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

----

| EXHIBIT      32.1                                                                    |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                                                 |
| CERTIFICATE      OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER                                          |
| PURSUANT      TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C.      1350) |

|   | 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/ Timothy J.      Olphie                                        |   |   |   |
| Timothy      J. OlphieChief      Executive OfficerAugust      18, 2008 |   |   |   |

----
### §11909. Repealed. Pub. L. 105–276, title V, §586(g), Oct. 21, 1998, 112 Stat. 2649

A prior section 11909, Pub. L. 100–690, title V, §5130, as added Pub. L. 101–625, title V, §581(a), Nov. 28, 1990, 104 Stat. 4248; amended Pub. L. 102–550, title I, §§126(a), 161(a), (b), Oct. 28, 1992, 106 Stat. 3710, 3718, authorized appropriations to carry out this subchapter.

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

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Repeal effective and applicable beginning upon Oct. 1, 1999, except as otherwise provided, with provision that Secretary may implement the repeal before such date, and with savings provision, see section 503 of Pub. L. 105–276, set out as an Effective Date of 1998 Amendment note under section 1437 of this title.
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

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



SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Report
of DynaResource, Inc. on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2018 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of 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 operation of the Company.





|/s/ K.W. (“K.D.”) DIEPHOLZ
        K.W. (“K.D.”) Diepholz
        Chairman of the Board of Directors
        Dated: April 8, 2019
        
        /s/ K.W. (“K.D.”) DIEPHOLZ
        K.W. (“K.D.”) Diepholz
        Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)
        Dated: April 8, 2019
        
        /s/ /s/ K.W. (“K.D.”) DIEPHOLZ
        K.W. (“K.D.”) Diepholz
        
        Acting Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial and
        Accounting Officer)
        Dated: April 8, 2019
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



This certification accompanies the
Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
Robert N. Freeman 

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

March 27, 2015

No. 04-15-00006-CV

Robert TYSON, Carl and Kathy Taylor, Linda and Ron Tetrick, Jim and Nancy Wescott, and 

Paul and Ruthe Wilson,

Appellants

v.

Robert N. FREEMAN II,

Appellee

From the 198th Judicial District Court, Bandera County, Texas

Trial Court No. CV-13-0200356

Honorable M. Rex Emerson, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Appellees Boren and Yeates have filed a motion for extension of time to file their brief, 

requesting an extension to April 27, 2015. However, pursuant to our order of March 10, 2015, 

appellees’ brief is not due until May 12, 2015. Therefore we deny appellees’ motion for 

extension of time as moot.

_________________________________

Karen Angelini, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 27th day of March, 2015.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
### SUBCHAPTER III—FARM HOUSING
Presidential Documents

68753

Federal Register 

Vol. 69, No. 226

Wednesday, November 24, 2004

Title 3— 

The President 

Proclamation 7847 of November 19, 2004

National Farm-City Week, 2004

By the President of the United States of America 

A Proclamation

America’s farmers and ranchers provide a healthy, safe, and abundant food 

supply for our Nation and for people around the world. Their work depends 

on partnerships with shippers, processors, marketers, retailers, transporters, 

and many others, and their success is essential to America’s prosperity. 

During National Farm-City Week, we recognize the importance of this cooperative network and the hard work and valuable contributions of those in 

our agricultural industry. 

As one of our first industries, farming has long been vital to our Nation. 

Nearly half of the land in the United States is used for agricultural production, 

employing millions of workers, and providing consumers with food, clothing, 

and energy. In addition, America’s farmers and ranchers are stewards of 

our land, using innovative conservation measures to protect our soil, water, 

and wildlife habitat. 

Our cities also play a key role in our farm economy. Many of the industries 

that process, transport, and distribute agricultural goods are located in America’s urban communities. Their work has contributed to record exports of 

farm products and to the prosperity of our Nation’s agricultural industry. 

My Administration will continue to work to strengthen American agriculture. 

As we observe National Farm-City Week, I join all our citizens in expressing 

gratitude to farmers, ranchers, and all those who work in our agricultural 

industry for their love of the land and love of our country. 

NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States 

of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution 

and laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim November 19 through 

November 25, 2004, as National Farm-City Week. I encourage all Americans 

to celebrate the cooperation between urban and rural communities and the 

extraordinary contributions of the agricultural industry to our Nation’s vitality 

and prosperity. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this nineteenth day 

of November, in the year of our Lord two thousand four, and of the IndependVerDate jul<14>2003 13:39 Nov 23, 2004 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4705 Sfmt 4790 E:\FR\FM\24NOD0.SGM 24NOD0

[FR Doc. 04–26260

Filed 11–23–04; 10:00 am] 

Billing code 3195–01–P 

ence of the United States of America the two hundred and twenty-ninth.

W
§ 1112.37 What must a third party conformity assessment body do after an audit? ( a ) When the accreditation body presents its findings to the third party conformity assessment body, the third party conformity assessment body's quality manager must receive the findings and, if necessary, initiate corrective action in response to the findings.
( b ) The quality manager must prepare a resolution report identifying the corrective actions taken and any follow-up activities. If findings indicate that immediate corrective action is necessary, the quality manager must document that they notified the relevant parties within the third party conformity assessment body to take immediate corrective action and also document the action(s) taken.
( c ) If the accreditation body decides to reduce, suspend, or withdraw the third party conformity assessment body's accreditation, and the reduction, suspension, or withdrawal of accreditation is relevant to the third party conformity assessment body's activities pertaining to a CPSC regulation or test method, the quality manager must notify the CPSC. Such notification must be sent to the Assistant Executive Director, Office of Hazard Identification and Reduction, Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814, within five business days of the accreditation body's notification to the third party conformity assessment body.
( d ) If the CPSC finds that the third party conformity assessment body no longer meets the conditions specified in CPSC Form 223, or in the relevant statutory provisions applicable to that third party conformity assessment body, the CPSC will notify the third party conformity assessment body, identify the condition or statutory provision that is no longer met, and specify a time by which the third party conformity assessment body shall notify the CPSC of the steps it intends to take to correct the deficiency, and indicate when it will complete such steps. The quality manager must document that they notified the relevant parties within the third party conformity assessment body to take corrective action and also document the action(s) taken.
( e ) If the third party conformity assessment body fails to remedy the deficiency in a timely fashion, the CPSC shall take whatever action it deems appropriate under the circumstances, up to and including withdrawing the CPSC's accreditation of the third party conformity assessment body or the CPSC's acceptance of the third party conformity assessment body's accreditation.
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Seth Adam Blake, * From the 42nd District Court

of Taylor County,

Trial Court No. 29733-A.

Vs. No. 11-23-00165-CR * August 1, 2024

The State of Texas, * Memorandum Opinion by Trotter, J.

(Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,

Trotter, J., and Williams, J.)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there is no 

error in the judgments below. Therefore, in accordance with this court’s opinion, 

the judgments of the trial court are in all things affirmed.
### Part A—Carbon Capture and Sequestration Research, Development, and Demonstration
### EPA’s RESPONSE to Summary of Interagency Working Co mments on Draft

Language under EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. S ubject to Further Policy Review.

1 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): Proposed Rul e Protection of Visibility: Amendments to Requirement s for State Plans RIN 2060-AS55

Reviewer recommends revising the language below as provided in redline-strikeout:

I. Changes to FLM Consultation Requirements The EPA believes that state consultation with FLMs is a critical part of the creation of quality SIPs. As mentioned earlier, the EPA is prop osing to extend the FLM consultation requirements of §51.308(i)(2) to progress reports t hat are not SIP revisions. In addition, the EPA believes further edits to §51.308(i)(2) are necessa ry because the current requirement for consultation at least 60 days prior to a public hea ring may not occur sufficiently early in the state’s planning process to meaningfully inform the state’s development of the long-term strategy. This proposed rule change would add a req uirement that such consultation occur early enough to allow the state time for full considerati on of FLM input, but no fewer than 60 days prior to a public hearing or other public comment o pportunity. A consultation opportunity that takes place no less than 120 days prior to a public hearing or other public comment opportunity would be deemed to have been “early enough.” Finally, the EPA notes that pursuant to the existin g provisions of §51.307(a), the permitting authority FLMs isare also required to be consult ed with FLMs regard ing to new source review of any new major stationary source or major modification that would be constructed in an area that is nonattainment, designated attainment or unclassified that may affe ct

### EPA’s RESPONSE to Summary of Interagency Working Co mments on Draft

Language under EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. S ubject to Further Policy Review.

2 visibility in any Class I Federal area. As required by the regulations, that consultation n eeds to be timely and include sharing with the FLMs all pertin ent documents related to the proposed new stationary source or major modification. The pract ice of limiting the notification to FLMs to only new stationary sources or major modifications within 100 kilometers is not appropriate and misapplies existing EPA guidance. Because the exist ing regulations already provide for this level of substantive FLM consultation, Nn o regulatory changes are being proposed to these consultation requirements.
Order entered August 3, 2018

In The



## Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 18

- 00133

- CR

ESTEBAN GARCIA, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 366th Judic ial District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 366

- 83445

- 2016



### O RDER

Before the Court is appellant’s July 31, 2018 second motion for extension of time to file

his brief

. We GRANT the motion and ORDER the brief due on or before August 14, 2 018.

/s/ CRAIG STODDART

JUSTICE
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

                    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, Jonathan N. Zakin, 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 Proxim Corporation on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2002 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such
Annual Report on Form 10-K fairly presents in all material respects the
financial condition and results of operations of Proxim Corporation.

                                      By:     /s/ JONATHAN N. ZAKIN
                                          --------------------------------------

                                      Name:   Jonathan N. Zakin
                                      Title:  Chief Executive Officer and
                                              Chairman of the Board of Directors
                                      Dated:  March 31, 2003
#### NYCTL 1997-1 Trust, Appellant, v Congregation Beis Medresh Sikron Avruhom Spinka, Respondent, et al., Defendants.

[820 NYS2d 525]

In an action to foreclose a tax lien, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an or*834der of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Levine, J.), dated November 19, 2004, as denied the plaintiffs motion to extend the duration of a notice of pendency for three years and, sua sponte, limited the respondent’s obligation to the amount demanded in the complaint and declined to award the plaintiff interest and an attorney’s fee.

Ordered that the appeal from so much of the order as, sua sponte, limited the respondent’s obligation to the amount demanded in the complaint and declined to award the plaintiff interest and an attorney’s fee, is dismissed, as no appeal lies as of right from an order that does not decide a motion made on notice, and leave to appeal has not been granted *(see*CPLR 5701 [a] [2]; *ADC Orange, Inc. v Coyote Acres, Inc.,*20 AD3d 495 [2005]); and it is further,

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as reviewed; and it is further,

Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the respondent.

The plaintiff failed to set forth sufficient grounds for granting its motion *(see*CPLR 6513). Florio, J.P., Miller, Goldstein and Lunn, JJ., concur.
---

---

Exhibit 32.2

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

In connection with the Quarterly
Report of ACRO Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30,
2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Jacob Bar-Shalom, the Acting Chief Financial Officer (Principal
Financial Officer and Principal Accounting 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 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 result of operations of the Company.

Dated: August 6, 2006

|/s/ Jacob Bar-Shalom
Jacob Bar-ShalomActing Chief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer andPrincipal Accounting Officer)
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



---

---
(No. 39488.

#### The People *ex rel.*Jane MacMillian, Petitioner, *vs.*Alexander J. Napoli, Judge, Respondent.

*Opinion filed May 23, 1966.*

Rehearing *denied September*21, *1966.*

Marshall Patner, of Chicago, for petitioner.

Daniel P. Ward, State’s Attorney, of Chicago, (Elmer C. Kissane and Kenneth L. Gillis, Assistant State’s Attorneys, of counsel,) for respondent.

Mr. Justice House

delivered the opinion of the court:

This is an original *mandamus*action in which petitioner seeks to compel the judge before whom her criminal case is pending to treat as binding on him an order of another judge granting her pre-indictment motion to suppress evidence.

On April 8, 1965, Jane MacMillian filed her motion in the municipal division of the circuit court of Cook County to suppress the evidentiary use of narcotics found in her apartment. On May 11, she was indicted for unlawful pos*81session of narcotics. On May 14, Judge Wendt granted the motion to suppress. On May 28, Judge Napoli of the criminal division of the circuit court ruled that the suppression order was not conclusive in the criminal trial and that he would entertain a motion to suppress the use of narcotics as evidence.

Section 114 — 12 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (111. Rev. Stat. 1963, chap. 38, par. 114 — 12) provides that a person aggrieved by an unlawful search and seizure may move the court for the return of property and to suppress as evidence anything so obtained. The section further provides, “If the motion is granted the property shall be restored, unless otherwise subject to lawful detention, and it shall not be admissible in evidence against the movant at any trial.”

The People argue that petitioner is attempting in this *mandamus*action to gain an appeal of a nonfinal order. The short answer to this contention is that petitioner is not seeking a reversal of Judge Napoli’s ruling; rather, she has commenced a new action asking that Judge Napoli be compelled to treat as binding the order entered by Judge Wendt.

The People then argue that Judge Wendt did not have jurisdiction to enter the suppression order. Section 114— 12(c) provides that the motion shall be made only before a court with jurisdiction to try the offense, and the People contend that the offense of unlawful possession of narcotics, a felony, cannot be tried before the municipal court of Chicago. The cases cited by the People indicating that the municipal court of Chicago is without felony jurisdiction were decided before new section 8 of article VI of our constitution was adopted. Both Judge Wendt and Judge Napoli are judges of the circuit court of Cook County.

The plain unambiguous language of section 114 — 12(b) is that if a pretrial motion to suppress evidence is granted, the evidence suppressed under such order “shall not be admissible in evidence against the movant at any trial.” If the *82People are -not content with an order granting a motion to suppress, they have the right to appeal from such an order. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1965, chap, no, par. 101.27.) The writ of *mandamus*will issue.

*Writ awarded.*
#### In the Matter of Natalie B., Appellant. Erie County Attorney, Respondent.

[821 NYS2d 722]

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Erie County (Paul G. Buchanan, J.), entered May 10, 2006 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 7. The order granted the petition and extended placement of respondent to March 22, 2007.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Respondent was adjudicated a person in need of supervision and placed with the Erie County Department of Social Services (DSS) for a period of 12 months. After a six-month extension, DSS sought an additional extension of respondent’s placement for a period of 12 months. Contrary to respondent’s contention, Family Court properly found that DSS showed good cause for the late filing of the petition *(see*Family Ct Act § 756-a [a], [c]; *Matter of Kacey H.,*223 AD2d 876, 877 [1996]; *see also Matter of Loren S.,*220 AD2d 857, 858 [1995]). The petition was filed on February 7, 2006, only 11 days late, and DSS established that the filing was delayed because it did not initially believe that an extension of placement would be necessary. As of December 2005, DSS planned to return respondent home to her mother. It was not until meetings between respondent and her mother in December 2005 and January 2006 *1324that DSS concluded that it would not be in respondent’s best interests to return home at the end of the existing placement. Contrary to respondent’s further contention, the court did not abuse its discretion in granting the petition *(see Matter of Chasity B.,*28 AD3d 1191 [2006]; *Kacey H.,*223 AD2d at 877). Although respondent made improvements in her behavior, she still needed to work on her relationship with her mother and to address her mental health issues. The evidence established that placement in a group home setting, a lower level of care than the residential setting, would allow respondent to continue working on her problem areas while learning independent living skills. Present — Gorski, J.P., Martoche, Smith and Pine, JJ.