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



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the quarterly report of International Steel Group Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), each of the undersigned officers of the Company certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to such officers 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 as of the dates and for the
periods expressed in the Report.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



A signed original of this
written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to International Steel Group Inc. and will be retained by International Steel Group Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



|                       |  |                        
|---------------------- |  | -----------------------
|Date: November 1, 2004 |  |                        
|                       | 
|                       |  | /s/ Rodney B. Mott     
|                       |  | Rodney B. Mott         
|                       |  | Chief Executive Officer
|                       | 
|                       |  | /s/ Leonard M. Anthony 
|                       |  | Leonard M. Anthony     
|                       |  | Chief Financial Officer



The foregoing certification is being
furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
### §2234. Inalienability of licenses

No license granted hereunder and no right to utilize or produce special nuclear material granted hereby shall be transferred, assigned or in any manner disposed of, either voluntarily or involuntarily, directly or indirectly, through transfer of control of any license to any person, unless the Commission shall, after securing full information, find that the transfer is in accordance with the provisions of this chapter, and shall give its consent in writing. The Commission may give such consent to the creation of a mortgage, pledge, or other lien upon any facility or special nuclear material, owned or thereafter acquired by a licensee, or upon any leasehold or other interest to such facility, and the rights of the creditors so secured may thereafter be enforced by any court subject to rules and regulations established by the Commission to protect public health and safety and promote the common defense and security.

(Aug. 1, 1946, ch. 724, title I, §184, as added Aug. 30, 1954, ch. 1073, §1, 68 Stat. 954; amended Pub. L. 88–489, §19, Aug. 26, 1964, 78 Stat. 607; renumbered title I, Pub. L. 102–486, title IX, §902(a)(8), Oct. 24, 1992, 106 Stat. 2944.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This chapter, referred to in text, was in the original "this Act", meaning act Aug. 1, 1946, ch. 724, as added by act Aug. 30, 1954, ch. 1073, §1, 68 Stat. 919, known as the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, which is classified principally to this chapter. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 2011 of this title and Tables.

#### Amendments

1964—Pub. L. 88–489 inserted "or special nuclear material," after "lien upon any facility" and substituted "interest in such facility" for "interest in such property".
EXHIBIT 99.A

                                                     <El Paso Logo>

News
For Immediate Release

El Paso Corporation Eliminates More Than $815 Million in Non-
recourse Debt with Utility Contract Funding Sale

HOUSTON,   TEXAS,  June  18,  2004-El  Paso  Corporation  (NYSE:EP)
announced today that it has closed the sale of 100 percent  of  its
equity interests in Utility Contract Funding (UCF) to Bear Stearns'
Houston  Energy Group, via a wholly owned subsidiary  of  The  Bear
Stearns Companies Inc., for approximately $21 million.  UCF  assets
include  a  power contract that was restructured  as  part  of  the
company's  previous power restructuring activities.  El  Paso  will
take  a  pre-tax charge of approximately $100 million on this  sale
based  on  the  company's investment in the equity of this  entity.
The  transaction will eliminate approximately $815 million of  non-
recourse   debt   associated  with  UCF  that  El  Paso   currently
consolidates.

El  Paso  Corporation  provides  natural  gas  and  related  energy
products in a safe, efficient, dependable manner.  The company owns
North  America's  largest natural gas pipeline system  and  one  of
North  America's  largest independent natural gas  producers.   For
more information, visit www.elpaso.com.

Contacts
Investor and Public Relations
Bruce L. Connery, Vice President
Office:  (713) 420-5855
Fax:     (713) 420-4417

Media Relations
Kim Wallace, Manager
Office:  (713) 420-6330
Fax:     (713) 420-6341
- 01/21/2010 10:59 FAX 2024935142 FAA -+ OMS III 001;003 

U.S. DEPARTM ENT O~' TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

********~************************ .L\f~ 2 1. 2010 

In the Matter of: \··iE~{:~J\JNG DOCKeT FAA DOCKET 

Bud Fiske Raymond, 

FAA CASE NO. 2009WP210026 

Respondent. 

CPIO \.flip DDD( / dO/V -tJDf't; ********************************* 

JUDGE NOT ASSIGNED 

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT 

Respondent files his answer to the Complaint as follows. For stylistic 

convenience the same nunibering will be used as to the Complaint's equivalent 

paragraphs. 

I. 

1. Denied. 

II. 

1. Denied. 

2. Denied. 

3. Denied. 

4. Denied. 

5. Denied. 


6; Denied. 


7. Denied. 
01/27/2010 10:59 FAX 2024935142 FAA 	 "" OMS III 002/003 


III. 

a. Denied. 

b. 	 Denied. 

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES: . 

1, The alleged violation did not take place. The alleged violation is 

based on a false accusation m~de to the key P AA inspector in retaliation t()r and 

part of an unlawful attempt to coerce and resolve a cIvil dispute between 

Respondent and a third party. 

2. Before the institution ofthe instant action, the foregoing 

information was communicated to the Complainant which failed, refused and 

neglected to investigate the underlying facts even after they were brought to it~ 

attention. 

3. The true culprit in this case is not Respondent, but, instead, a 

maintenance facility. 

WHEREFORE, Respondent requests that the complaint be dismissed. 

Respectfully submitted, 

A ur Wasserman Esq. . 

Attorney for Respondent 

LA W OFFICE OF ARTIIUR WASSERMAN 

16380 Roscoe Boulevard, Suite 120 

Van Nuys, California 91406 

DATED: January It, 2010 

2 
003/003 01/27/2010 10:59 FAX 2024935142 FAA 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certifY that on this date 1 have sent by facsimile and placed in the 

United States mail, postage prepaid, certified mail- return receipt reqllested~ the 

execllted original and one copy, and faxed one copy ofthe Answer To Complaint 

addressed as follows: 

Federal Aviation Administration 


800 Independence Avenue, SW 


Washington, DC 20591 


Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building--Suite 2W 1000 

Facsimile: (202) 493-5020 

I further certify that on this date I have placed in the United States m~lil, 

postage prepaid, certified mail- return receipt requested, and via facsimile a true 

copy of the Answer, addressed as follows: 

JeffKamberg, Legal Technician 


Office ofthe Regional Counsel- A WP-7 


Federal Aviation Administration 


P.O. Box 90009-2007 


Los Angeles, California 90009-2007 


Facsimile: (310) 725-6826 


DATED: January 11,2010 

(!,~i;:[A,./!.tA-/ )}1.;;~L/ 

Christina Merrick 

LAW OFfi'ICE OF ARTHUR WASSERMAN 

16380 Roscoe Boulevard, Suite 120 

Van Nuys, California 61406-1221 

3
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-7312

SINCLAIR MAZYCK, Petitioner - Appellant,

versus
COLIE RUSHTON, Warden of McCormick Correctional Institution; HENRY MCMASTER, Attorney General of South Carolina, Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. (CA-04-1-RBH)
Submitted: November 17, 2005 Decided: November 29, 2005
Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Sinclair Mazyck, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date stamp of the prison mailroom appearing on the envelope that contained Mazyck’s notice of appeal is the earliest date it could have been properly delivered to prison officials for mailing to the court. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack , 487 U.S. 266 (1988). - 2 - PER CURIAM: Sinclair Mazyck seeks to appeal the district court’s orders accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000); and denying his motion to alter or amend judgment pursuant to Rule 59(e). We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed. Parties are accorded thirty days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). This appeal period is “mandatory and jurisdictional.” Browder v. Director, Dep’t of Corr. , 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson , 361 U.S. 220, 229 (1960)). The district court’s order denying Mazyck’s Rule 59(e) motion was entered on the docket on May 31, 2005. The notice of appeal was filed on August 21, 2005. * Because Mazyck failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are- 3 - adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
§ 1101.42 Imminent hazard exception. ( a ) *Statutory provision.* Section 6(b)(4)(A) provides that the requirements of section 6(b)(1) do not apply to public disclosure of “information about any consumer product with respect to which product the Commission has filed an action under section 12 (relating to imminently hazardous products).”
( b ) *Scope of exception.* This exception applies once the Commission has filed an action under section 12 of the CPSA (15 U.S.C. 2061), in a United States district court. Once the exception applies, information may be disclosed to the public while the proceeding is pending without following the requirements of section 6(b)(1) if the information concerns or relates to the product alleged to be imminently hazardous. Upon termination of the proceeding, information filed with the court or otherwise made public is not subject to section 6(b). Information in the Commission's possession which has not been made public is subject to section 6(b).
§ 4.14 Conduct of business. ( a ) Matters before the Commission for consideration may be resolved either at a meeting under § 4.15 or by written circulation. Any Commissioner may direct that a matter presented for consideration be placed on the agenda of a Commission meeting.
( b ) A majority of the members of the Commission in office and not recused from participating in a matter (by virtue of 18 U.S.C. 208 or otherwise) constitutes a quorum for the transaction of business in that matter.
( c ) Any Commission action, either at a meeting or by written circulation, may be taken only with the affirmative concurrence of a majority of the participating Commissioners, except where a greater majority is required by statute or rule or where the action is taken pursuant to a valid delegation of authority. No Commissioner may delegate the authority to determine his or her vote in any matter requiring Commission action, but authority to report a Commissioner's vote on a particular matter resolved either by written circulation, or at a meeting held in the Commissioner's absence, may be vested in a member of the Commissioner's staff.
[42 FR 13540, Mar. 11, 1977, as amended at 50 FR 53306, Dec. 31, 1985; 70 FR 53297, Sept. 8, 2005]
§ 37.1100 Core Principle 11—Antitrust considerations. Unless necessary or appropriate to achieve the purposes of the Act, the swap execution facility shall not: ( a ) Adopt any rules or take any actions that result in any unreasonable restraint of trade; or
( b ) Impose any material anticompetitive burden on trading or clearing.
** **

**EXHIBIT 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Douglas MacLeod, certify that:

 

1.       Ihave reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this reporton Form 10-K of CNH Equipment Trust 2019-B (the “Exchange Act periodic reports”);

 

2.       Basedon my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit tostate a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;
 

3.       Basedon my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the periodcovered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;

 

4.       Iam responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the servicer and based on my knowledge and the compliance review conducted inpreparing the servicer compliance statement required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the ExchangeAct periodic reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the servicing agreement in all material respects; and
 

5.       Allof the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reportson assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordancewith Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, exceptas otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in thisreport on Form 10-K.

 

In giving the certifications above, I havereasonably relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: Citibank, N.A.

 

 

 

 

March 30, 2022

 
 By:/s/ Douglas MacLeod Name:Douglas MacLeod Title:President (senior officer in charge of the servicing function)
#### §§ 155.5-155.6 [Reserved]
Mission Log

© 2015 USAerobotix LLC

End Date:

General Information

VO:

Operational Area

Area ID:

Aircraft Fuel

Start Date:

Temp. ID Type N Number Temp ID Serial #

Way Points Lat. Long. AGL Max Speed

MAP

PIC:

Mission ID:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

OFFICE OF HEARINGS WASHINGTON, DC

TRAVEL GROUP, INC., DIBIA REPUBLIC AIR TRAVEL AND SCOT SPENCER 

### "1' 

## J'" "1 i 1:; til -J 

### I 

## P 2: ILl

AIRLIFT GROUP, INC. AND RICHARD BERNARD Unauthorized Air Transportation, Unfair and Deceptive Practices and Unfair Methods of Competition, and Violations ofPublic Charter Rules EXPRESS ONE INTERNATIONAL, INC. Unfair andDeceptive Practices and Unfair Methods of Competition, and Violations ofPublic Charter Rules Enforcement Proceeding

STATUS REPORT DOT-OST-1995-272 formerly Docket 49233

The Office ofthe Assistant General Counsel forAviation Enforcement and Proceedings ("Enforcement Office"), pursuant to Your Honor's March 22, 2006, Order staying this proceeding, files this report detailing the current status ofthis proceeding and settlement negotiations. The Department has notruled onthe outstanding motions filed byRespondents and opposed by the Enforcement Office inAscend Aviation Group, Docket OST-2004- 17486.2 There have been no further settlement discussions. Date: July 31, 2013
Respectfully submitted,



# == 

# ---:s

- ~elPodbereSkY

Assistant General Counsel for Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings

Vinh Q.Nguyen Senior Trial Attorney United States Department ofTransportation Office ofAviation Enforcement and Proceedings 1200New Jersey Avenue, S.E. Room 96-429 Washington, D.C. 20590 TEL: 202-366-9342 FAX: 202-366-71523 Docket No. DOT-OST-1995-272 Ihereby certify that onthis 31st day ofJuly, 2013, atrue and correct copy ofthe foregoing Status Report was served inthe following manner to the following: Original U.S. Department ofTransportation Docket Operations, M-30 West Building Ground Floor Room W12-140 1200New Jersey Avenue, S.E. Washington, D.C. 20590 By First Class Mail The Honorable Ronnie A. Yoder Chief Administrative Law Judge Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation Washington, D.C. 20590 TEL: (202) 366-2142 FAX: (202) 366-7536 By First Class Mail Scot Spencer SBD Aircraft Services 255 SLeland Norton Way San Bernardino, CA 92408
**EXHIBIT 32.1**Section1350 Certification of Chief Executive Officer     In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Syntax-Brillian Corporation (the“Company”) for the quarter ended September 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Vincent F. Sollitto Jr., Chief Executive Officerof the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 ofthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); and  (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.              /s/ Vincent F. Sollitto, Jr.   Vincent F. Sollitto Jr.   Chief Executive Officer   November 9, 2006
#### In the Matter of Central Zone Property Corporation, Appellant. Reuben H. Donnelley Corporation, Respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

In 1937, the parties entered into certain written leases for two commercial units located in premises 305-313 Bast 45th Street, in the borough of Manhattan, city of New York, for a term expiring January 31, 1948. In 1942, agreements were executed by the parties extending the terms of the leases for one year or until January 31, 1949, and further providing that the tenant might have an option to cancel on sixty days’ notice. The matter of the rent to be paid does not appear to have been the subject of renegotiation. In any event it was in no wise affected by the 1942 agreements. After January 31, 1949, the landlord presented a petition for the fixation of emergency rent under subdivision (e) of section 2 of the Commercial Rent Law (L. 1945, ch. 3, as amd.). This petition has been dismissed on the ground that the extended term was a new tenancy and, therefore, the section has no application. In view of what we deem to be the purpose of the 1947 amendment to subdivision (e) of *907section 2 of the statute (L. 1947, ch. 822), we hold that the tenant on expiration of the extended term had been in possession under leases and extensions continuously in force since 1937 and, therefore, it was error to dismiss the landlord’s petition.

The orders should be reversed, with $20 costs and disbursements to appellants, and the matter remitted to the Special Term for the purpose of determining a reasonable rent in accordance with the statute.

Peek, P. J., Grlennon, Dore, Cohn and Callahan, JJ., concur.

Orders unanimously reversed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the appellant, and the matter remitted to the Special Term for the purpose of determining a reasonable rent in accordance with the statute. [See *post,*p. 936.]
DIRECTV HOLDINGS LLC

Exhibit 32.3

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 DIRECTV Financing Co., Inc. (the "Corporation") on
Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Chase Carey, President and Chief
Executive Officer of the Corporation, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of
my knowledge:



/s/CHASE CAREYChase Carey President and Chief Executive OfficerAugust 7, 2008


---



QuickLinks
----

----

|   | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and |
|--------|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of and for the period(s) covered in the Report. |
|--------|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date: August 25, 2010 |   |   |
|-----------------------|--------|--------|

|   | By:    | /s/ Colleen A. Zuhl     |
|--------|--------|-------------------------|
|   |   | Colleen A. Zuhl         |
|   |   | Chief Financial Officer |

----

----
### §1984. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, act Mar. 1, 1875, ch. 114, §5, 18 Stat. 337, which was formerly classified to section 46 of Title 8, Aliens and Nationality, related to Supreme Court review of cases arising under act Mar. 1, 1875. Sections 1 and 2 of act Mar. 1, 1875 were declared unconstitutional in U.S. v. Singleton, 109 U.S. 3, and sections 3 and 4 of such act were repealed by act June 25, 1948, ch. 645, §21, 62 Stat. 862.
Exhibit 99.2

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 MarkWest Hydrocarbon, Inc. (the "Company"), on Form 10-Q for the period ending
September 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Gerald A. Tywoniuk, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

|November 12, 2002 |  |    
|----------------- |  | ---
|                  |  | By:

---

QuickLinks
EXHIBIT 10.5

        JOINT FILING AGREEMENT

                               The undersigned hereby agree that
the statement on Schedule 13D dated January 23, 2006, with respect to the common
stock, par value of $0.10 of E-Z-EM, Inc., a Delaware corporation, is, and any
amendments thereto signed by each of the undersigned shall be, filed on behalf
of each of us pursuant to and in accordance with the provisions of Rule
13d-1(k)(1) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

                                       IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have each executed this Joint Filing Agreement as of January 23, 2006.

	 


	 	 
	 	Estate of Howard S. Stern
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	By:	 	/s/ Linda B. Stern
	 	 	 	Name: Linda B. Stern
	 	 	 	Title:   Executor
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	/s/ Linda B. Stern
	 	 	 	Linda B. Stern