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

CERTIFICATIONS 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 Quarterly Report of Jarden Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period
ended June 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Martin E. Franklin, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify to my knowledge, 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.

A signed original 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.



| |  |                                                                      
| |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------
| |  | /s/ Martin E. Franklin                                               
| |  | Martin E. Franklin Chairman and Chief Executive Officer July 28, 2009

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Jarden Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the
period ended June 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Ian G.H. Ashken, Vice Chairman and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify to my knowledge, 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.

A signed original 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.



| |  |                                                                        
| |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------
| |  | /s/ Ian G.H. Ashken                                                    
| |  | Ian G.H. Ashken Vice Chairman and Chief Financial Officer July 28, 2009
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     This schedule contains summary financial information extracted
     from the March 31, 1999 Form 10-Q and is qualified in its 
     entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                         <C>    
              
<PERIOD-TYPE>               3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-31-1999           
<PERIOD-START>                  JAN-01-1999           
<PERIOD-END>                    MAR-31-1999          
<CASH>                           34,766               
<SECURITIES>                          0         
<RECEIVABLES>                    22,533              
<ALLOWANCES>                        954           
<INVENTORY>                           0         
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                 66,373              
<PP&E>                           38,658              
<DEPRECIATION>                   21,083              
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  235,621              
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>            17,532              
<BONDS>                               0         
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                 0         
<PREFERRED>                           0         
<COMMON>                            194           
<OTHER-SE>                       90,495             
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    235,621              
<SALES>                               0         
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                 25,382              
<CGS>                                 0        
<TOTAL-COSTS>                     9,885             
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                  2,475             
<LOSS-PROVISION>                      0         
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                2,329            
<INCOME-PRETAX>                   5,317              
<INCOME-TAX>                      2,155           
<INCOME-CONTINUING>               3,162             
<DISCONTINUED>                        0         
<EXTRAORDINARY>                       0         
<CHANGES>                             0         
<NET-INCOME>                      3,162              
<EPS-PRIMARY>                      0.18           
<EPS-DILUTED>                      0.18           
        

<FN>
NOTE: Due to the change in computing EPS per FASB No. 128, the tags per the 
FDS schedule will correspond to FASB No. 128 as follows: 
     FDS tag                  FASB No. 128
     EPS - Primary            EPS - Basic
     EPS - Diluted            EPS - Diluted

</FN>


</TABLE>
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Region III Office of Public Affairs

801 Warrenville Road, Lisle IL 60532-4351

NEWS ANNOUNCEMENT: RIII-96-47 August 23, 1996

CONTACT: Jan Strasma 630/829-9663 FOR

IMMEDIATE RELEASE Angela Dauginas 630/829-9662

E-mail: opa3@nrc.gov

NRC DISPATCHES AUGMENTED INSPECTION TEAM TO REVIEW

CHEMICAL REACTION AT URANIUM FUEL PLANT IN MISSOURI

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has dispatched an

Augmented Inspection Team to the Combustion Engineering Co.

uranium fuel facility in Hematite, Missouri, to review the

circumstances surrounding an unexpected chemical reaction in a

tank outside the plant on Thursday (August 22).

The plant processes low-enriched uranium and manufactures

fuel for nuclear power plants.

The strong chemical reaction ignited materials in an

adjacent tank containing flooring cleaning residue and water.

The reaction was apparently caused by the improper mixing of two

chemicals in the tank.

The incident occurred at 7:55 a.m., and the chemical

reaction was terminated 50 minutes later. The local fire

department assisted the plant fire brigade in extingishing the

burning materials.

As a precaution, non-emergency personnel were evacuated from

the plant. There were no injuries associated with the chemical

reaction. One person was injured when he fell during the

evacuation.

Preliminary surveys by the company showed no evidence of any

release of radioactive material associated with the incident.

All plant activities were resumed later in the morning,

although no work is being done in the area of the tank pending

further reviews by the NRC and the company.

The three-person NRC inspection team is headed by Gary

Shear, a branch chief in the NRC's Region III office in Lisle,

Illinois. The team members arrived at the site Thursday

afternoon and evening.

When its onsite review is completed, the inspection team

will meet with company representatives to present its preliminary
findings. The meeting will be open to public observation. The

time and location of the meeting will be announced later.

A written report will be issued by the team several weeks

after the inspection is completed.

#####
### §46a–4. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, Pub. L. 91–145, Dec. 12, 1969, 83 Stat. 342, made section 46a–3 of this title applicable to President of Senate, and was omitted from the Code in view of the repeal of section 46a–3.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 21.1

                           Subsidiaries of BUCA, Inc.


BUCA Restaurants, Inc., a Minnesota corporation
BUCA Restaurants 2, Inc., a Minnesota corporation
BUCA Investments, Inc., a Minnesota corporation
BUCA Texas Restaurants, L.P., Texas Limited Partnership
BUCA (Eden Prairie), Inc., a Minnesota corporation
BUCA (Gannon Road), Inc., a Minnesota corporation
BUCA (DT Milwaukee), Inc., a Minnesota corporation
BUCA (Lakeview Chicago), Inc., a Minnesota corporation
BUCA (Wheeling), Inc., a Minnesota corporation
BUCA (Indianapolis), Inc., a Minnesota corporation
BUCA (Encino), Inc., a Minnesota corporation
BUCA (Pasadena), Inc., a Minnesota corporation
BEPPO (DT San Francisco), Inc., a Minnesota corporation
UNA FAMIGLIA (Palo Alto), Inc., a Minnesota corporation
BUCA (Campbell), Inc., a Minnesota corporation
UNA FAMIGLIA (DT Seattle), Inc., a Minnesota corporation
BUCA (Lynnwood), Inc., a Minnesota corporation
BUCA (Kansas), Inc., a Kansas corporation
BUCA (Nevada), Inc., a Nevada corporation
BUCA (Kentucky), Inc.,  a Kentucky corporation
BUCA Texas Beverage, Inc., a Texas corporation
#### § 101.300 What is the Inspector General's authority to conduct audits, investigations, and inspections?

The Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended (5 U.S.C. App. 3) authorizes SBA's Inspector General to provide policy direction for, and to conduct, supervise, and coordinate such audits, investigations, and inspections relating to the programs and operations of SBA as appears necessary or desirable.
#### § 111.81 Settlement and compromise.

The Executive Assistant Commissioner may settle and compromise any disciplinary proceeding which has been instituted under this subpart according to the terms and conditions agreed to by the parties including, but not limited to, the assessment of a monetary penalty in lieu of any proposed suspension or revocation of a broker's license or permit.

[CBP Dec. 22-21, 87 FR 63321, Oct. 18, 2022]
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No. 20-23230-CIV-CANNON/OTAZO-REYES

ANGELA MILNER, 

SHAKIR WILLIAMS, 

RASHEEDAH MAYS, 

AMEERA BREWER, 

EBONY MAYFIELD, 

JOCELYN JOHNSON,

JAMMIE PARKER, 

MARLEKA WILLIAMS, and

TIFFANY THOMPSON,

Plaintiffs,

v.

TERI GALARDI,

Defendant.

___________________________/

ORDER

THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon Defendant Teri Galardi’s (“Defendant”) Motion 

for Sanctions, filed on May 6, 2021, against Plaintiffs Angela Milner, Shakir Williams, Rasheedah 

Mays, Ameera Brewer, Ebony Mayfield, Jocelyn Johnson, Jammie Parker, Marleka Williams, and 

Tiffany Thompson (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) for failure to comply with the undersigned’s 

discovery order entered on March 16, 2021 (hereafter, “Order”) [D.E. 48]. See Motion for 

Sanctions [D.E. 52]. This matter was referred to the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 by 

the Honorable Aileen M. Cannon, United States District Judge [D.E. 38]. The undersigned held a 

Zoom hearing on this matter on May 26, 2021 (hereafter, “Hearing”). At the Hearing, Defendant’s 

counsel reported that Plaintiffs complied with the Order on May 10, 2021, almost two months after 

issuance of the Order and four days after the Motion for Sanctions was filed. See also Notice of 

Case 1:20-cv-23230-AMC Document 63 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/26/2021 Page 1 of 2
2

Compliance [D.E. 55]. Therefore, the undersigned found that Plaintiffs finally complied with the 

Order as a result of Defendant’s Motion for Sanctions.

In accordance with the undersigned’s rulings at the Hearing, it is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Motion for Sanctions [D.E. 52] is GRANTED IN 

PART as follows:

1. Defendant is awarded her reasonable costs and attorney’s fees incurred in filing

the Motion for Sanctions and attending the Hearing, as a discovery sanction pursuant to Rule 

37(b)(2)(C) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

2. Defendant shall submit her Statement of Reasonable Costs and Fees within 20 

days from the date of this Order.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 26th day of May, 2021.

__________________________________

ALICIA M. OTAZO-REYES

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

cc: United States District Judge Aileen M. Cannon 

Counsel of Record

Case 1:20-cv-23230-AMC Document 63 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/26/2021 Page 2 of 2
NRC NEWS

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Office of Public Affairs Telephone: 301/415-8200

Washington, DC 20555-001 E-mail: opa@nrc.gov

Web Site: http://www.nrc.gov/OPA

No. 00-132 September 5, 2000

MEETING SCHEDULED SEPTEMBER 13 IN ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND ON SAFETY

OF SPENT FUEL SHIPPING CASKS

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has scheduled a meeting September 13 to obtain further

public input into its proposed update of a 1987 study that examined the adequacy of spent nuclear fuel

transportation casks to withstand severe accidents. The meeting will be held from 9:30 a.m. until 4:30

p.m. in the auditorium of the agency’s Two White Flint North building, at 11545 Rockville Pike.

Similar meetings were held last month in Las Vegas and Pahrump, Nevada.

The NRC is reexamining the safety of spent fuel shipping containers for several reasons,

including the possible increase in shipments if a high-level radioactive waste repository at Yucca

Mountain is licensed. The NRC will focus on those licensing issues most important to safety.

The NRC will also present a paper which describes issues to be considered in any new spent

fuel package performance study, and will discuss a technical report and draft brochure on risk

assessment entitled, “Reexamination of Spent Fuel Shipment Risk Estimates,”(NUREG/CR-6672).

Interested parties are invited to comment on the issues paper and a draft version of the brochure, copies

of which are available at http://ttd.sandia.gov/nrc/modal.htm on the web. The technical report is

available at http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/NUREGS/CR6672/index.html

Comments on both documents should be submitted by September 29 to Robert Temps by mail

at the Spent Fuel Project Office, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, 20555-0001,

or by telephone at 301-415-2552 (e-mail: rrt@nrc.gov).

###
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

**____________** No. 23

- 10818 Summary Calendar

**____________ United States of America,**  Plaintiff

— Appellee **,**

versus **Mike Leal,** Defendant

— Appellant

**.**

**______________________________** Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 5:22

- CR

- 123

- 2

**______________________________** Before **Wiener, Ho,** and **Ramirez,** Circuit Judges

**. Per Curiam**  **:** *****
The attorney appointed to represent Mike Leal has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Leal has filed a response. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Leal’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel; we

**_____________________**

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See **5th Cir**

**. R** 

**.** 47.5. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED September 9, 2024 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 23-10818 Document: 64-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/09/2024No. 23

- 10818

2 therefore decline to consider the Leal’s claim without prejudice to collateral review. See United States v. Isgar , 739 F.3d 829, 841 (5th Cir. 2014). We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Leal ’s response. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, the motion for leave to withdraw is **GRANTED** , counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the appeal is **DISMISSED**

. See **5th Cir. R**

. 42.2. Case: 23-10818 Document: 64-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/09/2024
CONSENT OF DELOITTE & TOUCHE RE: B. SKY B. PLC.



  
 Exhibit 10.3 
  
 INDEPENDENT AUDITORS’ CONSENT 
  
 We consent to the use of
our report dated July 30, 2002 (October 18, 2002 as to Notes 26,28,30 and 31), in this Form 20-F to be filed on December 30, 2002 and incorporated by reference into File Nos. 33-43799, 33-71446, 33-86358, 33-89584, 333-4962, 333-6324, 333-6896,
333-7466, 333-10338, 333-10624, 333-12878, 333-8246, 333-13556 and 333-51434-1. 
  
 /s/    Deloitte & Touche 
                                      
                                        
          
 Deloitte & Touche 
  

London, England. 
 December 20, 2002
NRC NEWS

 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

 OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS, REGION I

 475 Allendale Road

 King of Prussia, PA 19406

No. I-02-015 March 14, 2002 

CONTACT: Diane Screnci, (610) 337-5330 E-mail: opa1@nrc.gov

Neil A. Sheehan, (610) 337-5331

NRC TO DISCUSS MILLSTONE PERFORMANCE WITH DOMINION NUCLEAR

 Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will take part in two public meetings regarding the

Millstone nuclear power plant on Thursday, March 21. The facility, which has two operational

reactors, is located in Waterford, Conn., and operated by Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc.

 At 1:30 p.m. that day , NRC staff will meet with representatives of Dominion Nuclear at the

Leland F. Sillin Nuclear Training Center, located at the plant off Rope Ferry Road, to discuss the

results of the agencyís annual assessment of Millstoneís safety performance. The meeting will be open

to the public for observation. Before the session is adjourned, NRC staff will be available to answer

questions from the public on the safety performance of Millstone Units 2 and 3 and the role of the

NRC in ensuring safe plant operation.

 The performance period to be discussed is April 1, 2001, to December 31, 2001. NRC staff will

also provide an overview of the agencyís Reactor Oversight Process.

 At 7 p.m. that day, NRC staff will hold a joint meeting with Connecticutís Nuclear Energy

Advisory Council to discuss the annual assessment results for Millstone, as well as the NRCís

implementation of its Reactor Oversight Process. In addition, the NRC will discuss the results of a

special inspection that was conducted regarding two fuel rods determined to be missing from the

permanently shutdown Millstone Unit 1 nuclear plant. That meeting, which will also be open to the

public for observation, will take place at Waterford Town Hall, 15 Rope Ferry Road in Waterford. As

with the earlier meeting, NRC staff will be available to answer questions from the public before

adjournment.

 A letter sent from the NRC Region I office to Dominion Nuclear addresses plant performance

during the period and will serve as the basis for the discussions. It is available on the NRC web site at:

http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/LETTERS/mill_2001q4.pdf

 Current performance information for Millstone Unit 2 is available on the NRC web site at:

http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/MILL2/mill2_chart.html

 Current performance information for Millstone Unit 3 is available on the NRC web site at:

http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/MILL3/mill3_chart.html

###
NRC NEWS

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS, REGION IV

611 Ryan Plaza Drive - Suite 400

Arlington TX 76011-8064

No. IV-00-43 December 14, 2000

CONTACT: Breck Henderson

Phone: 817-860-8128

Cellular: 817-917-1227

e-mail: bwh@nrc.gov

NRC TO DISCUSS RESULTS

OF ANO UNIT 1 LICENSE RENEWAL INSPECTION

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission will meet with Entergy Operations, operator of

Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 1, to discuss the results of the first license renewal inspection. ANO is a

nuclear power plant near Russellville, Arkansas, which has applied for a 20-year extension of its

current operating license.

The meeting will begin at 2 p.m. on Wednesday, December 20, in the Reeves E. Ritchie

Training Center at the plant site. The public is invited to observe, and NRC officials will be available

for questions after the meeting.

The first NRC license renewal inspection for the plant is being conducted December 11-15.

The purpose of the inspection is to define the scope of plant equipment to be evaluated for the effects

of aging. A second inspection, scheduled to begin January 22, 2001, will examine the effectiveness of

the plant’s program for managing aging of the equipment identified in the first inspection. A third

inspection will follow-up on issues remaining from the first two.

One important aspect of the NRC license renewal process is to assure that the plant has and will

continue to manage the effects of aging equipment through an effective monitoring and maintenance

program. The NRC has found that a successful program will permit safe operation for an additional 20

years beyond the initial license period of 40 years. If approved, the extension would authorize ANO

Unit 1 to operate until 2034. More information on license renewal in general and for ANO Unit 1

specifically, can be found at the NRC’s website at:

http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/REACTOR/LR/index.html .

###
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Colin ROSE, a/k/a Turbo, a/k/a Damien Young, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 02-6598.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted May 16, 2002.

Decided May 28, 2002.

Colin Rose, Appellant Pro Se. James L. Trump, Office of the United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM.

Colin Rose appeals the district court’s order denying his motions to reduce his sentence and for a downward departure under *U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual*§ 5K2.0 (2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s order and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. *See United States v. Rose,*No. CR-97-225-A (E.D. Va. filed Mar. 15, 2002; entered Mar. 18, 2002). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in *379the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED.*
###### Editorial Note on Part 174

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 174 appear by CBP Dec. No. 16-26, 81 FR 93025, Dec. 20, 2016.

#### § 174.32 Publication.

Within 90 calendar days after issuing a protest review decision, CBP will publish the decision in the Customs Bulletin or otherwise make it available for public inspection. Disclosure is governed by 6 CFR part 5 and 19 CFR part 103.

[CBP Dec. 11-02, 76 FR 2578, Jan. 14, 2011]
§ 200.735-104a Proscribed actions. An employee shall avoid any action, whether or not specifically prohibited by this subpart, which might result in, or create the appearance of: ( a ) Using public office for private gain;
( b ) Giving preferential treatment to any person;
( c ) Impeding Government efficiency or economy;
( d ) Losing complete independence or impartiality;
( e ) Making a Government decision outside official channels; or
( f ) Affecting adversely the confidence of the public in the integrity of the Government.
[32 FR 16210, Nov. 28, 1967]
#### § 148.5 Regular entry of articles in baggage.

Subject to any applicable exemption from entry requirements, articles imported as baggage but not passed under a baggage declaration or under the procedure provided in § 148.6 for unaccompanied shipments of effects subject to personal exemptions shall be entered in the same manner as a cargo importation of like goods. In making regular entry for articles imported in baggage, the value of articles entitled to free entry under subheadings 9804.00.10, or 9804.00.45, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (19 U.S.C. 1202), shall be disregarded in determining whether formal or informal entry is required.

[T.D. 73-27, 38 FR 2449, Jan. 26, 1973, as amended by T.D. 89-1, 53 FR 51263, Dec. 21, 1988]