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

Ener1, Inc. 500 West Cypress Creek
Road-Suite 100Ft. Lauderdale,
Florida, 33309

May 16, 2004

Securities and Exchange
Commission450  5th Street, NWWashington,  DC 20549

Re: Certification Of
Principal Executive Officer Pursuant To 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350

Dear Ladies and Gentlemen:

In
connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Ener1, Inc., for the
quarter ended March 31, 2005, I, Kevin P. Fitzgerald, Chief Executive Officer of Ener1,
Inc., hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

| | 1) | such
Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Ener1, Inc., for the quarter ended March 31, 2005,
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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Ener1, Inc., for the
quarter ended March 31, 2005, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of Ener1, Inc.
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| |  | Date: May 16, 2005 BY: /S/ Kevin P. Fitzgerald
Kevin P. FitzgeraldChief Executive Officer
                                                               (Principal Executive Officer and
                                                               Duly Authorized 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 required by Section 906, has been provided to Ener1, Inc.
and will be retained by Ener1, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.

In accordance with Item 601 of
Regulation S-K, this certification is being furnished as
Exhibit 32.1 to Ener1, Inc.s quarterly report and shall not be deemed
filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the Exchange Act) or otherwise subject to the liabilities of that section,
nor shall it be deemed incorporated by reference in any filing under the Securities Act of
1933 or the Exchange Act, except as expressly set forth by specific reference in such a
filing.
Order entered June 3, 2022

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-22-00312-CV

IN RE DAVID BARNES, Relator

Original Proceeding from the 330th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DF-11-11126

ORDER

Before Justices Myers, Nowell, and Goldstein

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DENY relator’s petition for 

writ of mandamus. 

We also GRANT relator’s motion to seal court records and direct the Clerk 

of the Court to place relator’s petition for writ of mandamus and the accompanying 

mandamus record under seal.

/s/ LANA MYERS 

JUSTICE
(iv) during any period of 12 months, individuals who at the beginning of such periodconstituted the Company’s Board of Directors (the “Board), together with any new directorswhose election by the Board or whose nomination for election by the stockholders of theCompany was approved by a vote of a majority of the directors of the Company (then still inoffice) who were either directors at the beginning of such period or whose election ornomination for election was previously so approved, cease for any reason to constitute amajority of the Board, then in office;provided, however, that such transaction also constitutes a change in control event withinthe meaning of Section 409A.The term Permitted Holders as used above shall mean any of (i) Blackstone or its affiliates,(ii) an employee benefit plan (or trust forming a part thereof) maintained by (A) theCompany or (B) any corporation or other person or entity of which a majority of its votingpower of its voting equity securities or equity interest is owned, directly or indirectly,by the Company, and (iii) VHS Holdings LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, or any ofits subsidiaries. The term Blackstone as used above shall mean each of of Blackstone FCHCapital Partners IV L.P., Blackstone Health Commitment Partners L.P., Blackstone CapitalPartners IV-A L.P., Blackstone Family Investment Partnership IV-A L.P., Blackstone HealthCommitment Partners-A L.P., Blackstone FCH Capital Partners IV-B L.P., and Blackstone FCHCapital Partners IV-A L.P., and their respective Affiliates.”3. Amendment to Section 11(e)(i). Section 11(e)(i) of the EA shall be amended byadding the following phrase to the end of the paragraph as follows:“; for greater certainty, the pro-rata portion of the Executive’s current year annual bonuswill be determined following the end of the applicable measurement period and will be paidat the same as annual bonuses are otherwise paid to the Company’s senior executives.”4. Amendment to Section 11(g). Section 11(g) of the EA shall be amended by adding thefollowing sentence to the end of Section 11(g):“Notwithstanding the foregoing, for purposes of Section 409A, the right to a series ofinstallment payments under this Agreement shall be treated as a right to a series ofseparate payments and, in addition, any payment that is otherwise exempt from theapplication of Section 409A shall not be included in the calculation of DeferredCompensation Separation Benefits.”5. Ratification. All other provisions of the EA remain unchanged and are herebyratified by the Company and the Executive.
 
2

 
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Amendment to be executed by its dulyauthorized officer and the Executive has executed this Amendment, each as of the day and year firstset forth above.         **Vanguard Health Systems, Inc.**           By: /s/ Ronald P. Soltman             Name: Ronald P. Soltman      Title:   Executive Vice President           **Executive:**    /s/ Mark R. Montoney, M.D.           Mark R. Montoney, M.D.  
 
3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 20-CV-61067-RAR

CARLOS ANTWON ROBINSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

OFFICER EDUARDO J. REQUEJO, et al.,

Defendants. 

______________________________________/

ORDER AFFIRMING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

AND GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR BILL OF COSTS

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon United States Magistrate Judge Jared M. 

Strauss’s Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 89] (“Report”), entered on October 20, 2021. 

The Report recommends that Defendants’ Motion for Bill of Costs [ECF No. 84] be granted. 

Plaintiff filed objections to the Report on November 3, 2021 [ECF No. 90] (“Objections”). 

When a magistrate judge’s “disposition” has been properly objected to, district courts must 

review the disposition de novo. FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(3). Because Plaintiff timely filed 

Objections to the Report, the Court has conducted a de novo review of Magistrate Judge Strauss’s

findings. Having carefully reviewed the Report, Plaintiff’s Objections, the parties’ written 

submissions and supporting materials, and being otherwise fully advised, it is hereby

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Report [ECF No. 89] is AFFIRMED AND 

ADOPTED. Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion for Bill of Costs [ECF No. 84] is GRANTED.

Defendants are awarded taxable costs in the amount of $3,890.14, plus interest from August 6, 

2021, for which total sum let execution issue forthwith.

Case 0:20-cv-61067-RAR Document 91 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/24/2021 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

DONE AND ORDERED in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, this 24th day of November, 2021.

 _________________________________

 RODOLFO A. RUIZ II

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 0:20-cv-61067-RAR Document 91 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/24/2021 Page 2 of 2
#### Santy Massini v. Robert Boasberg and National Surety Corporation.

Present — Martin, P. J., Townley, Dore, Cohn and Callahan, JJ.
****Consumer Product Safety Commission**Night Bike Riders At RiskCPSC Document #5003To help reduce nighttime bicyclist fatalities, cyclists shouldalways wear a good helmet, use front and rear lights andreflectors, and wear reflective clothing. Children should neverride at night, and cyclists should avoid riding on unlighted,narrow roadways.Because of a sharp increase in the number of bicyclist fatalitiesresulting from car-bike collisions at night, the U.S. ConsumerProduct Safety Commission has issued a warning to bike riders totake necessary steps to make themselves and their bicycles morevisible at night.The number of bicyclists killed at night has increased from 304to 372 per year. In 1975, the number of nighttime deathsaccounted for 30% of the total number of bicyclists killed. By1982 (the latest year for which complete data are available),nighttime deaths accounted for 42% of the total number ofbicyclists killed. One factor contributing to fatal nighttimebicyclist accidents is that the bicycles and riders are notreadily visible to motorists. Motorists involved in car/bicyclecollisions report that they hit bicyclists because the bicyclesand riders were not visible. Cyclists' failure to wear protectivehelmets may have also contributed to the severity of headinjuries suffered in car-bike collisions.Therefore, CPSC recommends the following actions to cyclists:     1. Be sure your bike has reflectors required on all newbicycles by the CPSC bicycle regulation. Each bike should havefront and rear reflectors, pedal reflectors, and side rim orwheel reflectors. Use front and rear lights (as required in manyStates) to help make your bicycle more noticeable to cars atnight. Small battery-operated lamps strapped to your legs alsohelp.     2. Wear reflective clothing to make yourself more visible toautomobile drivers. Wear a reflective vest, reflective bands onarms and legs, and reflectorized tape on helmet.     3. Always wear a good helmet with a rigid (but crushable)interior material which may help absorb the force of an impact.(This is important for daytime riding, too.)     4. Never allow children to ride at night.     5. Avoid riding on dark, narrow roadways where the postedspeed limit is more than 35 mph.For more information on bicycle safety, consumers should call theCPSC Toll-Free Hotline on 800-638-CPSC.  A teletypewriterfor hearing-impaired consumers is 800-638-8270.008407**
### §154. Division of businesses; chief judge

(a) Each bankruptcy court for a district having more than one bankruptcy judge shall by majority vote promulgate rules for the division of business among the bankruptcy judges to the extent that the division of business is not otherwise provided for by the rules of the district court.

(b) In each district court having more than one bankruptcy judge the district court shall designate one judge to serve as chief judge of such bankruptcy court. Whenever a majority of the judges of such district court cannot agree upon the designation as chief judge, the chief judge of such district court shall make such designation. The chief judge of the bankruptcy court shall ensure that the rules of the bankruptcy court and of the district court are observed and that the business of the bankruptcy court is handled effectively and expeditiously.

(Added Pub. L. 98–353, title I, §104(a), July 10, 1984, 98 Stat. 339.)
8G‐0

APPENDIX 8G. AVERAGE TEMPERATURE RISE OF LCC CONSUMER 

CHOICE MODEL SELECTED TRANSFORMERS 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

8G.1 Average Temperature Rise of LCC-Selected Transformers 8G-1 

8G‐i 

 EE-RM/STD-00-550 COMMENT 196
8G.1 Average Temperature Rise of LCC-Selected Transformers 

The following tables present the average temperature rise of the LCC-selected distribution 

transformer designs. Each of these average temperature rises represents 10,000 consumer 

choices, based on the reference LCC scenario input conditions. 

Table 8G.1 Average Temperature Rise (degrees C) for Liquid-Immersed Design Lines at each TSL 

Level Design Line 1 Design Line 2 Design Line 3 Design Line 4 Design Line 5 

Base 61.89 58.06 64.91 64.21 65.00 

TSL1 61.94 57.49 64.91 64.21 65.00 

TSL2 61.94 58.06 64.90 64.23 65.00 

TSL3 61.94 57.79 64.90 63.65 65.00 

TSL4 61.73 57.27 64.78 63.65 65.00 

TSL5 60.14 47.40 46.88 40.75 65.00 

TSL6 21.79 14.43 41.98 35.39 65.00 

TSLA 60.14 44.74 64.78 63.99 65.00 

TSLB 61.64 51.22 64.90 64.23 65.00 

TSLC 61.64 51.22 64.90 64.23 65.00 

TSLD 61.73 57.27 64.90 64.23 65.00 

Table 8G.2 Average Temperature Rise (degrees C) for Medium-Voltage Dry-Type Design Lines at each TSL 

Level Design Line 9 Design Line 10 Design Line 11 Design Line 12 Design Line 13 

Base 129.42 101.67 114.44 109.93 116.87 

TSL1 128.10 88.15 107.36 102.36 114.36 

TSL2 127.08 94.83 91.50 107.11 115.47 

TSL3 112.88 91.45 78.63 100.49 110.48 

TSL4 88.39 83.03 60.35 89.44 91.63 

TSL5 67.23 60.11 51.43 62.41 66.15 

TSL6 67.23 60.11 51.43 62.41 66.15 

8G‐1 

 EE-RM/STD-00-550 COMMENT 196
#### Griffith Solomon Jones, Respondent, v. Rome Hollow Wire and Tube Company, Appellant.

Judgement and order affirmed, with costs. All concurred.
(No. 709

Claim denied.)

#### Mary O’Brien, Claimant, *vs.*State of Illinois, Respondent.

*Opinion filed September 16, 1924.*

Statute of *limitations*— when *a defense.*Claimant must file his claim within a reasonable time in order that the tax payers may have notice of whatever liability, if any, exists against them.

Municipal *corporation*— State *not liable for negligence of. The*State is not liable for an injury sustained by claimant who by reason of an accumulation of ice and snow upon a sidewalk, fell and was injured — the sidewalk being under the control of a municipal corporation.

*Same*— social *justice and equity*— lohen *court without jurisdiction.*In a claim of such character the Court of Claims Act does not confer jurisdiction upon the Court to allow it under the rule of social justice and equity.

Goss & Rooney, for claimant.

Edward J. Brundage, Attorney General; Floyd E. Britton, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.

Mr. Chief Justice Clarity

delivered the opinion of the court:

This is á claim filed on account' of alleged injury of the claimant, who slipped and fell on an accumulation of ice and snow upon the sidewalk at a point along West Jackson boulevard in Chicago, Illinois, on the 19th day of January, 1918.

It appears that claimant instituted her suit for damages in the Circuit Court of Cook County; that said suit was dismissed on the ground that said sidewalk was under the control of the West Park Commissioners.

The claimant filed this claim on June 30, 1922, and it has been urged by the State that a great deal of time has elapsed before the claim was filed in this court, setting up as a contention the position of this court as heretofore taken that demands against the State should be filed within a reasonable time so that the taxpayers may' know whatever liability may be determined against them at the earliest possible moment.

*21It is the opinion of this court that independent of the question of the Statute of Limitations, that as a matter of law, the demurrer of the defendant should be sustained and therefore the same is sustained.

The court is further of the opinion that it has not been heretofore the practice of this court to make an allowance in a case of this character on the ground of equity or social justice, and it is further the opinion of the court that under the Act creating it, it was not intended that the court would have the power to make awards in a case of this character, and as it has been held heretofore by this court that in taking jurisdiction of these classes of cases it would open up the way of an endless number of claims and place an obligation upon the State and the taxpayers that in the mind of this court was not intended by the legislature in the Act that brought the court into being.

Therefore, for the reasons stated, this court is of the opinion that the State is not liable either as a matter of law or under the rule of equity and- social justice. The claim is. therefore disallowed.
### §958. Persons ineligible as receivers

A person holding any civil or military office or employment under the United States or employed by any justice or judge of the United States shall not at the same time be appointed a receiver in any case in any court of the United States.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 926.)

#### Historical and Revision Notes

Based on title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., §527 (May 28, 1896, ch. 252, §20, 29 Stat. 184; Dec. 28, 1945, ch. 592, 59 Stat. 659).

Provisions of section 527 of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., relating to ineligibility of various persons as United States commissioner appear as section 631 of this title. Words "janitor of any Government building" were omitted as covered by words "person holding any civil or military employment under the United States" used in the revised section.

The general language of the revised section was substituted for the provisions of section 527 of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., enumerating certain officers and employees.

The exception of Alaska by reference to "section 591 of this title" in section 527 of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., was omitted as surplusage. Alaska is excluded by reason of the words "any court of the United States" which are limited by definitive section 451 of this title.

Changes in phraseology were made.
#### Frederick Pring, Respondent, v. Richard C. Thorp, Appellant.

Order reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion denied, with ten dollars costs. No opinion. Present — Ingraham, P. J., Clarke, Scott, Dowling and Hotchkiss, JJ.
No: 23-047 July 28, 2023 

CONTACT: Scott Burnell, 301-415-8200 

NRC Authorizes Fuel Loading and Operation at Vogtle Unit 4

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has authorized Southern Nuclear Operating 

Company to load fuel and begin operation of Vogtle Unit 4 in Georgia. This is the second reactor 

to reach this milestone in the agency’s combined license process. 

Southern Nuclear recently informed the agency that it had completed the inspections, 

tests, analyses, and acceptance criteria needed to demonstrate Vogtle Unit 4 will meet its license 

requirements. Vogtle Unit 4 is adjacent to the operating Units 1, 2 and 3, near Waynesboro, 

Georgia. 

“Our work in approving Unit 4 to move forward benefitted from what we learned in 

licensing Unit 3,” said Andrea Veil, director of the NRC’s Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. 

“We’re satisfied that Vogtle Unit 4 has been properly built and will protect public health and 

safety as it follows Unit 3 on the path to operation. NRC staff working at the site, in our Atlanta 

office, and here at headquarters will continue monitoring Unit 4’s activities as the fuel load and 

startup testing move forward.” 

The NRC’s decision transfers Vogtle Unit 4 into the operating reactor oversight process 

from the construction reactor oversight process. The information supporting the agency’s 

decision to allow Southern Nuclear to load fuel and begin operation of Vogtle Unit 4 is available 

on the NRC’s website.
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Public Affairs

Washington, DC 20555

Phone 301-415-8200 Fax 301-415-2234

Internet:opa@nrc.gov

No. 96-159 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

(Friday, November 15, 1996)

NRC REASSIGNS REGIONAL MANAGERS

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has named William L.

Axelson, currently Acting Deputy Regional Administrator of NRC

Region III in Lisle, Illinois, as Deputy Regional Administrator

of NRC Region I, which has offices in King of Prussia,

Pennsylvania.

Mr. Axelson succeeds William F. Kane, who will direct the

Spent Fuel Project Office in the Office of Nuclear Materials

Safety and Safeguards at NRC headquarters in Rockville, Maryland.

Mr. Kane is replacing Dr. William D. Travers, recently named

to head a Special Projects Office within the Office of Nuclear

Reactor Regulation to oversee all inspection and licensing

activities at the Millstone and Haddam Neck plants operated by

Northeast Utilities in Connecticut.

The Axelson and Kane assignments will be effective in early

March. A successor to Mr. Axelson in Region III will be named in

the near future.

Region I encompasses 11 states and the District of Columbia

in the northeastern United States and has 29 commercial nuclear

power reactors. Region III is responsible for the NRC regulatory

program in eight midwestern states having 27 commercial nuclear

reactors.

Mr. Axelson has served as Acting Regional Deputy

Administrator of NRC Region III since August, after having served

there as Director of the Division of Reactor Projects since 1995.

He joined the NRC in 1977 as a radiation specialist in the

Division of Radiation Safety and Safeguards. In 1979, he became

an emergency preparedness analyst, subsequently forming and

supervising the Emergency Preparedness Section until 1983, when

he became chief of the nuclear materials and safeguards branch.

In 1987, he was assigned to NRC Region III's Division of

Reactor Projects, and assumed a similar branch chief role for

operating reactor project management. While in the Division of

Reactor Projects, he also assumed the responsibilities of chief
of the technical support staff. He was appointed to the position

of deputy director of the Division of Radiation Safety and

Safeguards in 1990, and became director of that division in 1993.

Mr. Kane has been the Region I Deputy Administrator since

1990, after three years' service as director of the Division of

Reactor Projects. He joined the Atomic Energy Commission, the

predecessor to the NRC, in 1973, as a project manager in what is

now the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation at NRC headquarters.

Between 1973 and 1984 he served as a senior project manager, as

acting chief of the standardization branch, and in senior

managerial positions in the Office of the NRC's Executive

Director for Operations. He was deputy director of the Division

of Reactor Projects from 1985 to 1987.

####
No: II-23-010 April 20, 2023 

Contact: Dave Gasperson 404-997-4417 

NRC Schedules Virtual Meeting to Discuss 

Safety Performance of Global Nuclear Fuel Plant

Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has scheduled an April 25 virtual public meeting to 

discuss its two-year safety performance review of the Global Nuclear Fuel – Americas fuel 

fabrication facility near Wilmington, North Carolina.

The event will begin at 6 p.m., Eastern time, led by the NRC staff responsible for 

conducting plant inspections. The public and the media can access the meeting via Teams. The 

telephone conference number for those without access to Teams is 301-576-2978, passcode 

836183515#. 

NRC inspections at fuel cycle facilities focus on the most important areas related to safety 

and safeguards. These inspections occur multiple times a year and cover physical protection, 

material control and accounting, nuclear criticality safety, plant operations, fire safety, emergency 

preparedness, radiological controls, and other areas. 

The NRC assessed performance at the Global Nuclear Fuel-Americas facility from 

Jan. 1, 2021, to Dec. 31, 2022. Overall, the NRC staff review found the facility continued to 

conduct its activities safely and securely to protect workers, nearby residents, and the environment. 

The agency will continue the normal inspection program for NRC-licensed nuclear fuel facilities of 

this type during the next performance review period, which began on Jan. 1, 2023. 

A copy of the NRC letter to the company about the performance is available on the NRC 

website.