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

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the Quarterly Report of MonsterWorldwide, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarterended September 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Andrew J. McKelvey, ChiefExecutive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, asadopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)  The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.

|        | By:    | /s/ ANDREW J.  MCKELVEY  |
|--------|--------|--------------------------|
|   |   | Andrew J.  McKelvey      |
|   |   | Chief Executive  Officer |
|   |   | November 3,  2005   |

 

A signed original of this written statement requiredby Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, orotherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within theelectronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, hasbeen provided to Monster Worldwide, Inc. and will be retained by MonsterWorldwide, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission orits staff upon request.

----
### §290kk–3. Educational requirements for personnel in drug treatment programs

#### (a) Findings

The Congress finds that—

(1) establishing unduly rigid or uniform educational qualification for counselors and other personnel in drug treatment programs may undermine the effectiveness of such programs; and

(2) such educational requirements for counselors and other personnel may hinder or prevent the provision of needed drug treatment services.

#### (b) Nondiscrimination

In determining whether personnel of a program participant that has a record of successful drug treatment for the preceding three years have satisfied State or local requirements for education and training, a State or local government shall not discriminate against education and training provided to such personnel by a religious organization, so long as such education and training includes basic content substantially equivalent to the content provided by nonreligious organizations that the State or local government would credit for purposes of determining whether the relevant requirements have been satisfied.

(July 1, 1944, ch. 373, title V, §584, as added Pub. L. 106–554, §1(a)(7) [title I, §144], Dec. 21, 2000, 114 Stat. 2763, 2763A–622.)
#### Curtis P. Woodbury v. George B. Leighton and Others.

Motion for stay pending appeal granted. Settle order on notice. Present — Clarke, P. J., Laughlin, Dowling, Page and Merrell, JJ.
#### §§ 1600.131-1600.139 [Reserved]
## }nW!Q N

Ma y21 , 201 0 U.S . Departmen to fTransportatio n Docke tManagemen tSyste m 120 0 Ne wJerse yAvenue , SE . Wes tBuildin g Groun d floor . Roo m W12-14 0 Washington , D

C 2059 0 Dea rSirs : Thi s lette ri s t o petitio n th e U.S . Departmen to fTransportatio n o n behal fo fAmerica n Helicopters , Inc . fo ra n exemptio n fro m th e requiremen tfo ra separat e dru g an d alcoho l testin g progra m fo rbot h 91.14 7 operation s an d 13 5 operations . America n Helicopters , Inc . locate d a t1050 3 Wakema n Drive , Manassas , Virgini a 2011 0 operate s passenger-carryin g flight s fo rcompensatio n o rhir e unde r1 4 CF R §91.147(c)(7 ) an d a charte roperatio n unde r1 4 CF

R §135 . W e ar e petitionin g t o combin e th e dru g an d alcoho l requirement s (§91.104 7 an d §§120.1,120. 3 an d 120.5 ) as bot h operation s ar e 100 % owne d an d operate d b yAmerica n Helicopters , Inc . Th e 13 5 pilo ti s alread yparticipatin g i n th e dru g an d alcoho l testin g progra m unde rth e 91.14 7 operation , therefore ; i ti s redundan tt o hav e tw o separat e dru g an d alcoho l testin g programs . I ti s a financia l an d administrativ e hardshi p fo rAmerica n Helicopters , Inc . t o maintai n tw o programs . America n Helicopters , Inc . strive s t o maintai n a n exceptionall yhig h leve l o fsafety . Combinin g thes e operation s unde ron e dru g an d alcoho l testin g progra m woul d i n n o wa yjeopardiz e safet ya s th e pilo ti s alread yenrolle d th e America n Helicopters , Inc . testin g progra m an d i s subjec tt o rando m dru g an d alcoho l testing . H e has alread yteste d negativ e fo rhi s pre-employmen tdru g tes tan d i s i n th e testin g poo l fo rrando m selections . I n summary , America n Helicopters , Inc . seek s a n exemptio n fro m th e nee d fo rtw o separat e dru g an d alcoho l testin g program s becaus e bot h ou roperation s fal l unde ron e compan yan d managemen tan d i t i s redundan t t o maintai n tw o programs . Than k yo u fo ryou rattentio n t o thi s matter . Pleas e contac tm e wit h an yquestion s o rconcern s regardin g thi s petition .

An n Rychli k Dru g Progra m Manage r 1050 3 Wakema n Driv e Manassa s Regiona l Airpor t(KHEF ) tAanassas , Virgini a 2011 0 (703 ) 368-959 9 offic e (703 ) 368-944 5 fa xwww.americanheli.co m
### §2324. Posting of lists showing appraised value

Lists showing the appraised value of each parcel of property to be offered for sale to priority purchasers shall, prior to the offering of such property for sale, be made available for public inspection, at reasonable times, at the offices of the Commission at the community.

(Aug. 4, 1955, ch. 543, ch. 3, §34, 69 Stat. 474.)

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

#### Transfer of Functions

Atomic Energy Commission abolished and functions transferred by sections 5814 and 5841 of this title. See also Transfer of Functions notes set out under those sections.
Editorial Note on Part 142
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 142 appear at 68 FR 51359, Aug. 26, 2003.

§ 142.11 Discrimination prohibited. ( a ) *General.* ( 1 ) No qualified handicapped person shall, on the basis of handicap, be subjected to discrimination in employment under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.
( 2 ) A recipient shall make all decisions concerning employment under any program or activity to which this part applies in a manner which ensures that discrimination on the basis of handicap does not occur and may not limit, segregate, or classify applicants or employees in any way that adversely affects their opportunities or status because of handicap.
( 3 ) A recipient may not participate in a contractual or other relationship that has the effect of subjecting qualified handicapped applicants or employees to discrimination prohibited by this subpart. This includes relationships with employment and referral agencies, with labor unions, with organizations providing or administering fringe benefits to employees of the recipient, and with organizations providing training and apprenticeships.
( b ) *Specific activities.* The provisions of this part apply to: ( 1 ) Recruitment, advertising, and the processing of applications for employment;
( 2 ) Hiring, upgrading, promotion, award of tenure, demotion, transfer, layoff, termination, right to return from layoff, and rehiring;
( 3 ) Rates of pay or any other form of compensation and changes in compensation;
( 4 ) Job assignments, job classification, organizational structures, position descriptions, lines of progression, and seniority lists;
( 5 ) Leaves of absence, sick leave, or any other leave;
( 6 ) Fringe benefits available by virtue of employment whether or not administered by the recipient;
( 7 ) Selection and financial support for training, including apprenticeship, professional meetings, conferences and other related activities, and selection for leaves of absence to pursue training;
( 8 ) Employer sponsored activities, including those that are social or recreational; and
( 9 ) Any other condition, or privilege of employment.
( c ) A recipient's obligation to comply with this subpart is not affected by any inconsistent term of any collective bargaining agreement to which it is a party.
No. 97-31124 -1-

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-31124 Summary Calendar

RICHARD W. MONK, Petitioner-Appellant,

versus BURL CAIN, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary, Respondent-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 97-CV-4

- - - - - - - - - - August 26, 1998 Before JOLLY, SMITH and WIENER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Richard Monk, Louisiana prisoner # 106091, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition as time barred under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)’s limitations period. Because Monk filed his § 2254 petition within one year of the effective date (April 24, 1996) of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), his filing was timely. See United States v. Flores , 135 F.3d 1000, 1005-06 (5th Cir. 1998)(holding that there is a one-year grace period for imposing the analogous limitations period for filing 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motions enacted by the AEDPA). The district court’s judgment dismissing Monk’s petition as time barred is VACATED, and the case is REMANDED for further proceedings.
### §2020. Licensing of Government agencies

Nothing in this chapter shall preclude any Government agency now or hereafter authorized by law to engage in the production, marketing, or distribution of electric energy from obtaining a license under section 2133 of this title, if qualified under the provisions of said section, for the construction and operation of production or utilization facilities for the primary purpose of producing electric energy for disposition for ultimate public consumption.

(Aug. 1, 1946, ch. 724, title I, §273, as added Aug. 30, 1954, ch. 1073, §1, 68 Stat. 960; 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.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 395 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 395

 To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to extend the pilot 
             program for alternative water source projects.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 24, 2011

 Mr. McNerney introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
             Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to extend the pilot 
             program for alternative water source projects.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Healthy Communities Water Supply Act 
of 2011''.

SEC. 2. PILOT PROGRAM FOR ALTERNATIVE WATER SOURCE PROJECTS.

    (a) Selection of Projects.--Section 220(d)(2) of the Federal Water 
Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1300(d)(2)) is amended by inserting 
before the period at the end the following: ``or whether the project is 
located in an area which is served by a public water system serving 
10,000 individuals or fewer''.
    (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 220(j) of the Federal 
Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1300(j)) is amended by striking 
``$75,000,000 for fiscal years 2002 through 2004'' and inserting 
``$125,000,000''.
                                 <all>
```
#### § 144.102 Application.

This part applies to all programs or activities conducted by the agency.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

_____________

No. 13

- 4315

_____________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

MARK LAWRENCE,

Appellant

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

( No . 2

- 06

- cr

- 00083

- 001 )

District Judge: Hon. Cynthia M. Rufe

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

June 26 , 2015

Before: CHAGARES, KRAUSE , and BARRY

, Circuit Judges

.

____________ ______

JUDGMENT ORDER

________ _______ ____

This cause came to be considered on the record from the United States District

Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and w as submitted pursuant to Third

C ircuit LAR 34.1(a) on June 26, 2015.

While on appeal, the Government made cer tain concessions in its briefing for the

first time. The District Court was, thus, unable to consider these concessions in rendering

its decision. We hold that the District Court should have the opportunity to consider theGovernment's concessions in the first instance. For that reason, it is now hereby

ORDERED and ADJUDGED by this Court that the District Court's order dated

September 30, 2013 is VACATED and REMANDED.

BY THE COURT,

s/ Michael A. Chagares

Circuit Judge

ATTEST :

s/Marcia M. Waldron

Clerk

Dated: September 30, 2015
Editorial Note on Part 248
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 248 appear at 74 FR 40431, Aug. 11, 2009.

§ 248.2 Model privacy form: rule of construction. ( a ) *Model privacy form.* Use of the model privacy form in appendix A to subpart A of this part, consistent with the instructions in appendix A to subpart A, constitutes compliance with the notice content requirements of §§ 248.6 and 248.7 of this part, although use of the model privacy form is not required.
( b ) *Examples.* The examples in this part provide guidance concerning the rule's application in ordinary circumstances. The facts and circumstances of each individual situation, however, will determine whether compliance with an example, to the extent practicable, constitutes compliance with this part.
( c ) *Substituted compliance with CFTC financial privacy rules by futures commission merchants and introducing brokers.* Except with respect to § 248.30(b), any futures commission merchant or introducing broker (as those terms are defined in the Commodity Exchange Act (7 U.S.C. 1, *et seq.*)) registered by notice with the Commission for the purpose of conducting business in security futures products pursuant to section 15(b)(11)(A) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78o(b)(11)(A)) that is subject to and in compliance with the financial privacy rules of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (17 CFR part 160) will be deemed to be in compliance with this part.
[74 FR 62984, Dec. 1, 2009]
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-91,436-01

IN RE DANIEL LEE HARRISON, Relator

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS

CAUSE NOS. 137009 & 1369904 IN THE 178 DISTRICT COURT

TH

FROM HARRIS COUNTY

Per curiam.

O R D E R

Relator has filed a motion forleave to file anapplicationfor a writ ofmandamus underthis Court’s

original jurisdiction. He contendsthat he filed applicationsfor writs ofhabeas corpusinHarris Countyand

his application has not been properly forwarded to this Court.

Respondent, the DistrictClerk ofHarrisCounty, shallforward Relator’s habeas applicationsto this

Court, respond that relator has not filed habeas applications in Harris County, forward copies of orders

designatingissuestogether withcorrespondence documentingthe date the State received Relator’s habeas

applicationwithinthe past 180 days, orforward copies oforders establishingnew deadlinesinaccordance
2

withthis Court’s emergency orders regarding the COVID-19 State ofDisaster. See TEX. CODECRIM.

PROC. art. 11.07, § 3(c)and (d); TEX.R.APP.P.73.4(b)(5); TEX.R.APP.P.73.5; First Emergency

Order Regarding the Covid-19 State of Disaster, No. 20-9042 (Tex. Mar. 13, 2020); No. 20-007

(Tex. Crim. App. Mar. 13, 2020); Third Emergency Order Regarding the Covid-19 Disaster, No. 20-

9044 (Tex. Mar. 19, 2020); No. 20-008 (Tex. Crim. App. Mar. 19, 2020); Eighteenth Emergency

Order Relating to the Covid-19 Disaster, No. 20-9080 (Tex. Jun. 29, 2020).

This motionforleave to file willbe held. Respondentshallcomplywiththis order withinthirtydays

from the date of this order.

Filed: September 16, 2020

Do not publish
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

No. 20

- 51034 Summary Calendar

**United States of America,** Plaintiff

— Appellee **,**

versus
**Miguel Angel Cuellar**

**- Arreola,**  Defendant

— Appellant

**.**
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 3:20

- CR

- 1813

- 1

Before **Wiener, Southwick,** and **Duncan,** Circuit Judges

**. Per Curiam**  **:** * Miguel Angel Cuellar

- Arreola appeals the 24

- month, below

guidelines prison sentence and three

- year term of supervised release imposed following his guilty plea for illegal reentry after removal from the United States. He contends that his sentence is unconstitutional because 8 U.S.C.

* Pursuant to **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5, the court has deter mined 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 June 22, 2021 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 20-51034 Document: 00515910378 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/22/2021No. 20

- 51034

2 § 1326(b) permits a sentence above the otherwise

- applicable statutory maximum found in § 1326(a ) without the requirement that the necessary facts be alleged in an indictment and prov ed b eyond a reasonable doubt. Cuellar

- Arreola requests that we vacate the sentence and remand for resentencing under § 1326(a), but he concedes that his arguments are foreclosed by Almendarez

- Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 226

- 27 (1998), and he seeks to preserve the issues for further review. The Government filed an unopposed motion for summary affirmance in which it agrees that the issue is foreclosed and, in the alternative, a motion for an extension of time to file a brief.
In Almendarez

- Torres , 523 U.S. at 239

- 47, the Supre me Court held that, for purposes of a statutory sentencing enhancement, a prior conviction is not a fact that must be alleged in the indictment or found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. This court has held that subsequent Supreme Court decisions did n ot overrule Almendarez

- Torres

. See United States v. Wallace , 759 F.3d 486, 497 (5th Cir. 2014) (considering the effect of Alleyne v. United States , 570 U.S. 99 (2013)); United States v. Pineda

- Arrellano , 492 F.3d 624, 625

- 26 (5th Cir. 2007) (considering t he effect of Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466 (2000)). Therefore, Cuellar

- Arreola’s arguments are foreclosed, and summary affirmance is appropriate. See Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis , 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969). Accordingly, the Governmen t’s motion for summary affirmance is **GRANTED** , and the judgment of the district court is **AFFIRMED** . The Government’s alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief is **DENIED** as moot. Case: 20-51034 Document: 00515910378 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/22/2021
#### In the Matter of Ellen Langille, Appellant, v Gilbert Weber, Respondent.

In a custody proceeding pursuant to article 6 of the Family Court Act, petitioner appeals (1) from an order of the Family Court, Kings County, dated June 24, 1977, which, *inter alia,*directed that custody of children be returned to the respondent and (2) by permission, from a further order of the same court, dated July 1, 1977, which, *inter alia,*denied petitioner-appellant’s motion for a new trial. Orders affirmed, without costs or disbursements. The issues raised by petitioner deal primarily with credibility, an issue left to the trier of fact. Although the Family Court was incorrect in its belief as to the prior criminal record of one witness, the record clearly supports its conclusion that the testimony of two witnesses was suspect. In all other respects the considered opinion of the Family Court is clearly supported by the record. Latham, J. P., Rabin, Gulotta and O’Connor, JJ., concur.
**
Exhibit 35.1 

Servicer Compliance Statement of Nissan Motor Acceptance Company LLC 

**NISSAN MOTOR ACCEPTANCE COMPANY LLC**

**OFFICER’S CERTIFICATE**

The undersigned, Kevin J. Cullum, President and Chief Executive Officer of NISSAN MOTOR ACCEPTANCE COMPANY LLC, a Delaware limited liabilitycompany (successor by conversion to Nissan Motor Acceptance Corporation, the “Company”), does hereby certify, in his capacity as such officer, as follows: 

(1) The undersigned has caused a review of the activities of the Company, in its capacity as Servicer, during the 12-month period ended March 31, 2023 (the “Reporting Period”), and of its performance pursuant to the Sale and Servicing Agreement, dated as of May 28, 2019 (as amended, the“Agreement”), by and among the Company, individually and as servicer, Nissan Auto Receivables Company LLC II (successor by conversion to Nissan Auto Receivables Corporation II), as seller, and Nissan Auto Receivables 2019-B Owner Trust, to be conducted under his supervision; and 

(2) To the best of the undersigned’sknowledge, based upon such review, the Company has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period. 

This Officer’s Certificate is being furnished pursuant to Item 1123 of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Regulation AB forpublicly-issued asset-backed securities. Capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have the meanings assigned to such terms in the Agreement. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have set my hand effective as of the 29th day of June, 2023. 

 

/s/ Kevin J. Cullum
Kevin J. CullumPresident and Chief Executive Officer**