alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, the Chief Executive Officer and the Chief Financial Officer of Computer Software Innovations, Inc.
(the Company), each certify, pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350), that to his or her knowledge on the date of this certification:



| | 1. | The annual report of the Company on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on this date (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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ Nancy K. HedrickNancy K. HedrickChief Executive OfficerDate: March 31, 2009/s/ David B. DechantDavid B. DechantChief Financial OfficerDate: March 31, 2009
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                  PURSUANT TO
                  18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                  AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, George Kadifa, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that
the Annual Report of Corio, Inc. on Form 10-K/A for the fiscal year ended December
31, 2003, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in this Form 10-K/A
fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of
operations of Corio, Inc.

Dated: March 31, 2004



|/s/    George
Kadifa                              
|--------------------------------------------------
|George KadifaPresident and Chief Executive Officer

---
Second Amendment to Rights Agreement



 EXHIBIT 4.1 
 SECOND AMENDMENT TO RIGHTS AGREEMENT 
 THIS SECOND AMENDMENT TO RIGHTS AGREEMENT (this
“Amendment”) is made as of this 26th day of July, 2007 by and between Nabi Biopharmaceuticals, a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), and American Stock Transfer & Trust Company, as rights agent (the “Rights
Agent”). 
 WHEREAS, on or about August 1, 1997, the Company entered into a Rights Agreement with Registrar and Transfer Company
(the “Rights Agreement”); 
 WHEREAS, the Company and Rights Agent are parties to an Agreement of Substitution and Amendment of
Rights Agreement dated as of July 1, 2002, substituting Rights Agent as the rights agent under the Rights Agreement; 
 WHEREAS, the
Company wishes to amend the Rights Agreement as set forth herein and in accordance with Section 27 thereof; and 
 WHEREAS, the Board of
Directors of the Company authorized and approved this amendment on May 18, 2007; 
 NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing
and of other consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows: 
  

	 	1.	Section 27 of the Rights Agreement is hereby amended by deleting the fourth sentence thereof in its entirety and inserting the following in lieu thereof:


 “Notwithstanding anything contained in this Agreement to the contrary, no supplement or amendment shall be made which
changes the Redemption Price, the Purchase Price or the number of shares of Series One Preferred Stock for which a Right is exercisable.” 
  

	 	2.	The Rights Agreement, as amended by this Amendment, shall remain in full force and effect. 

  

	 	3.	This Amendment may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall together constitute one and the same document. 

 [Rest of page intentionally left blank.] 







 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties herein have caused this Amendment to be duly executed and attested, all
as of the date and year first above written. 
  

			
	NABI BIOPHARMACEUTICALS
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Jordan I. Siegel

	Name:	 	Jordan I. Siegel
	Title:	 	 Senior Vice President, Finance and Administration,
 Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer

	
	AMERICAN STOCK TRANSFER & TRUST COMPANY
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Herbert J. Lemmer

	Name:	 	Herbert J. Lemmer
	Title:	 	Vice President
### §1009. Personnel not to receive fees

An officer or employee of the Postal Service may not receive any fee or perquisite from a patron of the Postal Service on account of the duties performed by virtue of his appointment, except as authorized by law.

(Pub. L. 91–375, Aug. 12, 1970, 84 Stat. 733.)

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

#### Effective Date

Section effective July 1, 1971, pursuant to Resolution No. 71–9 of the Board of Governors. See section 15(a) of Pub. L. 91–375, set out as a note preceding section 101 of this title.
§ 890.1016 Aggravating and mitigating factors used to determine the length of permissive debarments. ( a ) *Aggravating factors.* The presence of aggravating circumstances may support an OPM determination to increase the length of a debarment beyond the nominal periods set forth in §§ 890.1017 through 890.1021. The factors that OPM considers as aggravating are: ( 1 ) Whether the provider's actions underlying the basis for the debarment, or similar acts, had an adverse impact on the physical or mental health or well-being of one or more FEHBP-covered individuals or other persons.
( 2 ) Whether the provider has a documented history of prior criminal wrongdoing; civil violations related to health care items or services; improper conduct; or administrative violations addressed by a Federal or State agency. OPM may consider matters involving violence, patient abuse, drug abuse, or controlled substances convictions or violations to be particularly serious.
( 3 ) Whether the provider's actions underlying the basis for the debarment, or similar acts, resulted in financial loss to the FEHBP, FEHBP-covered individuals, or other persons. In determining whether, or to what extent, a financial loss occurred, OPM shall not consider any amounts of restitution that the provider may have paid.
( 4 ) Whether the provider's false, wrongful, or improper claims to FEHBP carriers were numerous, submitted over a prolonged period of time, or part of an on-going pattern of wrongful acts.
( 5 ) Whether the provider was specifically aware of or directly responsible for the acts constituting the basis for the debarment.
( 6 ) Whether the provider attempted to obstruct, hinder, or impede official inquiries into the wrongful conduct underlying the debarment.
( b ) *Mitigating factors.* The presence of mitigating circumstances may support an OPM determination to shorten the length of a debarment below the nominal periods set forth in §§ 890.1017 through 890.1021, respectively. The factors that OPM considers as mitigating are: ( 1 ) Whether the provider's cooperation with Federal, State, or local authorities resulted in criminal convictions, civil recoveries, or administrative actions against other violators, or served as the basis for official determinations of program weaknesses or vulnerabilities. Restitution that the provider made for funds wrongfully, improperly, or illegally received from Federal or State programs may also be considered as a mitigating factor.
( 2 ) Whether official records of judicial proceedings or the proceedings of State licensing authorities contain a formal determination that the provider had a physical, mental, or emotional condition that reduced his level of culpability before or during the period in which he committed the violations in question.
( c ) *Absence of factors.* The absence of aggravating or mitigating factors shall have no effect to either increase or lower the nominal period of debarment.
NRC RENEWS OPERATING LICENSES FOR SALEM

NUCLEAR POWER PLANT FOR AN ADDITIONAL 20 YEARS

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has renewed the operating licenses for the Salem 

Nuclear Generating Station Units 1 and 2 for an additional 20 years. The new licenses will expire for 

Units 1 and 2 on Aug. 13, 2036, and April 18, 2040, respectively.

The decision to renew the license comes after thorough safety and environmental reviews of 

the application submitted on Aug. 18, 2009, by the plant’s operator, PSEG Nuclear, LLC. The Salem 

plant has two pressurized-water reactors and is located about 18 miles south of Wilmington, Del.

The lessons being learned from events at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station 

have prompted a comprehensive NRC review of our regulations and practices. The NRC will 

apply the recommendations from this review, as appropriate, for any changes deemed necessary 

to improve the safety of operating plants, regardless of whether the plants have been issued 

renewed operating licenses. Salem, therefore, like all operating plants, will be subject to any rule 

or policy changes the NRC may make as a result of our post-Fukushima review. The task force 

reviewing lessons learned from the events in Japan expects to deliver its near-term report and 

recommendations to the Commission on July 12; a longer-term review’s report is expected 

within approximately six months.

The NRC held public meetings near the plant on Nov. 5, 2009, and Nov. 17, 2010, to discuss 

Salem’s environmental review. In March, the NRC staff concluded there were no environmental 

impacts that would preclude renewal of the license for environmental reasons. 

After careful review of the plant’s safety systems and specifications, the staff concluded that 

there were no safety concerns that would preclude license renewal and that the applicant had 

effectively demonstrated the capability to manage the effects of plant aging. In addition, NRC 

conducted inspections of the plant to verify information submitted by the applicant. On May 26, the 

Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards – an independent body of technical experts that advises 

the Commission – issued its recommendation that license renewal for Salem should be approved. 

The safety and environmental review reports, application, and letters relating to the Salem 

license renewal are available online on the NRC website. 

NRC NEWS

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Office of Public Affairs Telephone: 301/415-8200

Washington, D.C. 20555-0001

E-mail: opa.resource@nrc.gov Site: www.nrc.gov

Blog: http://public-blog.nrc-gateway.gov

No. 11-120 June 30, 2011
The Salem licenses represent the 69th and 70th reactor licenses renewed by the NRC. A 

complete listing of renewal applications can be found online at the NRC website.

###

News releases are available through a free listserv subscription at the following Web address: 

http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/listserver.html. The NRC homepage at www.nrc.gov also offers a SUBSCRIBE 

link. E-mail notifications are sent to subscribers when news releases are posted to NRC’s website.
### §1010. Commissioned officers: promotions; effective date for pay and allowances

An officer of a uniformed service who is promoted to a grade above second lieutenant or ensign is entitled to the pay and allowances of the grade to which promoted on the effective date of the promotion.

(Added Pub. L. 96–513, title IV, §403(c), Dec. 12, 1980, 94 Stat. 2905; amended Pub. L. 109–364, div. A, title X, §1071(c)(8), Oct. 17, 2006, 120 Stat. 2401.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2006—Pub. L. 109–364 substituted "promotions" for "promotion" in section catchline.

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

#### Effective Date

Section effective Sept. 15, 1981, but the authority to prescribe regulations under this section effective on Dec. 12, 1980, see section 701 of Pub. L. 96–513, set out as an Effective Date of 1980 Amendment note under section 101 of Title 10, Armed Forces.
**Exhibit 15.4**

**Commerce & Finance Law Offices**

6F NCI Tower, A12 Jianguomenwai Avenue 

Chaoyang District, Beijing, 100022, P.R. China 

Telephone Numbers: (8610) 65693399 

Facsimile Numbers: (8610) 65693838, 65693836, 65693837, 65693839 

E-mail Add: beijing@tongshang.com Website: www.tongshang.com.cn 

June 26, 2007 

NetEase.com, Inc. 

26/F, SP Tower D 

Tsinghua Science Park Building 8 

No. 1 Zhongguancun East Road 

Haidian District, Beijing 100084, People’s Republic of China 

Dear Sirs, 

Re: Consent of People’s Republic of China Counsel

We consent to the reference to our firm under the heading “Enforcement of Civil Liabilities” in the annual report on Form 20-F for the yearended December 31, 2006 of NetEase.com, Inc. to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission in the month of June 2007. 

Very truly yours,

**Commerce & Finance Law Office**

*/s/Commerce & Finance Law Office*
June 29, 2015 

David Bendersky 

Skybender Aviation 

3025 NE 103 St. 

Seattle, WA 98125 

Dear Mr. Bendersky: 

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption from 

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we can not process your 

request and what you should do in the next 30 days. 

Why We Can Not Process Your Request 

We entered your June 24, 2015, exemption request into the public docket (No. FAA-2015-

2430), but we are unable to process your request any further. The information you sent does 

not comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request 

any further, you must send us all of the following: 

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of the 

relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief. 

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would 

benefit the public as a whole. 

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request. 

What You Should Do 

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described 

earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your 

petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption. 
2 

If We Do Not Hear From You 

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you 

further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

Brenda Robeson 

Program Analyst, Airmen and 

 Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
§ 230.5 Terms and shipping. ( a ) Prices are given in the SP 260 supplement. These prices are subject to revision and orders will be billed for prices in effect at the time of shipment. No discounts are given on purchases of SRM's.
( b ) Payment need not accompany a purchase order. Payment is due within 30 days of receipt of an invoice.
( c ) SRM's are shipped in the most expeditious manner that complies with transportation and postal laws and regulations.
No. II-11-019 April 14, 2011

CONTACT: Roger Hannah (404) 997-4417 E-mail: OPA2@nrc.gov

 Joey Ledford (404) 997-4416

NRC SCHEDULES MEETING TO DISCUSS 2010 PERFORMANCE 

ASSESSMENT FOR VOGTLE NUCLEAR POWER PLANT

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission officials have scheduled a meeting for Tuesday, 

April 19 to provide information on the agency’s annual assessment of safety performance for the 

two operating units at the Vogtle nuclear power plant during 2010.

The meeting will begin with an open house at 6 p.m. followed by a brief presentation at 

6:30 p m. There will be a question and answer session after the presentation. The meeting will be 

held in the Burke County Public Library, 130 Ga. Highway 24 S. in Waynesboro, Ga.

The Vogtle plant, which has two pressurized-water reactors, is located near Waynesboro, 

about 26 miles southeast of Augusta. It is operated by Southern Nuclear Operating Co.

Overall, the NRC staff concluded that the Vogtle plant operated safely in 2010, and there 

were no inspection findings or performance indicators that would cause the NRC to increase its 

level of oversight and inspection. Based on the plant’s performance, the NRC staff plans to 

continue the detailed routine or baseline inspections all nuclear power plants receive. 

“The NRC evaluates nuclear power plants in a systemic and detailed way every year,” 

said NRC Region II Administrator Victor McCree. “The inspections and oversight at Vogtle 

ensure that the plant is operated in a way that protects people and the environment.”

The annual assessment letter for the Vogtle plant is available on the NRC web site at 

www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/LETTERS/vog_2010q4.pdf. 

Routine inspections are carried out by the NRC resident inspectors assigned to the plant 

and by inspection specialists from the Region II office in Atlanta. Among the areas at the Vogtle 

plant to be inspected this year by NRC specialists are facility modifications, managing gas 

accumulation in the plant’s Emergency Core Cooling Systems, and operator licensing 

requalification.

NRC NEWS

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Office of Public Affairs, Region II

245 Peachtree Center Ave., NE, Suite 1200

Atlanta, GA 30303-1257

Site: www.nrc.gov

Blog: http://public-blog.nrc-gateway.gov
Current performance information for Vogtle Unit 1 is available on the NRC web site at 

www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/VOG1/vog1_chart.html. Current performance 

information for Vogtle Unit 2 is available on the NRC web site at 

www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/VOG2/vog2_chart.html.

###

News releases are available through a free listserv subscription at the following Web address: 

http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/listserver.html. The NRC homepage at www.nrc.gov also offers a SUBSCRIBE 

link. E-mail notifications are sent to subscribers when news releases are posted to NRC's website.
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



Pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350) each of the undersigned officers of The Brickman Group, Ltd. hereby certify,
with respect to its Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2005 (the Report) 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.



Date: August 12, 2005



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ Scott W. Brickman  
|Scott W. Brickman      
|Chief Executive Officer



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ Charles B. Silcox  
|Charles B. Silcox      
|Chief Financial Officer



This certification accompanies each
Report pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of §18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.



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.
Exhibit 32.1

                           SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION

In connection with the annual report of Good Buddy's Coffee Express, Inc.
("Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2005 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission ("Report"), the undersigned,
in the capacities and on the dated indicated below, hereby certify pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350)
that to his knowledge:

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.

September 29, 2005



/s/ Scott Massey
------------------------------------
Scott Massey
Chief Executive Officer and
Chief Financial Officer
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 23
- 0466 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, vs. CHRISTOPHER HORN,

Defendant and Appellant
.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including January 15, 2024, within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

December 8 2023

12/08/2023

Case Number: DA 23-0466
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

HECTOR ENRIQUE ALFAROFONSECA,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 10-71693

Agency No. A094-948-401

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted July 12, 2011** 

Before: SCHROEDER, ALARCÓN, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.

Hector Enrique Alfaro-Fonseca, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an

immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for cancellation of

removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial

FILED

JUL 21 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 10-71693

evidence the agency’s factual findings, Lopez-Alvarado v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 847,

850-51 (9th Cir. 2004), and for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to

continue, Barapind v. Reno, 225 F.3d 1100, 1113 (9th Cir. 2000). We deny the

petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility finding

because Alfaro-Fonseca’s testimony regarding his multiple departures from the

United States was materially inconsistent with the single departure listed on his

application. See Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034-1039-1044 (detailing this

Court’s REAL ID adverse credibility standards); cf. Vera-Villegas v. INS, 330 F.3d

1222, 1231-34 (9th Cir. 2003). Because Alfaro-Fonseca’s testimony was not

credible and he did not provide sufficient supporting documentation of his physical

presence in the United States during the statutory time period, substantial evidence

supports the agency’s determination that he did not meet his burden of establishing

continuous physical presence. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(A). 

The IJ did not abuse his discretion in denying a continuance on the ground

that Alfaro-Fonseca did not demonstrate good cause. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29 (an IJ

may grant a motion for continuance for good cause shown). 

Alfaro-Fonseca’s remaining contentions are unavailing.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.