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




CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


WOIZE
INTERNATIONAL LTD.


FORM
10-QSB FOR THE QUARTER ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2007


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 Executive 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 December 31, 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.




February
      19, 2008
              By:
              /s/ Daniel
      SavinoDaniel
      SavinoChief
      Executive Officer
#### In the Matter of Scott Silverstein, Petitioner, v Donald Selsky, as Director of Special Housing and Inmate Disciplinary Programs, Respondent.

[821 NYS2d 301]

Carpinello, J.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of the Commissioner of Correctional Services which found petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

Following a urinalysis test which produced a positive result for the presence of cannabinoids, petitioner was charged in a misbehavior report with violating a prison disciplinary rule prohibiting the use of narcotics or controlled substances unless prescribed by a health care provider. A tier III disciplinary hearing was held and petitioner was found guilty of the charge. The Commissioner of Correctional Services affirmed on administrative review, prompting petitioner to commence this proceeding challenging the determination.

The misbehavior report, the positive urinalysis test results and supporting documentation, along with the testimony of the officers who collected and tested petitioner’s urine sample, provide substantial evidence of petitioner’s guilt *(see Matter of Paige v Goord,*19 AD3d 908, 908 [2005]; *Matter of Sanchez v Selsky,*8 AD3d 846, 846 [2004]). Petitioner’s contention that the officer who conducted the urinalysis test harbored a grudge against him created a credibility issue that the Hearing Officer was free to resolve against him *(see Matter of Davis v Goord,*21 AD3d 606, 609 [2005]; *Matter of Kotler v Goord,*17 AD3d 828, 828 [2005], *lv dismissed and denied*5 NY3d 755 [2005]).

To the extent that petitioner’s procedural objections are preserved for our review, they are unpersuasive. Initially, the record demonstrates that the hearing was conducted in a fair and impartial manner and the determination did not flow from any alleged bias on the part of the Hearing Officer *(see Matter*
      *1101
      *of Cayenne v Goord,*16 AD3d 782, 783-784 [2005]; *Matter of Sanchez v Selsky, supra*at 846). Additionally, the record reflects that petitioner was provided with all of the documentation to which he was entitled prior to the hearing and was afforded time to review further documents requested during the hearing *(see Matter of Cayenne v Goord, supra*at 783; *Matter of Otero v Selsky,*9 AD3d 631, 632 [2004]). Finally, petitioner was not improperly denied any of his requested witnesses *(see Matter of Vigliotti v Duncan,*10 AD3d 776, 777 [2004], *lv denied*4 NY3d 738 [2004]; *Matter of Lebron v Goord,*6 AD3d 997, 998 [2004]).

Crew III, J.P., Mugglin, Lahtinen and Kane, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.
### Part A—Management Improvements
**EXHIBIT 10.24**Summary Schedule of Non-Management Director Fees     All non-employee directors receive an annual retainer of $24,000, plus anattendance fee of $1,500 for each meeting of the board of directors at which they are present. TheChairman of the board of directors receives an annual retainer of $60,000. The audit committeeChairman receives an additional annual retainer of $15,000. The Chair of each of the compensationcommittee and the corporate governance and nominating committee receives an additional annualretainer of $10,000. Members of the audit committee receive an additional annual retainer of$7,500 and members of the compensation and the corporate governance and nominating committeesreceive an additional annual retainer of $5,000. Committee members receive an additional $1,500for each committee meeting attended. Stratos also reimburses directors for their reasonableexpenses incurred in attending meetings. Non-employee directors are also eligible to receive stockoptions and restricted stock awards.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Justice

###### Antitrust Division

                    Notice is hereby given that, on September 20, 2004, pursuant to section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993,                           ( print page 67946)    15 U.S.C. 4301*et seq*. (“the Act”), The Institute of Nuclear Materials Management (“INMM”) has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing (1) the name and principal place of business of the standards development organization and (2) the nature and scope of its standards development activities. The notifications were filed for the purpose of invoking the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances.                

Pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act, the name and principal place of business of the standards development organization is: The Institute of Nuclear Materials Management, Northbrook, IL. The nature and scope of INMM's standards development activities are: Standards for the packaging and transportation of fissile and radioactive materials, and non-nuclear hazardous materials including waste and mixed waste; but not including movement or handling during processing and manufacturing operations; and standards for protection, control, and accounting of special nuclear materials in all phases of the nuclear fuel cycle, including analytical procedures where necessary and special to this purpose, except that physical protection of special nuclear materials within a nuclear power plant is not included.

Dorothy B. Fountain,

Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.

[FR Doc. 04-25858 Filed 11-19-04; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
NRC BEGINS SPECIAL INSPECTION AT 

BRUNSWICK NUCLEAR POWER PLANT 

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission will launch a special inspection at Progress 

Energy’s Brunswick nuclear power plant to assess the circumstances surrounding an event on

Wednesday that required operators to shut down the Unit 2 reactor.

The plant is located in Southport, N.C., about 20 miles south of Wilmington.

Unit 2 was restarting after a maintenance outage when operators identified unacceptable 

reactor coolant system leakage. The unit, which had reached 7 percent power, was manually 

scrammed, or shut down. Plant officials declared an Unusual Event, the lowest of four NRC 

emergency classifications.

The leak rate slowed as the pressure was decreased and the Unusual Event was 

terminated after about five hours. During preliminary leak investigation activities, plant 

employees determined that the reactor pressure vessel head had not been fully tensioned.

“While there were no immediate significant adverse implications to public health and 

safety, this event raises important questions that need to be addressed,” said Victor McCree, 

Region II Administrator. “Our resident inspectors and our Special Inspection Team will work 

diligently to understand what has occurred at Brunswick and why.”

The NRC’s resident inspectors at Brunswick immediately began assessing the incident, 

and are continuing to monitor the licensee’s activities. They will be supplemented on Monday by

a Special Inspection Team from the NRC’s Region II offices in Atlanta. The team will be 

composed of NRC inspectors with expertise in this area. The team will, among other things,

develop a timeline, review Progress= actions leading up to the event and evaluate the company’s 

response.

The on-site portion of the inspection will take several days. A report documenting the 

results should be issued within 45 days of the completion of the inspection. 

###

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

No: II-11-067

CONTACT: Roger Hannah (404) 997-4417

 Joey Ledford (404) 997-4416

 November 18, 2011 

E-mail: OPA2.Resource@nrc.gov
Order entered September 1 2 , 2014

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**
No. 05
- 14
- 00475
- CV LLOYD DOUGLAS, Appellant
V. CITY OF KEMP, TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 422nd Judicial District Court Kaufman County, Texas Trial Co urt Cause No. 89460
- 422 

### O RDER
W e GRANT appellant’s September 10, 2014 unopposed motion to extend time to file reply brief and ORDER the brief be filed no later than September 29, 2014

.
/s/ ELIZABETH LANG

- MIERS JUSTICE
**Exhibit 32.1**

** **

**CERTIFICATION**

**PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEYACT OF 2002**

 

I, Lorne Kalisky, Principal Executive Officerof Vican Resources, Inc. (the “Company”) certify that:

 

1. I have reviewed the quarterly report on Form10-Q of the Company;

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this annual reportdoes not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made,in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisannual report; and

 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements,and other financial information included in this annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,results of operations and cash flows of the Company as of, and for, the period presented in this annual report.

 

Date: August 22, 2011

 

/s/ Lorne Kalisky	

Lorne Kalisky

Principal Executive Officer
#### §§ 744.12-744.14 [Reserved]
### §7733. Personnel

The Secretary shall ensure that the number of full-time employees of the Veterans Benefits Administration assigned to quality assurance functions under this subchapter is adequate to perform the quality assurance functions for which they have responsibility.

(Added Pub. L. 106–117, §801(a)(1), Nov. 30, 1999, 113 Stat. 1585.)
#### William F. Weber v. John Donnelly.

Motion for stay of proceedings by plaintiff pending appeal granted; extension of time to withdraw demurrer and to answer denied. Order to be settled on notice. Present — Ingraham, P. J., Clarke, Scott, Dowling and Hotchkiss, JJ.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

Supreme Court Cause No. DA 21-0237

PHILIP R. WIRTH,

Appellant,

v.

LEWIS & CLARK COUNTY AND 

BRIDGE CREEK ESTATES 

HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION,

Appellees.

GRANT OF EXTENSION

Appellee Lewis & Clark County has requested a 30-day extension from 

September 27, 2021, up to and including October 27, 2021, to file its Response 

Brief in this matter. Good cause appearing therefore,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellee Lewis & Clark County shall have 

until and including October 27, 2021, within which to file its Response Brief.

Electronically signed by:

Bowen Greenwood

Clerk of the Supreme Court

September 20 2021

09/20/2021

Case Number: DA 21-0237
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 226 (Wednesday, November 24, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 68329]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-26037]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY


Senior Executive Service; Performance Review Board

AGENCY: Department of Energy.

ACTION: Notice of Designation of Performance Review Board Chair.

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

SUMMARY: This notice provides the Performance Review Board Chair 
designee for the Department of Energy: James T. Campbell.

DATES: This appointment is effective as of September 30, 2004.

    Issued in Washington, DC November 18, 2004.
Claudia A. Cross,
Chief Human Capital Officer/Director, Office of Human Capital 
Management.
[FR Doc. 04-26037 Filed 11-23-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
# United States Court of Appeals

f or the Fifth Circuit

No. 21

- 50988 Summary Calendar

United States of America, Plaintiff

— Appellee ,

versus
Aron Esteban Ruiz

- Alvarez, Defendant

— Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 4:21

- CR

- 406

- 1

Before Higginbotham, Higginson, and Duncan, Circuit Judges

. Per Curiam : *
Aron Esteban Ruiz

- Alvarez appeals his conviction for illegal reentry into the United States and his sentence of 37 months of imprisonment and three years of supervised release. H e argues that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) is unconstitutional because it permits the i ncrease of a sentence beyond the

* Pursuant to 5th Cir cuit R ule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir cuit R ule 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED April 11, 2022 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 21-50988 Document: 00516275076 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/11/2022No. 21

- 50988

2 otherwise

- applicable statutory maximum based on facts that are neither charged in the indictment nor found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. He concedes that this issue is foreclosed by Almendarez

- Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224 (1998), but he seeks to preserve the i ssue for future review and has filed an unopposed motion for summary disposition.
As Ruiz

- Alvarez concedes, the issue he raises is foreclosed by Almendarez

- Torres

. See United States v. Pervis , 937 F.3d 546, 553

- 54 (5th Cir. 2019)

. Because summary disposi tion is appropriate, see Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis , 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969), Ruiz

- Alvarez’s motion for summary disposition is GRANTED , and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED

. Case: 21-50988 Document: 00516275076 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/11/2022
No: II-13-030 May 2, 2013

CONTACT: Roger Hannah, 404-997-4417 

Joey Ledford, 404-997-4416 

NRC Schedules Open House to Discuss

Annual Assessment of Oconee Nuclear Power Plant

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has scheduled an open house for May 9 to discuss 

the agency’s assessment of safety performance during 2012 for the Oconee nuclear power plant. The 

plant, operated by Duke Energy, is near Seneca, S.C., about 30 miles west of Greenville.

The open house is scheduled to run from 6 to 7:30 p.m. in the Oconee World of Energy, 7812 

Rochester Highway in Seneca. There will be posters explaining the NRC’s role and the NRC staff 

will be available to answer questions about the safety performance of the Oconee plant as well as 

overall NRC oversight and inspection. 

Overall, the NRC staff concluded that all three units at the Oconee plant operated safely in 

2012. There were no inspection findings or performance indicators that would cause the NRC to 

increase its level of oversight and inspection, so NRC inspectors will continue the detailed normal 

inspections at the plant this year.

In addition to those inspections, the NRC staff plans to conduct an inspection related to 

underground piping and conduct operator licensing examinations this year. NRC inspectors will also 

continue to inspect compensatory measures in place to mitigate potential flooding and will review 

modifications associated with protecting the plant in the event of fire, tornado or the break of high 

pressure steam pipes.

An apparent violation that did not occur during the 2012 assessment is still pending and 

could result in additional NRC regulatory actions. It is related to the plant’s transition to different 

fire protection requirements.

Inspections are carried out by the NRC resident inspectors assigned to the plant and by 

specialized inspectors from the Region II office in Atlanta. 

“The NRC inspects nuclear plants and monitors their performance on an ongoing basis,” said 

NRC Region II Administrator Victor McCree. “We issue inspection reports throughout the year and 

we hold these annual meetings near each plant to discuss our oversight and answer any questions 

local residents may have.”
Page | 2

Inspection findings and performance indicators for Oconee and other nuclear plants are 

updated on the NRC website each quarter. 

The annual assessment letter for the three Oconee units is available on the NRC website. 

Current performance information for Oconee Unit 1, Unit 2 and Unit 3 is also available on 

the NRC website and that information is updated quarterly.
§ 904.200 Scope and applicability. ( a ) This subpart sets forth the procedures governing the conduct of hearings and the issuance of initial and final administrative decisions of NOAA involving alleged violations of the laws cited in § 904.1(c) and any other laws or authorities administered by NOAA and regulations implementing these laws, including civil penalty assessments and permit sanctions and denials. By separate regulation, these rules may be applied to other proceedings.
( b ) The Judge is delegated authority to make the initial or final administrative decision of the Agency in proceedings subject to the provisions of this subpart, and to take actions to promote the efficient and fair conduct of hearings as set out in this subpart. The Judge has no authority to rule on constitutional issues or challenges to the validity of regulations promulgated by the Agency or statutes administered by NOAA.
( c ) This subpart is not an independent basis for claiming the right to a hearing but, instead, prescribes procedures for the conduct of hearings, the right to which is provided by other authority.
[71 FR 12448, Mar. 10, 2006, as amended at 87 FR 38937, June 30, 2022]
#### Watchtower Bible & Tract Society, Inc., et al., v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company.

Motion for reargument denied, with $10 costs. Motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals denied as premature. (See Civ. Prac. Act, § 591, subd. 1.) Present — Peek, P. J., Glennon, Dore, Cohn and Callahan, JJ. [See 272 App. Div. 1039; *post,*p. 807.]
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE O F FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME E XPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

DAVID O. PAYET
,

Appellant
,

v. Case No. 5D2 2 -3013 LT Case Nos. 2018-C F -036781

2018 -C F -036581 2018-C F -029819 STATE OF FLORIDA
,

Appellee

. ________________________________/

Decision filed Jul y 11, 2023
3.850 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Brevard County
, Tesha Scolaro Ballou , Judge.
David O. Payet, Cocoa , pro se. No Appearance for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

LAMBERT, JAY an d KILBANE, JJ., concur.
### §7413. Treatment of podiatrists; clinical oversight standards

(a) Podiatrists.—Except as provided by subsection (b), a doctor of podiatric medicine who is appointed as a podiatrist under section 7401(1) of this title is eligible for any supervisory position in the Veterans Health Administration to the same degree that a physician appointed under such section is eligible for the position.

(b) Establishment of Clinical Oversight Standards.—The Secretary, in consultation with appropriate stakeholders, shall establish standards to ensure that specialists appointed in the Veterans Health Administration to supervisory positions do not provide direct clinical oversight for purposes of peer review or practice evaluation for providers of other clinical specialties.

(Added Pub. L. 115–182, title V, §502(a)(1), June 6, 2018, 132 Stat. 1475.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 502(a)(1) of Pub. L. 115–182, which directed that this section be added at the end of subchapter I of chapter 74, without specifying the Code title to be amended, was executed by adding this section at the end of this subchapter, to reflect the probable intent of Congress.
#### Mayor, Lane & Company v. Commercial Insurance Company.

Application granted. Order signed. Present — Ingraham, P. J., Clarke, Scott, Dowling and Hotchkiss, JJ.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-7521
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ARTHUR MANSFIELD BECKNER, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge. (CR-92-141, CA-96-24-R) Submitted: March 27, 1997 Decided: April 3, 1997 Before RUSSELL, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.Arthur Mansfield Beckner, Appellant Pro Se. Julie C. Dudley, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1994), amended by Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104- 132, 110 Stat. 1214. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we denya certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Beckner , Nos. CR-92- 141, CA-96-24-R (W.D. Va. Sept. 11, 1996). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
### §6909. Supplying steam or chilled water to Union Station complex

The Architect of the Capitol may make agreements with the Secretary of Transportation to furnish steam, chilled water, or both from the Capitol Power Plant to the Union Station complex, at no expense to the legislative branch.

(Pub. L. 107–217, Aug. 21, 2002, 116 Stat. 1202.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 6909 | 40:819(d). | Pub. L. 90–264, title I, §119(d), as added Pub. L. 97–125, §3(3), Dec. 29, 1981, 95 Stat. 1672. |

Section

The words "or his designee or assign" are omitted because of 49:322(b)