

remain CLOSED. Any pending motions are DENIED as moot, and any scheduled hearings or 

deadlines are TERMINATED. 

DONE AND ORDERED in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, this 20th day of August 2020. 

 _________________________________ 

 ROY K. ALTMAN 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

cc: counsel of record

Case 0:20-cv-61239-RKA Document 8 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/20/2020 Page 1 of 1
### §891. Doubling of rates of tax on citizens and corporations of certain foreign countries

Whenever the President finds that, under the laws of any foreign country, citizens or corporations of the United States are being subjected to discriminatory or extraterritorial taxes, the President shall so proclaim and the rates of tax imposed by sections 1, 3, 11, 801, 831, 852, 871, and 881 shall, for the taxable year during which such proclamation is made and for each taxable year thereafter, be doubled in the case of each citizen and corporation of such foreign country; but the tax at such doubled rate shall be considered as imposed by such sections as the case may be. In no case shall this section operate to increase the taxes imposed by such sections (computed without regard to this section) to an amount in excess of 80 percent of the taxable income of the taxpayer (computed without regard to the deductions allowable under section 151 and under part VIII of subchapter B). Whenever the President finds that the laws of any foreign country with respect to which the President has made a proclamation under the preceding provisions of this section have been modified so that discriminatory and extraterritorial taxes applicable to citizens and corporations of the United States have been removed, he shall so proclaim, and the provisions of this section providing for doubled rates of tax shall not apply to any citizen or corporation of such foreign country with respect to any taxable year beginning after such proclamation is made.

(Aug. 16, 1954, ch. 736, 68A Stat. 283; Mar. 13, 1956, ch. 83, §5(6), 70 Stat. 49; Pub. L. 86–69, §3(f)(1), June 25, 1959, 73 Stat. 140; Pub. L. 98–369, div. A, title II, §211(b)(12), July 18, 1984, 98 Stat. 755; Pub. L. 99–514, title X, §1024(c)(13), Oct. 22, 1986, 100 Stat. 2408.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1986—Pub. L. 99–514 struck out reference to section 821.

1984—Pub. L. 98–369 substituted "801" for "802".

1959—Pub. L. 86–69 struck out reference to section 811.

1956—Act Mar. 13, 1956, inserted reference to section 811.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date of 1986 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 99–514 applicable to taxable years beginning after Dec. 31, 1986, see section 1024(e) of Pub. L. 99–514, set out as a note under section 831 of this title.

#### Effective Date of 1984 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 98–369 applicable to taxable years beginning after Dec. 31, 1983, see section 215 of Pub. L. 98–369, set out as an Effective Date note under section 801 of this title.

#### Effective Date of 1959 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 86–69 applicable only with respect to taxable years beginning after Dec. 31, 1957, see section 4 of Pub. L. 86–69, set out an Effective Date note under section 381 of this title.

#### Effective Date of 1956 Amendment

Amendment by act Mar. 13, 1956, applicable only to taxable years beginning after Dec. 31, 1954, see section 6 of act Mar. 13, 1956, set out as a note under section 316 of this title.
Exhibit 4.411

 

/Emblem of the Russian Federation/

 

FEDERAL SERVICE FOR SUPERVISION IN THE SPHERE OF COMMUNICATIONS, INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND MASS MEDIA

 

LICENSE

 

No. 182083 dated June 17, 2020

 

For Rendering

 

Data transmission services, except for data transmission services for the purpose of voice transmission

 

This License is granted to

 

Public Joint Stock Company

 

Mobile TeleSystems

 

Primary State Registration Number of a Legal Entity 
 (Individual Entrepreneur) (OGRN, OGRNIP)

 

1027700149124

 

Tax Identification Number (TIN)

 

7740000076

 











 

Location address (place of residence):

 

4, Marksistskaya str., Moscow, 109147

 

The territory covered by telecommunications services is specified in the Appendix.

 

This License is granted for a term:

 

until June 17, 2025.

 

This License is granted by decision of the licensing body - Order dated April 06, 2020 No. 145-рчс

 

Appendix being an integral part of this license is executed on 2 sheets.

 

	
Deputy Head
    	
/signature/   A.А. Pankov
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
Stamp   here
    	
 
    
	
Official seal:
  MINISTRY OF TELECOM AND MASS 
   COMMUNICATIONS 
   OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION 
   FEDERAL SERVICE FOR SUPERVISION 
   IN THE SPHERE 
   OF COMMUNICATIONS, INFORMATION 
   TECHNOLOGY 
   AND MASS MEDIA 
   PSRN 1087746736296
    	
 
    


 

CN 119141
Exhibit 4.374

 

/Emblem of the Russian Federation/

 

FEDERAL SERVICE FOR SUPERVISION IN THE SPHERE OF COMMUNICATIONS, INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND MASS MEDIA

 

LICENSE

 

No. 171466 dated February 17, 2019

 

For Rendering

 

Telematic services

 

This License is granted to

 

Limited Liability Company

 

Gorodskie seti svyazi (Zelenaya Tochka Group)

 

Primary State Registration Number of a Legal Entity 
 (Individual Entrepreneur) (OGRN, OGRNIP)

 

1132651012878

 

Tax Identification Number (TIN)

 

2631804230

 











 

Location address (place of residence):

 

1b, Dokuchaeva str., Nevinnomyssk, Stavropol region, 357100

 

The territory covered by telecommunications services is specified in the Appendix.

 

This License is granted for a term:

 

until February 17, 2024.

 

This License is granted by decision of the licensing body - Order dated January 22, 2019 No. 25-рчс

 

Appendix being an integral part of this license is executed on 2 sheets.

 

	
Deputy Head
    	
/signature/ A.A.   Pankov
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
Stamp   here 
    	
 
    
	
Official seal:
  MINISTRY OF TELECOM AND MASS 
   COMMUNICATIONS 
   OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION 
   FEDERAL SERVICE FOR SUPERVISION 
   IN THE SPHERE 
   OF COMMUNICATIONS, INFORMATION 
   TECHNOLOGY 
   AND MASS MEDIA 
   PSRN 1087746736296
    	
 
    


 

CN 108594
II 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4843 

To permit visiting dignitaries and service members from Taiwan to display 

the flag of the Republic of China. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 13, 2022 

Mr. CRUZ (for himself, Mr. COTTON, Mr. RUBIO, Mrs. BLACKBURN, Mr. 

YOUNG, and Mr. SCOTT of Florida) introduced the following bill; which 

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations 

A BILL 

To permit visiting dignitaries and service members from 

Taiwan to display the flag of the Republic of China. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Taiwan Symbols of 

5 Sovereignty (SOS) Act of 2022’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REQUIREMENT TO PERMIT DIGNITARIES AND SERV7 ICE MEMBERS FROM TAIWAN TO DISPLAY 

8 THE FLAG OF THE REPUBLIC OF CHINA. 

9 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of State and the 

10 Secretary of Defense shall permit members of the Armed 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 4843 IS

1 Forces and Government representatives from the Republic 

2 of China (Taiwan) or the Taipei Economic and Cultural 

3 Representative Office (TECRO) to display, for the official 

4 purposes set forth in subsection (b), symbols of Republic 

5 of China sovereignty, including— 

6 (1) the flag of the Republic of China (Taiwan); 

7 and 

8 (2) the corresponding emblems or insignia of 

9 military units. 

10 (b) OFFICIAL PURPOSES.—The official purposes re11 ferred to in subsection (a) are— 

12 (1) the wearing of official uniforms; 

13 (2) conducting government hosted ceremonies 

14 or functions; and 

15 (3) appearances on Department of State and 

16 Department of Defense social media accounts pro17 moting engagements with Taiwan. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
### **Subchapter D—Credits**

Sec.
3131.
Credit for paid sick leave.
3132.
Payroll credit for paid family leave.
3133.
Special rule related to tax on employers.
3134.
Employee retention credit for employers subject to closure due to COVID–19.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

**2021**—Pub. L. 117–2, title IX, §9651(c), Mar. 11, 2021, 135 Stat. 182, added item 3134.
#### Custodio Olea RAMIREZ, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Cordelia CLARK, Respondent—Appellee.

No. 05-7407.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Feb. 23, 2006.

Decided: March 2, 2006.

Bruce Tracy Cunningham, Jr., The Law Office of Bruce T. Cunningham, Jr., Southern Pines, North Carolina, for Appellant. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, North Carolina Department of Justice, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by'unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

*768PER CURIAM:

Custodio Olea Ramirez, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of his constitutional claims is debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. *See Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Ramirez has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. 1350)



In connection with the Quarterly Report of
Wells Real Estate Fund VI, L.P. (the Registrant) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), the undersigned, Leo F. Wells, III, Chief
Executive Officer of the corporate general partner of one of the General Partners of the Registrant, and Douglas P. Williams, Chief Financial Officer of the corporate general partner of one of the General Partners of the Registrant, hereby certify,
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350), that, to the best of our knowledge and belief:



| | (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 Registrant.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                          
|--------------------------
|/s/    LEO F. WELLS, III  
|Leo F. Wells, III         
|Chief Executive Officer   
|May 13, 2005              
|                          
|/s/    DOUGLAS P. WILLIAMS
|Douglas P. Williams       
|Chief Financial Officer   
|May 13, 2005
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 accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Insightful
Corporation for the quarter ended September 30, 2004, the undersigned, Jeffrey
Coombs, President and Chief Executive Officer of Insightful Corporation, does
hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

| | 1) | such Quarterly Report on
  Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2004 fully complies with the
  requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
  1934, as amended; and                              
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |    |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       
| | 2) | the information contained
  in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30,
  2004 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
  results of operations of Insightful Corporation.

|Date: November 15, 2004 | By: | /s/
  Jeffrey E. Coombs                
|----------------------- | --- | ---------------------------------------
|                        |     |                                        
|                        |     | Jeffrey
  E. Coombs                    
|                        |     | President
  and Chief Executive Officer
|                        |     |                                        

---

---
#### David Hoffman v. New York Railways Company.

Application denied, with ten dollars costs. Order signed. Present—Ingraham, P. J., McLaughlin, Laughlin, Clarke and Scott, JJ.
Motion GRANTED AND Order filed October 17 , 2016 .

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14
- 16
- 00804
- CV

____________ IN RE DONNA O. JAHN , Relator

O RIGINAL PROCEEDING WRIT OF MANDAMUS 295th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2010
- 31372


### ORDER On October 10, 2016, relator Donna O. Jahn filed a petition for writ of mandamus asking this court to compel the Honorable Caroline Baker, Judge of the 295th District Court, in Harris County , Texas, to vacate her Order denying relator’s Amended Plea to the Jurisdiction signed on August 5, 2016 in trial court number 2010

- 31372, styled Comerica Bank v. Sidmar Co r poration and Donna O. Jahn

. OnJuly 22, 2016, the trial court signed a scheduling order resetting the case for trial on November 7, 2016. Relator’s petition argues that the Order signed by the trial court on November 26, 2013 was a final appealable judgmen t and the trial court’s plenary jurisdiction therefore expired before it reset the case for trial on November 7, 2016

. Relator has also filed a n Emergency Motion for Temporary Relief, asking our court to stay the trial set for November 7, 2016 pending a de cision on the petition for writ of mandamus

. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8 (b), 52.10. It appears from the facts stated in the petition and motion that relator’s request for relief requires further consideration and that relator will be prejudiced unless immedia t e temporary relief is granted. We therefore GRANT relator’s motion and issue the following order:
We ORDER the trial set for November 7, 2016 in trial court cause number 2010

- 31372 , Comerica Bank v. Sidmar Co r poration and Donna O. Jahn , STAYED until a final decision by this court on relator’s petition for writ of mandamus, or until further order of this court. In addition, the court requests Comerica Bank , the real party

- in

- interest, to file a response to the petition for writ of mandamus on or before October 31, 2016 . See Tex. R. App. P. 52.4.
PER CURIAM

Panel c onsists of Justices Busby, Donovan, and Brown.
Knights

Landing

Ridge

Cut

Sacramento

River

Sutter

Bypass

30

19

31

29

20

32

0

28

21

33

18 17

25

24

36

13 16

T11N R3E

T11N R2E

T R

Karnak

SSUUTTTTEE RR CCOO

YYOOLL OO CC OO

YYOOLL OO CC OO

26.8 L

30.5 L

Contractor's Service Area

Point of Diversion

Contract No. 14-06-200-1595A-R-1

Exhibit B

Byrd, Anna C. and Osborne, Jane

725-202-13

Note: The Public Land Survey depicted here

was digitized from USGS topographic maps.

0 0.25 0.5

Miles

Date: October 28, 2004

File Name: N:\districts\contracts\byrd_osborne\byrd_osborne.mxd
§ 108.2002 Eligibility of SSBICs to apply for Operational Assistance grants. An SSBIC is eligible to apply for an Operational Assistance grant if: ( a ) It intends to increase its Regulatory Capital, as in effect on December 21, 2000, and to make Low-Income Investments in the amount of such increase;
( b ) It intends to raise binding commitments for contributions in cash or in-kind, and/or to purchase an annuity, in an amount not less than 30 percent of the intended increase in its Regulatory Capital described in paragraph (a) of this section; and
( c ) It has a plan describing how it intends to use the requested grant funds to provide Operational Assistance to Smaller Enterprises in which it has made or expects to make Low-Income Investments after December 21, 2000.
[67 FR 68503, Nov. 12, 2002]