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



Section 1350 Certifications



I, Alan D. Feldman, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350 adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that, to my knowledge:



| | (i) |  | The accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 28, 2002 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | --- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (ii) |  | The information contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Midas, Inc.
| | ---- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|/s/ Alan D. Feldman                                           
|--------------------------------------------------------------
|Alan D. Feldman                                               
|President and Chief Executive Officer Date: September 10, 2003



I, William M. Guzik, hereby certify
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350 adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that, to my knowledge:



| | (i) |  | The accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 28, 2002 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | --- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (ii) |  | The information contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Midas, Inc.
| | ---- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|/s/ William M. Guzik                            
|------------------------------------------------
|William M. Guzik                                
|Senior Vice President and                       
|Chief Financial Officer Date: September 10, 2003
### -79.0 -78.5 -78.0 -77.5 -77.0 -76.5 -76.0 -75.5

38.0 38.5 39.0 39.5 40.0 

## ★ ▲ ▲ ▲

▲



## ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 

### 500 1000 1500 100 18 12 06 00 06/26 

## NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL 

# Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 26 Jun 07

EDAS Meteorological DataSource★at 39.41 N 77.38 WMeters AGL 

## ★
■ ■ ■
■ 

## ★ ■ ■ ■ ■ 

## ★
● ● ●



## ★ ● ● ● ●
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Region III Office of Public Affairs

801 Warrenville Road, Lisle, IL 60532-4351

NEWS ANNOUNCEMENT: RIII-98-37 June 5, 1998

CONTACT: Jan Strasma 630/829-9663

Angela Greenman 630/829-9662

E-mail: opa3@nrc.gov

NOTE TO EDITORS: QUAD CITIES ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE POSTPONED

A Predecisional Enforcement Conference scheduled for Monday

between Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff and Commonwealth

Edison Company officials on apparent fire protection violations

at the Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station has been postponed. The

conference will be scheduled at a later date.

(Press Release RIII-98-35 issued May 28, announced the

conference)

####
Exhibit 32

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 Kaiser Ventures LLC (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 2010, as amended by the Companys Report on Form 10-K/A, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission as of the date hereof (the Report), we, Richard E. Stoddard, Chief Executive Officer and James F.
Verhey, Chief Financial Officer of Kaiser Ventures LLC (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, as amended; 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: January 13, 2012 |  |  |  | /s/ Richard E. Stoddard                 
|                       |  |  |  | Richard E. Stoddard                     
|                       |  |  |  | Chairman of the Board, President & CEO  
|                       |  | 
|                       |  |  |  | /s/ James F. Verhey                     
|                       |  |  |  | James F. Verhey                         
|                       |  |  |  | Executive Vice President - CFO          
|                       |  |  |  | Principal Financial & Accounting 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 the Company and will be retained by the Company
and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

This certification accompanies this Report
on Form 10-K/A pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by such Act, the deemed filed by the Company for purposed 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
incorporated it by reference.
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 June 30, 2006, 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   
|August 10, 2006           
|                          
|/S/    DOUGLAS P.
WILLIAMS
|Douglas P. Williams       
|Chief Financial Officer   
|August 10, 2006
§ 307.14 Revolving Loan Fund report. ( a ) *Frequency of reports.* All RLF Recipients, including those receiving Recapitalization Grants for existing RLFs, must complete and submit an RLF report, using Form ED-209, in a format and at a frequency as required by EDA.
( b ) *Report contents.* RLF Recipients must certify as part of the RLF report to EDA that the RLF is operating in accordance with the applicable RLF Plan and that the information provided is complete and accurate.
[82 FR 57057, Dec. 1, 2017]
450 P.2d 633

#### Mary Jane REED and Robert M. Reed, Petitioners, v. Honorable John B. McMANUS, Jr., District Judge in and for the County of Bernalillo, Respondent.

No. 8781.

Supreme Court of New Mexico.

Jan. 27, 1969.

Ordered that the above entitled cause be and the same is hereby dismissed.

Further ordered that the Alternative Writ of Mandamus issued out of this Court on 3 January 1969, be and the same is hereby quashed.
### §703. Advance funding

(a) For the purpose of affording adequate notice of funding available under this chapter, appropriations under this chapter are authorized to be included in the appropriation Act for the fiscal year preceding the fiscal year for which they are available for obligation.

(b) In order to effect a transition to the advance funding method of timing appropriation action, the authority provided by subsection (a) of this section shall apply notwithstanding that its initial application will result in the enactment in the same year (whether in the same appropriation Act or otherwise) of two separate appropriations, one for the then current fiscal year and one for the succeeding fiscal year.

(Pub. L. 93–112, §4, as added Pub. L. 105–220, title IV, §403, Aug. 7, 1998, 112 Stat. 1097.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 703, Pub. L. 93–112, §4, Sept. 26, 1973, 87 Stat. 358, related to advance funding, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 105–220, title IV, §403, Aug. 7, 1998, 112 Stat. 1093.
464 P.2d 569

#### STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Adolpho J. RAMIREZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 406.

Court of Appeals of New Mexico.

Jan. 16, 1970.

Paul Kelly, Jr., Hinkle, Bondurant & Christy, Roswell, for defendant-appellant.

James A. Maloney, Atty. Gen., Santa Fe, James C. Compton, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., for plaintiff-appellee.

OPINION

WOOD, Judge.

Defendant’s third appeal is from a denial of post-conviction relief. Section 21 — 1— 1(93), N.M.S.A.1953 (Supp.1969). His direct appeal is reported at 76 N.M. 72, 412 P.2d 246 (1966). A prior appeal from a denial of post-conviction relief is reported at 78 N.M. 418, 432 P.2d 262 (1967).

In his motion, defendant claims he was inadequately represented by court appointed counsel. He claims he was inadequately *151-represented on his direct appeal because counsel wrote to him: “ T will represent you on appeal for the reason that the court will appoint me to represent you on appeal ■and for no other reason.’ ” Defendant asserts this shows that counsel was prejudiced ■against him and defended him reluctantly.

Defendant also claims he was inadequately represented at his trial. This claim has two parts. First, he asserts that counsel failed to call as a witness one who had witnessed the crime and “ * * * who failed to identify the Petitioner as the one who -committed the armed robbery.” Second, defendant contends counsel failed to consult with him and failed to advise him of counsel’s decision not to call this witness.

None of defendant’s claims provide a basis for post-conviction relief because:

1. None of the attacks on court appointed counsel amount to a claim that the proceedings leading to his conviction, and to ■affirmance on direct appeal, were a sham, farce or mockery. State v. Tapia, 80 N.M. 477, 457 P.2d 996 (Ct.App.1969); State v. Dominguez, 80 N.M. 328, 455 P.2d 194 (Ct.App.1969).

2. Petitioner’s motion asserts his attorney wrote to him: “ T did not call Mrs. Ray to the stand because I did not want to emphasis [sic] that her two little children were present during the robbery. * * * According to petitioner this letter also indicates the witness “was not very cognizant” of what happened during the robbery. Counsel’s decision not to call a witness and his alleged failure to advise defendant of that decision pertain to trial tactics and strategy and the conduct of the trial. State v. Selgado, 78 N.M. 165, 429 P. 2d 363*(1967),*states:

> “The petitioner is not entitled to post-conviction relief on the grounds that the result might have been different if different trial tactics and strategy had been employed. * * * Generally, an attorney of record has the exclusive power and control with respect to procedural and remedial matters over the litigation with which he is charged. * * * ”

 Since defendant’s claims do not provide a basis for post-conviction relief, the trial court did not err in deciding defendant’s motion without an evidentiary hearing and without appointing counsel to represent him at that hearing. State v. Tapia, supra, and cases therein cited.

The order denying post-conviction relief is affirmed.

It is so ordered.

SPIESS, C. J., and OMAN, J., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND THE CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FILED AS
PART OF THE QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q.
</LEGEND>

<S>                               <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                     3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                       10,664,000
<SECURITIES>                                          0
<RECEIVABLES>                                 6,410,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                  3,766,000
<INVENTORY>                                   2,222,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             18,049,000
<PP&E>                                        2,383,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                1,765,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               23,118,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         7,220,000
<BONDS>                                               0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                 0
<PREFERRED>                                           0
<COMMON>                                        116,000
<OTHER-SE>                                   15,282,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 23,118,000
<SALES>                                       4,655,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              4,655,000
<CGS>                                         4,259,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 4,259,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              3,944,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                187,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                    0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (2,395,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                          0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (2,395,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                       0
<CHANGES>                                             0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (2,395,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                                       (0.21)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (0.21)




</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Merced OLIVAS-ALDAME, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 05-50726.

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided Feb. 24, 2006.

Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Adrienne Urrutia, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before GARZA, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Merced Olivas-Aldame raises arguments that are foreclosed by *Almendarez-Torres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), which held that a prior conviction is a sentencing factor under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) and not a separate criminal offense. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. 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 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Public Affairs, Region I

475 Allendale Road King of Prussia, PA 19401

Phone: 610/337-5330 Fax: 610/337-5241

Internet: dps@nrc.gov or nas@nrc.gov

I-97-49 May 8, 1997

Contact: Diane Screnci FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Neil A. Sheehan

NRC STAFF CONDITIONALLY AUTHORIZES

RESTART OF NINE MILE POINT 1

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has authorized,

subject to license commitments, the restart of Niagara Mohawk

Power Corporation's Unit 1 of the Nine Mile Point Unit nuclear

power plant, operated by Niagara Mohawk Power Corportion at

Scriba, New York.

A staff safety evaluation concludes the unit is safe to

operate for 10,600 hours (approximately 14 1/2 months), provided

that reactor water chemistry is maintained consistent with

Electric Power Research Institute guidelines to minimize the

growth of vertical weld cracks in the unit's core shroud. The

conditional approval also requires that, within 60 days, Niagara

Mohawk must apply for a license amendment reflecting this water

chemistry requirement. These conditions are legally binding and

enforceable.

Niagara Mohawk found the vertical weld cracking through

inspections conducted during the recent Unit 1 refueling outage.

The company also found that four tie rod assemblies ˇ which were

installed as a pre-emptive repair during the 1995 outage ˇ had

lost some tension and that the lower clips on three rods were

damaged.

The core shroud, which controls the flow of water through

the reactor core, is a cylindrical stainless steel assembly that

surrounds the core. Operating time, coolant chemistry, carbon

content, neutron flux, residual stress from welding, and

fabrication and operating stresses all contribute to

intergranular stress corrosion cracking.

At a meeting between the NRC staff and Niagara Mohawk on

April 14, the company presented its analysis of the cracking and

also presented a description of the actions it had taken to

replace the lower clips on the tie rod assemblies.

In addition to its technical analysis, the NRC staff also

considered questions and comments made by the public at the April

14 meeting and in correspondence received since that meeting.

The company also has agreed to propose an inspection plan

for the next scheduled outage and submit the plan to the NRC at

least three months before the outage is scheduled to begin. The
plan, which will specify the inspection methods to be used, will

provide details on inspection of the shroud repair components and

the shroud's horizontal, vertical and ring segment welds.

#

NOTE: The Safety Evaluation Report is available on the NRC's Web

Site at http://www.nrc.gov/OPA/reports. Copies are also

available from the NRC's Local Public Document Room in the

Penfield Library at SUNY-Oswego.
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. 96-130 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

(Tuesday, October 1, 1996)

NRC ISSUES CONFIRMATORY ACTION LETTER

TO NAC OF GEORGIA

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has issued a letter to NAC

International, Inc., of Norcross, Georgia, confirming that the

company has agreed to perform specified maintenance before the

next use of any of the company's packages for transportation of

radioactive material.

The confirmatory action letter, signed by Carl J.

Paperiello, Director, Office of Material Safety and Safeguards,

results from an NRC inspection September 23 to 26 of NAC's

Norcross facilities.

The agency conducted the inspection to determine whether NAC

activities associated with the design, maintenance and use of

transportation packages were performed in accordance with NRC

certificates of compliance and regulations. An additional

objective was to determine whether activities associated with the

design of NAC's dry storage systems for spent nuclear fuel were

performed in accordance with the certificates and regulations.

The inspection team determined that:

ˇ Unqualified vendors were used for annual maintenance

activities and to supply components important to safety for

transportation packages.

ˇ A non-conforming trunnion (a pivoting pin used for

lifting and handling) on a transportation package had not been

identified by the company and has not been fixed.

ˇ Annual maintenance procedures do not include a required

annual helium leak test of the transportation packages.

ˇ Analysis and documentation for designs and design

modifications of transportation packages and dry storage systems

were not reviewed using the required independent verification and

approval process.
2

By October 7, NAC has agreed to submit a plan to NRC for

accomplishing the following actions:

ˇ Before the next use of the transportation packages,

perform all required maintenance, including leak tests and

identification and correction of nonconforming items, using

qualified replacement parts, calibrated equipment and qualified

personnel.

ˇ Re-examine design analyses and documents from 1990 till

the present for all transportation packages and dry storage

systems.

ˇ Bring the quality assurance program into compliance.

The company is to notify Dr. Paperiello when it has

completed these actions.

####
#### In the Matter of Michael P. Kosolapov, Respondent, v. Borris M. Komar, Appellant.

Ho opinion. Close, P. J., Hagarty, Carswell, Johnston and Taylor, JJ., concur.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19
- 1286
In re: GABRIELLE MYERS, a/k/a Gabby Myers , Petitioner

.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus . ( 3:17

- cr - 00688

- JFA

- 13 )

Submitted : May 14, 2019 Decided: May 22, 2019

Before NIEMEYER and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges , and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Petition denied by un published per curiam opinion

. Gabrielle Myers , Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Gabrielle Myers petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order modifying the district court’s discovery order in her pending criminal case. We conclude that Myers is not entitled to mandamus relief.
Mandamus relief is a dras tic remedy and should be used only in extraordinary circumstances. Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Court , 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976); United States v.
Moussaoui , 333 F.3d 509, 516

- 17 (4th Cir. 2003). M andamus relief is available only when the petitioner has a clear rig ht to the relief sought. In re Murphy

- Brown, LLC , 907 F.3d 788, 795 (4th Cir. 2018)

. Finally, m andamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal. In re Lockheed Martin Corp. , 503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007). The relief sought by Myers is not availa ble by way of mandamus . Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED