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




DEEP
DOWN, INC.


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 on Form 10-KSB/A (Amendment No. 3) of Deep
Down, Inc. (the “Company”) for the year ended December 31, 2007, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the
undersigned, Ronald E. Smith, President and Chief Executive Officer of the
Company hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to
ss. 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.





By: /s/
RONALD E. SMITH


Ronald E.
Smith


President
and Chief Executive Officer


August
8 , 2008
No. I-10-045 

Contact: Diane Screnci, 610/337-5330 

 Neil Sheehan, 610/337-5331 

October 22, 2010

E-mail: opa1@nrc.gov

 

NRC ASSIGNS NEW RESIDENT INSPECTOR 

TO THREE MILE ISLAND NUCLEAR POWER PLANT 

 

 Nuclear Regulatory Commission officials in King of Prussia, Pa., 

have selected Justin Heinly as the new Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

resident inspector at Three Mile Island nuclear plant in Middletown, Pa. He 

joins NRC Senior Resident Inspector David Kern at the site, operated by 

Exelon Nuclear. 

 Heinly joined the NRC in June 2007 after graduating from 

Pennsylvania State University with a bachelor’s degree in mechanical 

engineering. He is a graduate of the NRC’s Nuclear Safety Professional 

Development Program, a two-year training program that provides specialized training in nuclear 

safety and a broad perspective of NRC regulatory activities. He also completed a rigorous NRC 

inspector qualification program. Most recently, Heinly was a project engineer in the Region I 

office. 

 “Justin Heinly’s training and commitment to safety will help the NRC in its mission of 

protecting people and the environment by helping assure that TMI continues to meet the high 

standards set by the agency,” NRC Region I Administrator Bill Dean said. 

 

 Each U.S. commercial nuclear plant site has at least two NRC resident inspectors. They 

serve as the agency's eyes and ears at the facility, conducting inspections, monitoring major work 

projects and interacting with plant workers and the public. 

 The Three Mile Island resident inspectors can be reached at 717-948-1165. 

### 

NRC NEWS

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Office of Public Affairs, Region I 

475 Allendale Road, King of Prussia, Pa. 19406 

Site: http://www.nrc.gov
### §3603. Continuation of educational assistance benefits for certain programs of education converted to distance learning by reason of emergency situations

In the case of a program of education approved by a State approving agency, or the Secretary when acting in the role of a State approving agency, that is converted from being offered on-site at an educational institution or training establishment to being offered by distance learning by reason of an emergency or health-related situation, as determined by the Secretary, the Secretary may continue to provide educational assistance under the laws administered by the Secretary without regard to such conversion, including with respect to paying any—

(1) monthly housing stipends under chapter 33 of this title; or

(2) payments or subsistence allowances under chapters 30, 31, 32, and 35 of this title and chapter 1606 of title 10.

(Added Pub. L. 117–333, §2(a)(2), Jan. 5, 2023, 136 Stat. 6123.)
### §7611. Authority for program

As part of the Educational Assistance Program, the Secretary shall carry out a scholarship program under this subchapter. The program shall be known as the Department of Veterans Affairs Health Professional Scholarship Program (hereinafter in this chapter referred to as the "Scholarship Program").

(Added Pub. L. 100–322, title II, §216(b), May 20, 1988, 102 Stat. 520, §4311; renumbered §7611, Pub. L. 102–40, title IV, §402(b)(1), May 7, 1991, 105 Stat. 238; amended Pub. L. 102–83, §4(a)(2)(B)(vi), (b)(1), (2)(E), Aug. 6, 1991, 105 Stat. 403–405.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1991—Pub. L. 102–40 renumbered section 4311 of this title as this section.

Pub. L. 102–83 substituted "Secretary" for "Administrator" and "Department of Veterans Affairs" for "Veterans' Administration".

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

#### Expansion of Health Professional Scholarship Program

Pub. L. 117–328, div. V, title I, §104(a), Dec. 29, 2022, 136 Stat. 5500, provided that: "Beginning in academic year 2022, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall include not fewer than an additional (as compared to academic year 2021) 50 awards per academic year under the Department of Veterans Affairs Health Professional Scholarship Program under subchapter II of chapter 76 of title 38, United States Code, for applicants otherwise eligible for such program who are pursuing degrees or training in mental health disciplines, including advanced practice nursing (with a focus on mental health or substance use disorder), psychology, and social work."

#### Submission of Overdue Report

Pub. L. 105–114, title II, §207(b), Nov. 21, 1997, 111 Stat. 2289, required the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to submit to Congress, not later than 180 days after Nov. 21, 1997, the report evaluating the operation of the health professional scholarship program that was required to be submitted not later than Mar. 31, 1997.

#### Health Professional Scholarship Program

Pub. L. 104–110, title II, §202(b), Feb. 13, 1996, 110 Stat. 770, provided that the Secretary was to submit to Congress, not later than Mar. 31, 1997, a report setting forth the results of a study evaluating the operation of the health professional scholarship program under this subchapter and provided that the study was to evaluate the efficacy of the program with respect to recruitment and retention of health care personnel for the Department of Veterans Affairs and was to compare the costs and benefits of the program with the costs and benefits of alternative methods of ensuring adequate recruitment and retention of such personnel.
§ 2004.30 Purpose and scope. ( a ) *Why are we issuing this rule?* This subpart establishes the procedures USTR will follow when any federal, state or local government court or other authority seeks production of USTR records or information, or testimony relating to an employee's official duties, in the context of a legal proceeding. Parties seeking records, information or testimony must comply with these requirements when submitting demands or requests to USTR.
( b ) *What does this rule cover?* This subpart applies to demands or requests for records, information or testimony in legal proceedings in which USTR is not a named party. It does not apply to: Demands or requests for a USTR employee to testify as to facts or events that are unrelated to his or her official duties or to USTR's functions; FOIA or Privacy Act requests; or Congressional demands or requests for records or testimony.
( c ) *Not a waiver.* ( 1 ) By providing these policies and procedures, USTR does not waive the sovereign immunity of the United States.
( 2 ) The production of records, information or testimony pursuant to this subpart does not constitute a waiver by USTR of any privilege.
( d ) This subpart provides guidance for USTR's internal operations and does not create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, that a party may rely upon in any legal proceeding against USTR or the United States.
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.13



                                                      January 12, 2004


Mr. David L. Boren
Office of the President
University of Oklahoma
660 Parrington Oval, Room 110
Norman, OK 73019

Dear David:

         This will confirm the following agreement relating to the deferral of
your director's fees in 2004.

         1. All director's fees and retainers ("Fees") payable to you in
connection with your service on the boards of directors (including committees of
such boards) of AMR Corporation and American Airlines, Inc. for the period
January 1, 2004 through December 31, 2004 , will be deferred and paid to you in
accordance with this letter agreement.

         2. Fees will be converted to Stock Equivalent Units in accordance with
the Directors' Stock Equivalent Purchase Plan, a copy of which is attached
hereto as Exhibit A (the "Plan").

         3. Within 30 days of the date when you cease to be a Director of AMR
Corporation, the Stock Equivalent Units accrued pursuant to the Plan will be
converted to cash and paid to you by multiplying the number of such Stock
Equivalent Units by the arithmetic mean of the high and the low of AMR stock
during the month when you ceased to be a Director of AMR Corporation.

         4. AMR's obligation to make the payment pursuant to paragraph 3 hereof
will not be released or modified by reason of your death. In such event, the
cash payment contemplated by paragraph 3 will be made to your named beneficiary
under the Director's Term Life Insurance Policy maintained by the Corporation.


<PAGE>

         If the foregoing is satisfactory to you, please indicate by signing one
of the originals (two are enclosed) and returning it to me.


                                                    Very truly yours,




                                                    Charles D. MarLett
                                                    Corporate Secretary


Accepted and agreed:



   /s/ David L. Boren
---------------------------------
David L. Boren


   1/21/2004
---------------------------------
Date
Board Coverage Decision

2010-42.11

Johnsonburg, Kane, Warren & Irvine Railroad 

Employer Coverage Terminated*

No Decision Published

BA # 3260
**EXHIBIT 23.01**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No. 333-180051 on Form F-3, of our reports dated January 30, 2013 relating to the consolidated financial statements of Fibria Celulose S.A., and the effectiveness of Fibria Celulose S.A.’s internal control over financial reporting, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 20-F of Fibria Celulose S.A. for the year ended December 31, 20122.

 
| /s/   PricewaterhouseCoopers |   |
|------------------------------|--------|
| PricewaterhouseCoopers       |   |
| Auditores   Independentes    |   |
| Sao   Paulo                  |   |
|                         |   |
| February 28,   2013     |   |

 

----
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), the undersigned, Alan Woinski, Chief Executive Officer and Chief
Financial Officer of Gaming Venture Corp., U.S.A., (the "Company"),
does hereby certify, to his knowledge, that:

The Quarterly Report on Form 10QSB for the three months ended March 31,
2004 of the Company (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements
of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1034, and
the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
the Company.

Date:       May 14, 2004

By /s/Alan Woinski
   ----------------------
Alan Woinski
Chief Executive Officer
Chief Financial Officer
**EXHIBIT
      32.2**




**CERTIFICATION
      OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**


**WOIZE
      INTERNATIONAL LTD.**


**FORM
      10-QSB FOR THE QUARTER ENDED JUNE 30, 2006**


**PURSUANT
      TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED**


**PURSUANT
      TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**






I
      am the
      Chief Financial Officer of Woize International Ltd., a Nevada corporation (the
      "Company"). I am delivering this certificate in connection with the Form 10-QSB
      of the Company for the quarter ended June 30, 2007 and filed with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission ("Form 10-QSB").




Pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I hereby certify that, to the best of my knowledge,
      the Form 10-QSB fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
      Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information
      contained in the Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all material respects, the
      financial condition and results of operations of the Company.






Date:
                August 20,
                2007
            By:
            /s/ Martin
              ThorpMartin
                Thorp
              Chief
                Financial Officer
#### Todd Shipyards Corporation, Appellant, *v.*Todd Drydock and Repair Corporation, Respondent.

Shientag, J.

(dissenting). It is undoubtedly the general practice to be liberal in the retention of special defenses sufficient in law on their face even when they are provable under the general denial *(Fisk*v. *Hobern,*204 App. Div. 588; *Home Ins. Co.*v. *Gillespie Loading Co.,*222 App. Div. 67). Here, however, the first affirmative defense is insufficient in law as a complete defense. Assuming all of the fact pleaded in that defense, it may still be found that defendant has assumed a name so nearly resembling the name of appellant as to be calculated to deceive and mislead or that the name as a whole was chosen in bad faith and with intent to practice deception; or that the personal surname as used has added “words, prefixes or suffixes which will represent or tend to represent” that the defendant is identical with or the successor of the plaintiff (cf. *Hotel Claridge Co.*v. *Rector, Inc.,*164 App. Div. 185, 190).

All of the relevant facts alleged in the separate defense although not constituting a complete bar to the cause of action set up in the complaint may be shown under the general denial and given appropriate weight in determining what relief if any plaintiff is entitled to receive.

The order below should be reversed and the first affirmative defense struck.

Glennon, J.P., Dore and Cohn, JJ., concur in decision; Shientag, J.¿ dissents in opinion.

Order, so far as appealed from, affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements. No opinion. [See *post,*p. 996.]
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida 

Opinion filed June 12, 2024.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

Nos. 3D23-109 & 3D23-687

Lower Tribunal No. 21-20697

________________

Elves Julmist, Jr.,

Appellant,

vs.

Miami-Dade County, et al.,

Appellees.

Appeals from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Migna 

Sanchez-Llorens, Judge.

Law Offices of Jimmy De La Espriella, and Javier A. Finlay, for 

appellant.

Fox Rothschild LLP, John R. Herin, Jr., Victor G. Sanabria; Geraldine 

Bonzon-Keenan, Miami-Dade County Attorney, and Daniel Frastai, Assistant 

County Attorney, for appellees.

Before SCALES, MILLER, and GORDO, JJ. 

PER CURIAM.
2

Affirmed. See Miami-Dade County, Fla., Code of Ordinances, ch. 2, 

art. XIII, § 2-96.1 (2023) (“From and after September 16, 1960, all traffic 

engineering services shall be performed by the traffic and transportation 

department, and such department shall have exclusive jurisdiction over all 

traffic control devices in both the incorporated and unincorporated areas of 

the county, and shall have exclusive jurisdiction to exercise the powers, 

duties and functions set forth herein.”); Miami-Dade County, Fla., Code of 

Ordinances, ch. 2, art. XIII, § 2-95.1(g) (2023) (“The department shall 

assume full responsibility for the operation, maintenance[,] and replacement 

of all existing signs[,] signals, and markings now in use in the several 

municipalities . . . .”); see also Polite v. State, 116 So. 3d 270, 275 (Fla. 2013) 

(“[I]n Florida, the witness’s testimony as to the correctness of the [recorded] 

statement is essential to the admission of the evidence.”); Robles v. 

Metropolitan Dade County, 802 So. 2d 453, 454 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001) 

(upholding sovereign immunity based on emergency exception where county 

“had to choose between different actions, each of which posed a potential 

threat to the public”); Kaisner v. Kolb, 543 So. 2d 732, 738 n.3 (Fla. 1989) 

(“The way in which government agents respond to a serious emergency is 

entitled to great deference, and may in fact reach a level of such urgency as 

to be considered discretionary and not operational.”).
§ 920.202 Violations. ( a ) An agency employee may not request, orally or in writing, information about an applicant's criminal history prior to making a conditional offer of employment to that applicant unless the position is exempted or excepted in accordance with § 920.201(b).
( b ) A violation (or prohibited action) as defined in paragraph (a) of this section occurs when agency personnel, shared service providers, or contractors (acting on behalf of the agency) involved in the agency's recruitment and hiring process, either personally or through automated systems (specific to the agency or governmentwide), make oral or written requests prior to giving a conditional offer of employment— ( 1 ) In a job opportunity announcement on USAJOBS or in any recruitment/public notification such as on the agency's website or social media;
( 2 ) In communications sent after an agency receives an initial application, through an agency's talent acquisition system, shared service providers/recruiters/contractors, orally or in writing (including via email and other forms of electronic notification); or
( 3 ) Prior to, during, or after a job interview or other applicant assessment.
( c ) When a prohibited request, announcement, or communication is publicly posted or simultaneously distributed to multiple applicants, it constitutes a single violation.
( d ) Any violation as defined in paragraph (a) of this section is subject to the complaint and penalty procedures in part 754 of this chapter.
#### § 842.502 Definitions.

In this subpart—

*Age 62* means the day before an individual's sixty-second birthday.

*Annuity Supplement* means the monthly benefit described in § 842.504.

*Applicable exempt amount* and *earnings* have the same meanings as in section 203 of the Social Security Act.

*Excess earnings* means 50 percent of an individual's earnings which exceed the applicable exempt amount during a calendar year or, if less, an amount equal to the total annuity supplement paid to the individual in that year, but does not include earnings prior to an individual's attainment of the minimum retirement age.

*FERS* means chapter 84 of title 5, United States Code.

*Minimum retirement age* has the same meaning as in § 842.202.

*Test year* means the calendar year immediately before the one in which any reductions required by 5 U.S.C. 8421a and § 842.505 are applied.
### §12281. Gang Resistance Education and Training projects

#### (a) Establishment of projects

#### (1) In general

The Attorney General shall establish not less than 50 Gang Resistance Education and Training (GREAT) projects, to be located in communities across the country, in addition to the number of projects currently funded.

#### (2) Selection of communities

Communities identified for such GREAT projects shall be selected by the Attorney General on the basis of gang-related activity in that particular community.

#### (3) Amount of assistance per project; allocation

The Attorney General shall make available not less than $800,000 per project, subject to the availability of appropriations, and such funds shall be allocated—

(A) 50 percent to the affected State and local law enforcement and prevention organizations participating in such projects; and

(B) 50 percent to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, Department of Justice for salaries, expenses, and associated administrative costs for operating and overseeing such projects.

#### (b) Authorization of appropriations

There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section—

(1) $20,000,000 for fiscal year 2006;

(2) $20,000,000 for fiscal year 2007;

(3) $20,000,000 for fiscal year 2008;

(4) $20,000,000 for fiscal year 2009; and

(5) $20,000,000 for fiscal year 2010.

(Pub. L. 103–322, title III, §32401, Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 1902; Pub. L. 107–296, title XI, §1112(p), Nov. 25, 2002, 116 Stat. 2278; Pub. L. 109–162, title XI, §1188, Jan. 5, 2006, 119 Stat. 3128.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was formerly classified to section 13921 of Title 42, The Public Health and Welfare, prior to editorial reclassification and renumbering as this section.

#### Amendments

2006—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 109–162, which directed the amendment of section 32401(b) of the Violent Crime Control Act of 1994 by adding pars. (1) to (5) and striking out former pars. (1) to (6), was executed by making the amendments to this section, which is section 32401(b) of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, to reflect the probable intent of Congress. Former pars. (1) to (6) authorized appropriations for fiscal years 1995 through 2000.

2002—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 107–296, §1112(p)(1), substituted "Attorney General" for "Secretary of the Treasury" wherever appearing.

Subsec. (a)(3)(B). Pub. L. 107–296, §1112(p)(2), substituted "Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, Department of Justice" for "Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms".

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

#### Effective Date of 2002 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 107–296 effective 60 days after Nov. 25, 2002, see section 4 of Pub. L. 107–296, set out as an Effective Date note under section 101 of Title 6, Domestic Security.
Argued and submitted January 18,

appeal dismissed November 15, 2000

#### In the Matter of the Marriage of Rhonda Diane MANN, *Appellant, and*Clifford Glenn MANN, *Respondent.*

(95-0969; CA A104223)

15 P3d 42

Melvin T. Rollema argued the cause and filed the brief for appellant.

Nancy M. Brady argued the cause and filed the brief for respondent.

Before Edmonds, Presiding Judge, and Armstrong and Kistler, Judges.

PER CURIAM

*76PER CURIAM

Wife appeals from an interlocutory ruling setting aside a judgment of unlimited separation and scheduling a new hearing. In May 1995, wife petitioned for dissolution of her marriage. She later filed an amended petition for unlimited separation. Husband defaulted. On December 29, 1995, the trial court entered a stipulated judgment of unlimited separation. The judgment recites that although husband defaulted, he still stipulated to entry of the judgment. Wife later filed a petition for dissolution in the same proceeding. Midway through the hearing on that petition, the trial court entered an order setting aside the judgment of unlimited separation and rescheduling the hearing to permit the parties to try the issues addressed in the stipulation.

Wife appeals from that order. She argues that we have jurisdiction because the court’s interlocutory ruling is “[a]n order setting aside a judgment and granting a new trial.” *See*ORS 19.205(2)(d). The rescheduled hearing is not a new trial, however. *See Lorentz Bruun Company v. Execulodge Corp.,*313 Or 600, 604, 835 P2d 901 (1992). Because the stipulated judgment of separation was entered without a trial, the order setting aside the judgment cannot be said to have granted a *new*trial. *See id.*(an ORCP 71 B(1) order setting aside a default judgment did not grant a new trial). Because wife’s appeal fails on that ground, we need not decide whether there are other impediments to her reliance on ORS 19.205(2)(d).

Appeal dismissed.
#### Caroline Jackman et al., Respondents, v. Bernard Grant, Appellant.

Action to impress a trust on real property, for an accounting, and for specific performance. Amended judgment in favor of plaintiffs, after a trial by the court, without a jury, unanimously affirmed, without costs. No opinion. Present — Hagarty, Acting P. J., Carswell, Johnston, Adel and Sneed, JJ. [See post, p. 857.]