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

----

**Exhibit        32.1**

**CERTIFICATION**

| 1. | The                  Quarterly 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 Quarterly Report fairly presents,                  in all                  material respects, the financial condition and results of operations                  of                  the Company at the end of the periods covered by the Quarterly                  Report. |
|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:                  February 14, 2007 |   |                                                                            |
|------------------------------------------|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                     | By:    | /s/                  *James                  Price*James                  Price |
|                                     |   | Chief                  Executive Officer                                        |

----
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, Michael D. Durham, as President and Chief Executive Officer of ADA-ES, Inc.
(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 Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (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/ Michael D. Durham
|Name:                 |  | Michael D. Durham                    
|Title:                |  | President and Chief Executive Officer

Date: May 13,
2011
§ 1028.108 IRB functions and operations. ( a ) In order to fulfill the requirements of this policy each IRB shall: ( 1 ) Have access to meeting space and sufficient staff to support the IRB's review and recordkeeping duties;
( 2 ) Prepare and maintain a current list of the IRB members identified by name; earned degrees; representative capacity; indications of experience such as board certifications or licenses sufficient to describe each member's chief anticipated contributions to IRB deliberations; and any employment or other relationship between each member and the institution, for example, full-time employee, part-time employee, member of governing panel or board, stockholder, paid or unpaid consultant;
( 3 ) Establish and follow written procedures for: ( i ) Conducting its initial and continuing review of research and for reporting its findings and actions to the investigator and the institution;
( ii ) Determining which projects require review more often than annually and which projects need verification from sources other than the investigators that no material changes have occurred since previous IRB review; and
( iii ) Ensuring prompt reporting to the IRB of proposed changes in a research activity, and for ensuring that investigators will conduct the research activity in accordance with the terms of the IRB approval until any proposed changes have been reviewed and approved by the IRB, except when necessary to eliminate apparent immediate hazards to the subject.
( 4 ) Establish and follow written procedures for ensuring prompt reporting to the IRB; appropriate institutional officials; the department or agency head; and the Office for Human Research Protections, HHS, or any successor office, or the equivalent office within the appropriate Federal department or agency of ( i ) Any unanticipated problems involving risks to subjects or others or any serious or continuing noncompliance with this policy or the requirements or determinations of the IRB; and
( ii ) Any suspension or termination of IRB approval.
( b ) Except when an expedited review procedure is used (as described in § 1028.110), an IRB must review proposed research at convened meetings at which a majority of the members of the IRB are present, including at least one member whose primary concerns are in nonscientific areas. In order for the research to be approved, it shall receive the approval of a majority of those members present at the meeting.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under Control Number 0990-0260)
§ 200.113 Use of results or reports. ( a ) As the national standards laboratory of the United States, NIST maintains and establishes the primary standards from which measurements in science and industry ultimately derive. It is therefore sometimes desirable for manufacturers or users of measurement standards to make appropriate reference to the relationship of their calibrations to NIST calibrations. The following considerations must be borne in mind, and shall be understood as constituting an agreement on the part of the NIST customer to be bound thereby in making reference to NIST calibration and test reports.
( b ) The results of calibrations and tests performed by NIST are intended solely for the use of the organization requesting them, and apply only to a particular device or specimen at the time of its test. The results shall not be used to indicate or imply that they are applicable to other similar items. In addition, such results must not be used to indicate or imply that NIST approves, recommends, or endorses the manufacturer, the supplier, or the user of such devices or specimens, or that NIST in any way “guarantees” the later performance of items after calibration or test.
( c ) NIST declares it to be in the national interest that it maintain an impartial position with respect to any commercial product. Advertising the findings on a single instrument could be misinterpreted as an indication of performance of other instruments of identical or similar type. There will be no objection, however, to a statement that the manufacturer's primary standards have been periodically calibrated by NIST, if this is actually the case, or that the customer might arrange to have NIST calibrate the item purchased from the manufacturer.
( d ) NIST does not approve, recommend, or endorse any proprietary product or proprietary material. No reference shall be made to NIST, or to reports or results furnished by NIST in any advertising or sales promotion which would indicate or imply that NIST approves, recommends, or endorses any proprietary product or proprietary material, or which has as its purpose an intent to cause directly or indirectly the advertised product to be used or purchased because of NIST test reports or results.
In its own activities as a scientific institution, NIST uses many different materials, products, types of equipment, and services. This use does not imply that NIST has given them a preferential position or a formal endorsement. Therefore, NIST discourages references, either in advertising or in the scientific literature, which identify it as a user of any proprietary product, material, or service. Occasionally, effective communication of results by NIST to the scientific community requires that a proprietary instrument, product, or material be identified in an NIST publication. Reference in an NIST publication, report, or other document to a proprietary item does not constitute endorsement or approval of that item and such reference should not be used in any way apart from the context of the NIST publication, report, or document without the advance express written consent of NIST.
### §1125. Recipients of Federal grants or assistance

(a) Authority.—With due regard to applicable laws and the program activities of the executive agencies administering Federal programs of grants or assistance, the Administrator may prescribe Government-wide policies, regulations, procedures, and forms that the Administrator considers appropriate and that executive agencies shall follow in providing for the procurement, to the extent required under those programs, of property or services referred to in section 1121(c)(1) of this title by recipients of Federal grants or assistance under the programs.

(b) Limitation.—Subsection (a) does not—

(1) permit the Administrator to authorize procurement or supply support, either directly or indirectly, to a recipient of a Federal grant or assistance; or

(2) authorize action by a recipient contrary to State and local law in the case of a program to provide a Federal grant or assistance to a State or political subdivision.

(Pub. L. 111–350, §3, Jan. 4, 2011, 124 Stat. 3688.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1125(a) | 41:405(i)(1). | Pub. L. 93–400, §6(i), Aug. 30, 1974, 88 Stat. 797; Pub. L. 96–83, §4, Oct. 10, 1979, 93 Stat. 649; Pub. L. 98–191, §5, Dec. 1, 1983, 97 Stat. 1328. |
| 1125(b) | 41:405(i)(2). | |

Section
68214 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 23, 2004 / Notices 

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS 

AFFAIRS 

Enhanced-Use Lease of VA Property, 

Chicago (Lakeside), IL

AGENCY: Department of Veterans Affairs.

ACTION: Notice of intent to enter into an 

enhanced-use lease. 

SUMMARY: The Secretary of the 

Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) 

intends to enter into an enhanced-use 

lease of approximately 3.8 acres known 

as VA’s Lakeside property in Chicago, 

Illinois (‘‘Lakeside’’). The Department 

proposes to enter into a long-term (up to 

75 years) lease with a competitively 

selected lessee that would bear full 

financial and legal responsibility to 

redevelop the property into a modern 

health care campus, at no cost to VA. 

VA would use the consideration from 

the proposed lease to improve health 

care services and facilities for veterans. 

Under other terms of the proposed lease, 

VA could continue to use the hospital 

property to provide health care and 

services to veterans until December 31, 

2007.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Brian A. McDaniel, Office of Asset 

Enterprise Management (004B), 

Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 

Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 

20420, (202) 273–9492.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 38 U.S.C. 

8161 et seq., specifically provides that 

the Secretary may enter into an 

enhanced-use lease if he determines that 

the implementation of a business plan 

proposed by the Under Secretary for 

Health for applying the consideration 

under such a lease to the provision of 

medical care and services would result 

in a demonstrable improvement of 

services to eligible veterans in the 

geographic service-delivery area within 

which the property is located. This 

project meets this requirement.

Approved: November 15, 2004. 

Anthony J. Principi, 

Secretary of Veterans Affairs.

[FR Doc. 04–25915 Filed 11–22–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8320–01–P
### Part A—Existing Programs
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Dante Richards, Appellant.

[821 NYS2d 308]

Lahtinen, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Schenectady County (Eidens, J), rendered August 30, 2004, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crimes of attempted burglary in the second degree, attempted criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and attempted promoting prison contraband in the first degree.

In satisfaction of three separate indictments charging a total of seven felonies and one misdemeanor, defendant pleaded guilty to attempted burglary in the second degree, attempted criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and attempted promoting prison contraband in the first degree. Prior to sentencing, a hearing was conducted to determine whether defendant was a second felony offender *(see*CPL 400.21 [7]). Defendant argued that he was not because the underlying predi*1109cate offense, a prior conviction for burglary in the third degree, was secured in violation of his constitutional right to the effective assistance of counsel. Specifically, defendant claimed that he had resided with his then-girlfriend in the house that he was convicted of burglarizing and his attorney had been deficient in failing to advise him that the fact that he lived there constituted a viable defense to the charge.

Following the hearing, County Court found that defendant had no legal right to be in the house at the time of the burglary and, therefore, the residence defense would have been invalid. Thus, acknowledging that defense counsel had no obligation to advise defendant regarding a nonexistent defense, County Court held that defendant had not been deprived of meaningful representation in connection with the prior burglary conviction. County Court then declared defendant to have been previously convicted of a predicate felony and sentenced him as a second felony offender to consecutive prison terms of *51⁄2*years for the attempted burglary conviction and 3 to 6 years for the attempted criminal sale of a controlled substance conviction, along with a concurrent prison term of 11⁄2 to 3 years for the attempted promoting prison contraband conviction. Defendant now appeals.

We affirm. Defendant’s former girlfriend was the only person named on the lease and, prior to the burglary, ordered defendant out of the house after a domestic dispute. Defendant therefore had no legal authority to be in the house when he later returned and committed the burglary by climbing through the window and beating up the girlfriend. Accordingly, with the record being devoid of any other evidence that the previous burglary conviction was constitutionally infirm, we will not disturb County Court’s determination that defendant was a predicate felon for purposes of sentencing.

Peters, J.P., Spain, Mugglin and Rose, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
NRC BEGINS SPECIAL INSPECTION AT MILLSTONE UNIT 2 NUCLEAR PLANT

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has sent a Special Inspection Team to the Millstone 

Power Station to review operator performance issues that occurred during main turbine control 

valve testing at Unit 2 on February 12. The plant is operated by Dominion Resources and is 

located in Waterford, Conn. 

“Even though there was no impact on public health and safety, it is important that we 

have a complete understanding of this operational event and that Dominion fully assesses the 

root cause and takes comprehensive actions to prevent recurrence,” said NRC Region I 

Administrator Bill Dean. 

The three-member team will evaluate the operator actions and events surrounding an 

unplanned increase in reactor power from 88 percent to 96 percent power during main turbine 

control valve testing. 

The NRC resident inspectors assigned to Millstone have been following up on this event 

since it occurred. In addition, an operations engineer from the Region I Office in King of 

Prussia, Pa., was sent to the site last week. 

The Team will expand on the inspection activities started immediately after the event. 

The team will review Dominion’s organizational and operator response during the event and the 

causes of the event. The Team also will conduct interviews to understand operator actions 

during the event. 

The inspection report documenting the team’s findings will be issued about 45 days after 

the completion of the inspection.

###

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.

NRC NEWS

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Office of Public Affairs, Region I 

475 Allendale Road, King of Prussia, Pa. 19406

E-mail: opa1@nrc.gov 

Site: www.nrc.gov

Blog: public-blog.nrc-gateway.gov

No. I-11-003

Contact: Diane Screnci (610) 337-5330

 Neil Sheehan (610) 337-5331

February 22, 2011

Email: OPA1.RESOURCE@nrc.gov
Issue Date: 09/20/13 1 13-022 

 NRC INSPECTION MANUAL DIRS 

Change Notice 13-022

 DELETED: TRANSMITTED: 

 Number Date Number Date

1. IMC 0609 App F 02/28/05 IMC 0609 App F 09/20/13 

2. IMC 0609 App F Att 1 02/28/05 IMC 0609 App F Att 1 09/20/13 

3. IP 65001.F 08/19/08 IP 65001.F 09/20/13 

TRAINING: No. 

REMARKS: IMC 0609 App F, “Fire Protection Significance Determination Process,” has been 

revised to incorporate an expanded Phase 1. This was created in response to a 

large number of comments that were received from regional analysts via the 

ROP Feedback process and Risk Network initiative. Specific key improvements 

include: (a) inclusion of additional screening questions for each of the fire finding 

categories based on review of archived fire SDP items, fire data, and expertise 

that were not available at the previous release of Appendix F, (b) expansion of 

initial quantitative screening to include a non-suppression probability term, and 

(c) addition of an option to rely on licensees’ fire PRA assessment of fire findings 

under appropriate oversight. 

IMC 0609 App F, Att 1, “Fire Protection Significance Determination Process 

Worksheet,” has been revised to add the qualitative screening questions and 

updated guidance needed for inspectors to complete the phase 1 screening 

process of fire protection related findings. 

IP 65001.F, “Inspection of the ITAAC-Related Design and Fabrication 

Requirements,” has been revised as a complete re-write to address current 

inspection program policies. Researched commitments for four years and found 

none. 

DISTRIBUTION: Standard 

END
UKRAINIAN MINIMUM CUSTOMS VALUES ON EXCISE GOODS

----

13 AUG 97
#### In the Matter of Albert Tartaglia et al., Respondents, against Harold J. McLaughlin, a Justice of the Municipal Court of the City of New York, et al., Appellants.

Respondents, owners and landlords of certain premises in the borough of Brooklyn, City and State of New York, instituted a summary proceeding in the Municipal Court of the City of New York, Borough of Brooklyn, to evict a tenant from said premises. After a trial before Mr. Justice Harold J. McLaughlin in the Sixth District Municipal Court, a final order giving respondents the right to evict the tenant was entered, but execution thereof was stayed until September 11, 1947. Appellant Samuel Pearlman is the clerk of said court. On application of the tenant, Justice McLaughlin extended his time to move from the premises until October 11, 1947, and directed that in the meantime respondents obtain from the temporary city housing rent commission a certificate authorizing the eviction as provided in the so-called “Sharkey Law ”, passed September 17, 1947, amending the Administrative Code of the City of New York in relation to evictions from apartments within the City of New York. (Local Laws, 1947, Ho. 66 of City of New York — Administrative Code of City of New York, § U41-7.0.) Thereafter respondents’ demand for a warrant of eviction was refused by appellants, respondents having failed to obtain the required certificate, and they thereupon began the present proceeding under article 78 of the Civil Practice Act to compel appellants to issue a warrant of eviction. The order appealed from grants respondents’ application and directs that appellants issue a warrant of eviction as prayed for. Order unanimously affirmed, without costs. Ho opinion. Permission to appeal to the Court of Appeals is hereby granted. Pending the appeal and conditioned upon the diligent prosecution thereof, a stay is granted to appellants. Present — Lewis, P. J., Carswell, Johnston, Adel and Wenzel, JJ. [190 Misc. 266.]
Exhibit 32.2 Certification of Annual
Report **** Pursuant
to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. §1350, the undersigned
officer of Worldwide Energy and Manufacturing USA, Inc.. (the Company), hereby
certifies that, to the undersigneds knowledge:  (1)
the
Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31,
2008 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
or 15(d), as applicable, 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:
August18, 2009  /s/ John
Ballard Name: John
Ballard Chief Financial
Officer
### Part F—Research on Women's Health
### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N
NO. 03-11-00869- CV

Elias J. De La Garz a d/b /a Eli as De La G arza Insurance, Appellant
v. Texas Depart m ent of In surance and Com m ission er of Insu rance M ike Ge eslin, App ellees

F ROM TH E DISTRI CT COURT O F TRAVIS CO UNTY, 98TH JUDICI AL DISTRICT NO. D-1 -GN-1 0-0 0064 3, H ONO RAB LE RHO NDA HURLEY , JUDGE P RESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
On August 14, 2013, we g rante d appellant’ s unopposed motion to stay proce eding s for 90 day s and motion to wi t h d ra w as counsel of rec ord. Appellant’s lead counsel died unexpectedly
. On Dec ember 11, 2013, appellant filed an unopposed motion to abate appea l beca use appellant has been unable to secur e new counsel. We g rant the moti o n an d ab at e the appeal. All appellate deadlines will be tolled during the period of abate ment. Appellant is direc ted to file either a status re port or a motion to reinstate by Marc h 12, 2014.

__________________________________________ Melissa Goodwin, Jus tice Be fore J ustices Pury ear , Rose, and Goodwin Abated Filed: De cembe r 17, 2013
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 223 (Friday, November 19, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 67778]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-25726]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS


Advisory Committee on Women Veterans, Notice of Availability of 
Report

    In compliance with section 13 of Public Law 92-463 (Federal 
Advisory Committee Act) notice is hereby given that the 2004 Annual 
Report of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Advisory Committee on 
Women Veterans has been issued. The report summarizes activities and 
recommendations of the Committee on matters relative to VA programs and 
policies affecting women veterans. It is available for public 
inspection at two locations: Mr. Richard Yarnall, Federal Advisory 
Committee Desk, Library of Congress, Anglo-American Acquisition 
Division, Government Documents Section, Room LM-B42, 101 Independence 
Avenue, SE., Washington DC 20540-4172; and Department of Veterans 
Affairs, Center for Women Veterans, Suite 438 (00W), 810 Vermont 
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20420.

    Dated: October 1, 2004.

    By Direction of the Secretary.
E. Philip Riggin,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 04-25726 Filed 11-18-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8320-01-M