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




Ener1,
Inc.


1540
Broadway, Suite 25C


New York,
New York 10036




January
19, 2010





Securities
and Exchange Commission


100 F
Street, NE


Washington,
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-Q/A Amendment
No. 1 of Ener1, Inc., for the quarter ended September 30, 2009 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission, I, Charles Gassenheimer, 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-Q/A Amendment No. 1 of Ener1, Inc., for the
      quarter ended September 30, 2009 fully complies with the requirements of
      Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C.
      78m or 78o(d)); and





2 )
            the
      information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A Amendment
      No. 1 of Ener1, Inc., for the quarter ended September 30, 2009,
      fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
      results of operations of Ener1,
Inc.





/s/
      Charles GassenheimerCharles
      Gassenheimer
                    Chief
      Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board
                    (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.





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.
EXHIBIT
23





CONSENT
OF AUDITORS TO INCORPORATE


FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS INTO FORM S-8

















CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT
REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM








We consent to
the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No. 333-105598 on Form
S-8 pertaining to the AJS Bancorp, Inc. 2003 Stock Option Plan and the 2003
Recognition and Retention Plan of our report dated March 10, 2008 appearing in
the Annual Report on Form 10-K of AJS Bancorp, Inc. for the year ended December
31, 2007.









Crowe Chizek and Company
LLC




Oak Brook,
Illinois


March 20,
2008
§ 6.3 Collection and use of information (Privacy Act statements). ( a ) *General.* Any information used in whole or in part in making a determination about an individual's rights, benefits, or privileges under FEMA programs will be collected directly from the subject individual to the extent practicable. The system manager also shall ensure that information collected is used only in conformance with the provisions of the Act and these regulations.
( b ) *Solicitation of information.* System managers shall ensure that at the time information is solicited the solicited individual is informed of the authority for collecting that information, whether providing the information is mandatory or voluntary, the purpose for which the information will be used, the routine uses to be made of the information, and the effects on the individual, if any, of not providing the information. The Director, Records Management Division, Office of Management and Regional Administrators shall ensure that forms used to solicit information are in compliance with the Act and these regulations.
( c ) *Solicitation of Social Security numbers.* Before an employee of FEMA can deny to any individual a right, benefit, or privilege provided by law because such individual refuses to disclose his/her social security account number, the employee of FEMA shall ensure that either: ( 1 ) The disclosure is required by Federal statute; or
( 2 ) The disclosure of a social security number was required under a statute or regulation adopted before January 1, 1975, to verify the identity of an individual, and the social security number will become a part of a system of records in existence and operating before January 1, 1975. If solicitation of the social security number is authorized under paragraph (c) (1) or (2) of this section, the FEMA employee who requests an individual to disclose the social security account number shall first inform that individual whether that disclosure is mandatory or voluntary, by what statutory or other authority the number is solicited, and the use that will be made of it.
( d ) *Soliciting information from third parties.* An employee of FEMA shall inform third parties who are requested to provide information about another individual of the purposes for which the information will be used.
[44 FR 50293, Aug. 27, 1979, as amended at 47 FR 13149, Mar. 29, 1982; 48 FR 12091, Mar. 23, 1983; 50 FR 40006, Oct. 1, 1985]
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Alfredo ALDANA-SANABRIA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 05-40668.

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided Feb. 23, 2006.

James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for PlaintiffAppellee.

Timothy William Crooks, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Laura Fletcher Leavitt, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before GARZA, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Jose Alfredo Aldana-Sanabria appeals his sentence under 8 U.S.C. § 1326 for illegal re-entry into the United States after having been deported. First, Aldana-Sanabria asserts that the district court *198erred in concluding that his prior state felony conviction for simple possession of a controlled substance was an “aggravated felony” for purposes of § 1326(b). Our precedent holds that a state felony conviction for simple drug possession is properly considered an aggravated felony for purposes of § 1326(b). *See United States v. Rivera,*265 F.3d 310, 312-13 (5th Cir. 2001); *United States v. Hinojosa-Lopez,*130 F.3d 691, 693-94 (5th Cir.1997). Therefore, this issue is without merit, and we affirm the judgment of the district court with respect to it.

Next, Aldana-Sanabria argues that the district court erred in ordering, as a condition of supervised release, that he cooperate with the probation officer in the collection of DNA. His claim is not ripe for judicial review in light of our holding in *United States v. Riascos-Cuenu,*428 F.3d 1100, 1102 (5th Cir.2005), *petition for cert. filed*(Jan. 9, 2006) (No. 05-8662). Accordingly, we dismiss this portion of the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

Last, Aldana-Sanabria argues that the “felony” and “aggravated felony” provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are unconstitutional. His challenge is foreclosed by *Almendarez-Torres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998). Although Aldana-Sanabria contends that *Almendarez-Torres*was incorrectly decided and that a majority of the Supreme Court would overrule *Almendarez-Torres*in light of *Apprendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), we have repeatedly rejected such arguments on the basis that *Almendarez-Torres*remains binding. *See United States v. Garza-Lopez,*410 F.3d 268, 276 (5th Cir.), *cert. denied,*— U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 298, 163 L.Ed.2d 260 (2005). Aldana-Sanabria properly concedes that his argument is foreclosed in light of *Almendarez-Torres*and circuit precedent, but he raises it here to preserve it for further review. Thus, we affirm the judgment of the district court on this point.

JUDGMENT AFFIRMED; APPEAL DISMISSED IN PART.

*

 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.
**EXHIBIT 32**

 

**Certification pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Eastern American Natural GasTrust (the “Trust”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2004, as filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),the undersigned, not in its individual capacity but solely as the trustee ofthe Trust, certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to its knowledge:

 

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theTrust at the dates and for the period presented.

 

The above certification is furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 ofthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350) and is not being filed as partof the Form 10-Q or as a separate disclosure document.

 

 
|   | The Bank of New York,                          |
|--------|------------------------------------------------|
|   | Trustee for Eastern American Natural Gas Trust |
|   |                                           |
|   |                                           |
|   | By:                                       |  /s/ Patrick Tadie |   |
|   |                                           | Vice President |
|   |                                           | The Bank of New York |

 

----
Exhibit 99.2

**CERTIFICATION OF CFO PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OFTHE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of VanguardHealth Systems, Inc. (the “Company”) for the 12 monthsended June 30, 2002, as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, JosephD. Moore, Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer andTreasurer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Actof 2002, that:

           (1)        The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)                       of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

           (2)        The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material                       respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.

/s/ Joseph D.Moore                            Joseph D. MooreExecutive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer andTreasurerSeptember 19, 2002
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

 

**Consent of Ryder Scott Company**

 

We hereby consent to theinclusion of our report dated October 13, 2005, in the Quarterly Report on Form10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2005 of Eastern American Natural GasTrust and to the references to our firm included therein.

 

 
|   | */s/Ryder  Scott Company* |   |
|--------|---------------------------|--------|
|   | Ryder Scott  Company      |
|   | Denver  Colorado          |
|   | October 8,  2005          |

 

----
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Public Affairs, Region I

475 Allendale Road King of Prussia, PA 19406

Fax: 610/337-5241

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

I-99-11 February 2, 1999

Contact: Diane Screnci (610/337-5330) FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Neil A. Sheehan (610/337-5331)

MEETING BETWEEN NRC, WASHINGTON (D.C.) HOSPITAL RESCHEDULED

A meeting between Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff

and representatives of a Washington, D.C., medical facility to

discuss 10 apparent violations of agency requirements has been

rescheduled for Monday, February 8. The predecisional

enforcement conference involving Washington Hospital Center,

110 Irving Street, N.W., was originally planned for January 14

but was postponed due to inclement weather.

The meeting is scheduled to begin at 10 a.m. in the

Public Meeting Room at the NRC Region I office in King of

Prussia, Pa. It will be open to the public for observation.

Apparent violations to be discussed involve the

handling of radioactive material, specifically the apparent

loss of a nuclear pacemaker.

The decision to hold a predecisional enforcement

conference does not mean the NRC has determined a violation has

occurred or that enforcement action will be taken. Rather, the

purpose is to discuss the apparent violations, their causes and

safety significance; to provide the licensee with an

opportunity to point out any errors that may have been made in

the NRC inspection report; and to enable the licensee to

outline its proposed corrective action.

No decision on the apparent violations will be made at

this conference. That decision will be made by NRC officials

at a later time.

ˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇ ̨
#### § 115.30 Technical requirements for containers by design type.

The plans and specifications of a container submitted in accordance with the requirements contained in § 115.29, and the one or more containers inspected in accordance with the requirements of § 115.31, must comply with the requirements of Annex 7 of the Customs Convention on the International Transport of Goods Under Cover of TIR Carnets (TIR Convention), November 14, 1975 (TIAS), and Annex 4 of the Customs Convention on Containers (Container Convention), December 2, 1972. Copies of Annex 7 and Annex 4 may be obtained from the Headquarters, U.S. Customs Service, Office of Field Operations, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20229.

[T.D. 86-92, 51 FR 16161, May 1, 1986, as amended by T.D. 99-27, 64 FR 13675, Mar. 22, 1999]
### §190e. Repealed. Pub. L. 91–510, title II, §242(b)(1), Oct. 26, 1970, 84 Stat. 1172

Section, act Aug. 2, 1946, ch. 753, title I, §138, 60 Stat. 832, related to report of legislative budget by Committee on Ways and Means and Committee on Appropriations of House and Committee on Finance and Committee on Appropriations of Senate, its contents, and concurrent resolution adopting the budget. See Rules of the House of Representatives and Standing Rules of the Senate.

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

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Repeal effective immediately prior to noon on Jan. 3, 1971, see section 601(1) of Pub. L. 91–510, set out as an Effective Date of 1970 Amendment note under section 4301 of this title.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 20-61544-CIV-SMITH/VALLE

MICHAEL MAIER, 

Plaintiff,

v. 

CITY OF FORT LAUDERDALE, 

 Defendant. 

_______________________________________/ 

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This matter is before the Court on the United States Magistrate Judge’s Report and 

Recommendation to District Judge [DE 57], in which the Magistrate Judge recommends granting 

in part Defendant City of Fort Lauderdale’s Motion for Costs [DE 49]. No objections have been 

filed in response to the Report and Recommendation. Thus, having reviewed the Magistrate 

Judge’s Report and Recommendation and the record, it is 

ORDERED that 

1. The Report and Recommendation [DE 57] is AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED. 

2. Defendant City of Fort Lauderdale’s Motion for Costs [DE 49] is GRANTED IN 

PART. Defendant is awarded a total of $3,168.30 in costs. 

3. This case is CLOSED. 

DONE AND ORDERED in Fort Lauderdale, Florida on this 12th day of April, 2022. 

cc: Counsel of record 

Case 0:20-cv-61544-RS Document 58 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2022 Page 1 of 1
###### Editorial Note on Part 10

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 10 appear by CBP Dec. 16-26, 81 FR 93010, Dec. 20, 2016.

#### § 10.221 Applicability.

Title II of Public Law 106-200 (114 Stat. 251), entitled the United States-Caribbean Basin Trade Partnership Act (CBTPA), amended section 213(b) of the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act (the CBERA, 19 U.S.C. 2701-2707) to authorize the President to extend additional trade benefits to countries that have been designated as beneficiary countries under the CBERA. Section 213(b)(2) of the CBERA (19 U.S.C. 2703(b)(2)) provides for the preferential treatment of certain textile and apparel articles from CBERA beneficiary countries. The provisions of §§ 10.221-10.227 of this part set forth the legal requirements and procedures that apply for purposes of obtaining preferential treatment pursuant to CBERA section 213(b)(2).

[T.D. 00-68, 65 FR 59658, Oct. 5, 2000; 65 FR 67262, Nov. 9, 2000]
### [§6687. Repealed. Pub. L. 101–239, title VII, §7711(b)(1), Dec. 19, 1989, 103 Stat. 2393]

Section, added Pub. L. 92–512, title I, §144(b)(1), Oct. 20, 1972, 86 Stat. 936, related to failure to supply information with respect to place of residence.

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

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Repeal applicable to returns and statements the due date for which (determined without regard to extensions) is after Dec. 31, 1989, see section 7711(c) of Pub. L. 101–239, set out as an Effective Date of 1989 Amendment note under section 6721 of this title.
#### § 115.1 Purpose.

This chapter establishes procedures for certifying containers and road vehicles in conformance with the Customs Convention on Containers (1956) (TIAS 6634), the Customs Convention on the International Transport of Goods Under Cover of TIR Carnets (1959) (TIAS 6633), the Customs Convention on the International Transport of Goods Under Cover of TIR Carnets, November 14, 1975 (TIAS), and the Customs Convention on Containers, 1972 (TIAS), by applying the procedures and technical conditions set forth in the annexes to these conventions.
###### Editorial Note on Part 10

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 10 appear by CBP Dec. 16-26, 81 FR 93010, Dec. 20, 2016.

#### § 10.13 Statutory provision: Subheading 9802.00.80, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (19 U.S.C. 1202).

Subheading 9802.00.80, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), (19 U.S.C. 1202), provides that articles assembled abroad in whole or in part of fabricated components, the product of the United States, which (a) were exported in condition ready for assembly without further fabrication, (b) have not lost their physical identity in such articles by change in form, shape, or otherwise, and (c) have not been advanced in value or improved in condition abroad except by being assembled and except by operations incidental to the assembly process such as cleaning, lubricating, and painting, are subject to a duty upon the full value of the imported article, less the cost or, if no charge is made, the value of such products of the United States. The rate of duty which is assessed upon the dutiable portion of the imported article is that which is applicable to the imported article as a whole under the appropriate provision of the HTSUS (19 U.S.C. 1202) for such article. If that provision requires a specific or compound rate of duty, the total duties assessed on the imported article are reduced in such proportion as the cost or value of the returned United States components which qualify for the exemption bears to the full value of the assembled article.

# Example 1.

A transistor radio is assembled abroad from foreign-made components and American-made transistors. Upon importation, the transistor radio is subject to the ad valorem rate of duty applicable to transistor radios upon the value of the radio less the cost or value of the American-made transistors assembled therein.

# Example 2.

A solid-state watch movement is assembled abroad from foreign-made components and an American-made integrated circuit. If the movement in question is subject to the specific rate of duty of 75 cents if the value of the assembled movement is $30, and if the value of the American-made integrated circuit is $10, then the value of the integrated circuit represents one third of the total value of the assembled article and the duty on the assembled article will be reduced by one third ($.25). Therefore, the duty on the assembled movement is 50 cents.

[T.D. 75-230, 40 FR 43021, Sept. 18, 1975, as amended by T.D. 89-1, 53 FR 51247, Dec. 21, 1988]
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. 98-180 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

(Wednesday, October 7, 1998)

NRC MAKES AVAILABLE STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS

FOR PROPOSED RULE ON YUCCA MOUNTAIN SITE

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is making available for public information

staff recommendations for draft regulations governing disposal of high-level radioactive

wastes at a proposed geologic repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada.

The Commission is presently reviewing these recommendations. It has not yet

approved their publication as a proposed rule.

The Commission is making the staff recommendations available now to enable

all stakeholders to have preliminary access to the document. Once the Commission

approves a proposed rule, it will be published in the Federal Register for formal public

comment, and a press release will be issued.

Interested persons may obtain a copy of the staff recommendations from the

NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20555;

telephone: 202/634-3273.

A copy of the recommendations may also be obtained electronically at the

following Website address: http://techconf.llnl.gov/cgi-bin/topics. To view the

recommendations at that site, select “Proposed Rule for Disposal of High-Level

Radioactive Waste at a Proposed Geologic Repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada.”

###
###### Editorial Note on Part 10

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 10 appear by CBP Dec. 16-26, 81 FR 93010, Dec. 20, 2016.

#### § 10.1030 General.

Except as otherwise provided in this subpart, all criminal, civil, or administrative penalties which may be imposed on U.S. importers, exporters, and producers for violations of the customs and related U.S. laws and regulations will also apply to U.S. importers, exporters, and producers for violations of the U.S. laws and regulations relating to the UKFTA.