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

EXHIBIT 32.1

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Invision Capital,
  Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended January
  31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
  (the “Periodic Report”), I, Frank J. Rigney, Chief Executive Officer
  of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
  to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

|1. | the Periodic 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 Periodic Report fairly presents, in
      all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
      of the Company.

Dated: March 29, 2004

/s/ “Frank J. Rigney”

Frank J. Rigney
  Chief Executive Officer

---
##### 



KUHLMAN COMPANY, INC.
 2005 STOCK OPTION PLAN
 (as adopted by the Board of Directors May 19, 2005
and approved by the Shareholders May 27, 2005 1 )
 Purpose.
  Administration.
  Eligible
Participants.
  Types
of Incentives.
 
 1
    
    Approved by the respective Board of Directors and Shareholders of SK2, Inc., a Delaware corporation
which merged into the Company and assumed the Plan.




---



##### 



Shares
Subject to the Plan.
 Number of Shares.
  Cancellation.
  Type of Common Stock.
  Stock
Options.
  Price.
  Number.
  2




---



##### 



Duration and Time for Exercise.
  Manner of Exercise.
      Incentive Stock Options.
   3




---



##### 



Right of Redemption.
  Stock
Appreciation Rights.
  4




---



##### 



Number.
  Duration.
  Exercise.
  Payment.
     5




---



##### 



Stock
Awards and Restricted Stock.
  Number of Shares.
  Sale Price.
  Restrictions.
     Escrow.
   6




---



##### 



End of Restrictions.
  Stockholder.
  Performance
Shares.
  Performance Objectives.
  Not Stockholder.
  No Adjustments.
  Expiration of Performance Share.
  7




---



##### 



General
 Effective Date.
  Duration.
  Limited Transferability of Incentives.
     Effect of Termination or Death.
  8




---



##### 



Additional Condition.
  Adjustment.
  Incentive Plans and Agreements.
  Withholding
  9




---



##### 



No Continued Employment, Engagement or Right to Corporate Assets.
  Deferral Permitted.
  Amendment of the Plan.
  Sale, Merger, Exchange or Liquidation.
   10




---



##### 



Definition of Fair Market Value.
  11
### §2309. Protection of constitutional rights of contractors

(a) Prohibition on Requiring Waiver of Rights.—A contractor may not be required, as a condition for entering into a contract with the Federal Government, to waive a right under the Constitution for a purpose relating to the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act of 1998 (22 U.S.C. 6701 et seq.) or the Chemical Weapons Convention (as defined in section 3 of that Act (22 U.S.C. 6701)).

(b) Permissible Contract Clauses.—Subsection (a) does not prohibit an executive agency from including in a contract a clause that requires the contractor to permit inspections to ensure that the contractor is performing the contract in accordance with the provisions of the contract.

(Pub. L. 111–350, §3, Jan. 4, 2011, 124 Stat. 3738.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2309 | 41:436. | Pub. L. 93–400, §40, formerly §39, as added Pub. L. 105–277, title III, §308(a), Oct. 21, 1998, 112 Stat. 2681–879; renumbered §40, Pub. L. 108–136, title XIV, §1431(d)(2), Nov. 24, 2003, 117 Stat. 1672. |

Section

In subsection (a), the reference is to the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act of 1998 rather than the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act of 1997 to correct an error in the source provision.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

The Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act of 1998, referred to in subsec. (a), is Pub. L. 105–277, div. I, Oct. 21, 1998, 112 Stat. 2681–856, which is classified principally to chapter 75 (§6701 et seq.) of Title 22, Foreign Relations and Intercourse. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 6701 of Title 22 and Tables.
#### § 904.272 Petition for reconsideration.

Unless an order or Initial Decision of the Judge specifically provides otherwise, any party may file a petition for reconsideration of an order or Initial Decision issued by the Judge. Such petitions must state the matter claimed to have been erroneously decided, and the alleged errors and relief sought must be specified with particularity. Petitions must be filed within 20 days after the service of such order or Initial Decision. The filing of a petition for reconsideration shall operate as a stay of an order or Initial Decision or its effectiveness date unless specifically so ordered by the Judge. Within 15 days after the petition is filed, any party to the administrative proceeding may file an answer in support or in opposition.

[87 FR 38940, June 30, 2022]
# Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas

March 7, 2018

No. 04

- 17

- 00312

- CR

Saturnino GUTIERREZ JR

. ,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas, Appel lee

From the 25th Judicial District Court, Guadalupe County, Texas

Trial Court No. 15

- 0462

- CR

- A Honorable William Old, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

In this appeal, Appellant’s court

- appointed counsel filed an Anders brief and notified Appellant of his right to file a pro se brief. Thereafter, the State waived its right to file a response to the Anders brief

. See Anders v. California

, 

### 386 U.S. 738 , 744 (1967). On March 1, 2018, Appe llant Saturnino Gutierrez Jr. , who is indigent, moved this court for a free copy of the appellate record. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 20.2.

A ppellant’s motion for a free copy of the appellate record is GRANTED.

We direct the clerk of this court to (1) provide A ppellant with a printed copy of the appellate record

— the clerk’s and reporter’s records

— at no cost to A ppellant

, (2) record in this court’s records the date the ap pellate record was mailed to Appellant, and (3) do both these tasks
within FIVE DAYS of the date of this order

. See id. ; Newman v. State , 937 S.W.2d 1, 3 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (“[T] he trial court has a duty to provide an indigent defendant with an adequate record on appeal

. ”).

The appellate record should be mailed to A ppellant at the following address:

Saturnino Gonzalez Jr.
TDCJ Number 0 1861143
McConnell Unit 3001 Emily DriveB eeville , TX 78102

- 8696

Appellant’s pro se brief will be due T HIRTY

- FIVE DAYS after this court mails Appellant a printed copy of the appellate record. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.6(a).

_________________________________ Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 7th day of March, 2018

.

___________________________________ K eith E. H ottle Clerk of Court
#### § 791.110 Classified national security information.

In any review of a determination made under this part, if the determination was based on classified national security information, such information may be submitted to the reviewing court *ex parte* and *in camera.* This section does not confer or imply any right to review in any tribunal, judicial or otherwise.
Home > NRC Library > ADAMS Public Documents

# March 2010 Report on the Status of Public Petitions Under Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Section 2.206.

Accession Number: ML100920002

Date Released: Friday, April 16, 2010

Package Contents

The following links on this page are to Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF) files. To obtain a free viewer for displaying this format, see our Plugins, Viewers, and Other Tools.
    - ML100890301 - March 2010 Report on the Status of Public Petitions Under Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Section 2.206. (3 page(s), 4/14/2010)
    - ML100910296 - Enclosures: March 2010 Report on the Status of Public Petitions Under Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Section 2.206. (21 page(s), 4/14/2010)

Privacy PolicySite Disclaimer
### **CHAPTER 87—KICKBACKS**

Sec.
8701.
Definitions.
8702.
Prohibited conduct.
8703.
Contractor responsibilities.
8704.
Inspection authority.
8705.
Administrative offsets.
8706.
Civil actions.
8707.
Criminal penalties.
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 221 (Wednesday, November 17, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 67373]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-25590]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD


Sunshine Act Meeting

    Notice is hereby given that the Railroad Retirement Board will hold 
a meeting on November 23, 2004, 9 a.m., at the Board's meeting room on 
the 8th floor of its headquarters building, 844 North Rush Street, 
Chicago, Illinois 60611. The agenda for this meeting follows:
    (1) Status Report on the Field Service Task Force.
    (2) Employer Status Determination, Decision on Reconsideration--
American Railroads Corporation.
    The entire meeting will be open to the public. The person to 
contact for more information is Beatrice Ezerski, Secretary to the 
Board, Phone No. (312) 751-4920.

    Dated: November 12, 2004.
Beatrice Ezerski,
Secretary to the Board.
[FR Doc. 04-25590 Filed 11-15-04; 10:31 am]
BILLING CODE 7905-01-M
§ 950.302 Responsibilities of federations. ( a ) Federations must ensure that only those member organizations that comply with all eligibility requirements included in these regulations are certified for participation in the CFC.
( b ) The Director may elect to review, accept or reject the certifications of the eligibility of the members of federations. If the Director requests information supporting a certification of eligibility, that information shall be furnished promptly. Failure to furnish such information within 10 business days of the receipt of the request constitutes grounds for the denial of national eligibility of that member.
( c ) Each federation, as fiscal agent for its member organizations, must ensure that Federal employee designations are honored in that each member organization receives its proportionate share of receipts based on the results of each individual campaign. The proportionate share of receipts is determined by donor designations to the individual member organization as compared to total campaign designations.
( d ) Federations must disburse CFC funds to each member organization without any further deductions. Membership dues, fees, or other charges to member organizations must be assessed outside of the CFC disbursement process.
( e ) Federations must disburse CFC funds to member organizations on a quarterly basis, at a minimum. The disbursements must be made within the months of June, September, December, and March.
( f ) Disbursements to federation members that include funds from a non- CFC campaign must include a report that clearly identifies the amount of CFC funds.
#### Helen Josephine Hagarty, Respondent, v. John Moyka and Anton Wiener, Appellants.

Without expressing an opinion as to whether the complaint states a cause of action, we are of opinion that the answer puts in issue the allegations of the complaint, and it cannot be regarded as frivolous. The order is, therefore, reversed, with ten dollars costs and dis*925bursements, and the motion denied, with ten dollars costs. Jenks, P. J., Thomas, Stapleton, Rich and Putnam, JJ., concurred.
#### Rose M. Van Epps et al., Appellants, v. William Carpenter, Respondent.

Appeal from a judgment entered upon a verdict of no cause of action rendered by a jury after the trial of a negligence action in the Supreme Court, Saratoga County. The plaintiff Rose Marie Van Epps was a passenger in an automobile *800owned and operated by the defendant. This ear came into collision with the rear of another vehicle while traveling south on road known as route No. 9 — or the Glens Falls-Saratoga Springs highway. As a result of that collision plaintiff sustained personal injuries. The only issues of fact apparent in the record deal with negligence on the part of the defendant and contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff passenger. The parties were together for the greater part of an afternoon and visited several drinking places as they rode around the countryside. We think the jury might have found the defendant negligent but also, that under the circumstances, the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence. Only one alleged error in the reception of evidence requires consideration. A witness called by the defendant was permitted to testify that he heard the defendant say to a State trooper after the accident that he did not know the plaintiff passenger’s name. Over the plaintiffs’ objection the court permitted this testimony but instructed thp jury that it was not binding on the plaintiffs. Defendant had been called as a witness by the plaintiffs but was not sworn in his own behalf. On his direct examination he testified that he was acquainted with the plaintiff passenger. The disputed testimony as to what he said after the accident contradicted his testimony given as a witness for the plaintiffs, and tended to impugn his credibility. Technically, however, the rule against impeachments applies only to a witness called by the party who seeks to impeach. It should not be applied here because the defendant did not take the stand in his own behalf. In any event, under the court’s specific instructions to the jury, the disputed testimony was valueless except as it tended to prove that defendant was unworthy of belief. Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs. Present — Foster, P. J., Bergan, Coon, Halpcrn and Imrie, p. 845.] [See post, p. 845.]
Exhibit 32.1





REGENOCELL THERAPEUTICS, INC.


CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906


OF THE SARBANNES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the quarterly report of RegenoCELL Therapeutics, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2011 (the “Report”), I, James F. Mongiardo, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my 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.





/s/
James F. MongiardoJames F. MongiardoChief Executive OfficerandChief Financial OfficerAugust 19, 2011
### §3903. Multiyear contracts

(a) Definition.—In this section, a multiyear contract is a contract for the purchase of property or services for more than one, but not more than 5, program years.

(b) Authority To Enter Into Contract.—An executive agency may enter into a multiyear contract for the acquisition of property or services if—

(1) funds are available and obligated for the contract, for the full period of the contract or for the first fiscal year in which the contract is in effect, and for the estimated costs associated with a necessary termination of the contract; and

(2) the executive agency determines that—

(A) the need for the property or services is reasonably firm and continuing over the period of the contract; and

(B) a multiyear contract will serve the best interests of the Federal Government by encouraging full and open competition or promoting economy in administration, performance, and operation of the agency's programs.

(c) Termination Clause.—A multiyear contract entered into under the authority of this section shall include a clause that provides that the contract shall be terminated if funds are not made available for the continuation of the contract in a fiscal year covered by the contract. Funds available for paying termination costs shall remain available for that purpose until the costs associated with termination of the contract are paid.

(d) Cancellation Ceiling Notice.—Before a contract described in subsection (b) that contains a clause setting forth a cancellation ceiling in excess of $10,000,000 may be awarded, the executive agency shall give written notification of the proposed contract and of the proposed cancellation ceiling for that contract to Congress. The contract may not be awarded until the end of the 30-day period beginning on the date of the notification.

(e) Contingency Clause for Appropriation of Funds.—A multiyear contract may provide that performance under the contract after the first year of the contract is contingent on the appropriation of funds and (if the contract does so provide) that a cancellation payment shall be made to the contractor if the funds are not appropriated.

(f) Other Law Not Affected.—This section does not modify or affect any other provision of law that authorizes multiyear contracts.

(Pub. L. 111–350, §3, Jan. 4, 2011, 124 Stat. 3774.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 3903(a) | 41:254c(d) (1st sentence). | June 30, 1949, ch. 288, title III, §304B, as added Pub. L. 103–355, title I, §1072, Oct. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 3270. |
| 3903(b) | 41:254c(a). | |
| 3903(c) | 41:254c(b). | |
| 3903(d) | 41:254c(c). | |
| 3903(e) | 41:254c(d) (last sentence). | |
| 3903(f) | 41:254c(e). | |

Section
James Turner/R6/USEPA/US 

05/09/2007 04:54 PM 

, To Rebamburg@aol.com 

cc Shawn Ghose/R6/USEPA/US@EPA 

bcc 

Subject Re: Graham/Rogers Road legalQ 

PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL 

Bob, I have talked with the RPM and I think we can probably fix Sub-Para 4(a), by having the full 

restriction on ground water use on the 1.38 acre tract, but on the larger 20,296 acre tract require only a 

prior written approval of EPA Region 6 Superfund Division with copy to the State (ADEQ), for installation 

or use of a ground water well. What do you think? 

James L. Turner 

Senior Attorney 

Office of Regional Counsel (6RC-S) 

U:S. EPA Region 6 

1445 Ross Avenue, Ste. 1200 

Dallas, Texas 75202-2733 

E-Mail: Turner.James@epa.gov , 

Ph: (214)665-3159 

Fax: (214) 665-6460 

9050339 

002311
§ 758.8 Return or unloading of cargo. ( a ) *Carrier.* As used in this section, the term “carrier” includes a connecting or on-forwarding carrier, as well as the owner, charterer, agent, master, or any other person in possession, control, or charge of the vessel, aircraft, vehicle, or other kind of conveyance, whether such person is located in the United States or in a foreign country.
( b ) *Ordering return or unloading of shipment.* In order to ensure compliance with export laws and regulations administered or enforced by the Secretary, OEE officials, or any other official of the United States designated by OEE, may, with respect to a particular export, reexport, or transfer (in-country), order any carrier to return or unload the shipment. For the purpose of this section, furnishing a copy of the order to any person included within the definition of carrier will be sufficient notice of the order to the carrier. The carrier must, as ordered: ( 1 ) Unload the shipment and make it available to OEE officials for search and inspection; or
( 2 ) Return the shipment to the United States or cause it to be returned; or
( 3 ) Unload the shipment at a port of call and take steps to assure that it is placed in custody under bond or other guaranty not to enter the commerce of any foreign country without the prior approval of BIS.
( c ) *Requirements regarding shipment to be unloaded.* The provisions of § 758.5(d) and (e) of this part, relating to reporting, notification to BIS, and the prohibition against unauthorized delivery or entry of the item into a foreign country shall apply also when items are unloaded at a port of call, as provided in paragraph (b)(3) of this section.
( d ) *Notification.* Upon discovery by any person included within the term “carrier,” as defined in paragraph (a) of this section, that a violation of the export laws and regulations administered or enforced by the Secretary has occurred, is occurring, or is about to occur with respect to a shipment on board, or otherwise in the possession or control of the carrier, such person must immediately notify both: ( 1 ) The Office of Export Enforcement at the following address: Room H-4508, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20230, Telephone: (202) 482-1208, Facsimile: (202) 482-0964; and
( 2 ) The person in actual possession or control of the shipment.
[85 FR 73415, Nov. 18, 2020]
#### Frederick E. Moskovics, Appellant, v. Arthur W. Herrington, Respondent.

dent. Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Present — Cohn, Callahan, Van Voorhis and Shientag, JJ.
#### In the Matter of the Accounting of Mary Franco, as Executrix of Antonio Napoli, Deceased. Mary Franco, Individually and as Executrix of Antonio Napoli, Deceased, et al., Appellants; Margaret Mainolfi et al., Respondents.

Appeal from a decree of the Surrogate’s Court of Broome County, entered on October 16, 1952. Appellants question the allowance of a claim against decedent’s estate. Claimant, a mother of three children, originally entered the employ of decedent as a housekeeper. This soon developed into a meretricious relationship, which lasted for many years, and resulted in the birth of two children to claimant and decedent, although they were never married. During the years of this illicit cohabitation they became involved in innumerable financial transactions. The claim is based partly upon these transactions and partly upon an alleged implied contract that obligated decedent to support claimant and her three children. Decedent was under no legal obligation to support *815claimant’s adult children to whom he bore no relationship. There is no evidence of an expressed contract to do so. During a long period of time, when they lived in decedent’s household, they made modest contributions to their mother which she contends were used for household expenses. The decree grants reimbursement to claimant for such payments. We see no legal justification for the allowance of this item. Otherwise, the record presents only questions of fact and the evidence is sufficient to sustain the decree. Decree modified by striking therefrom the allowance of $2,300 as reimbursement for payments made to claimant by her two daughters, and, as so modified, on the law and facts, affirmed, with costs to parties filing a brief, payable out of the estate. Foster, P. J., Bergan, Coon, Halpern and Imrie, JJ., concur.