alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32(i)



Certification



STATEMENT OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

AND CHIEF ACCOUNTING OFFICER

OF ATMOSPHERIC GLOW TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

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 Atmospheric Glow Technologies,
Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), each of the undersigned officers of the Company, 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 undersigneds knowledge:



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



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



Date: November 11, 2005



/s/ Thomas W. ReddochThomas W. Reddoch, Chairman/Chief Executive Officer




Date:
November 11, 2005



/s/ Sharon L. DraperSharon L. Draper, Chief Accounting Officer




A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request. This certificate is being
furnished solely for purposes of Section 906 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.



21
### §5050. Coordination with other programs

The Director shall take necessary steps to coordinate volunteer programs authorized under this chapter with one another, with community action programs, and with other related Federal, State, and local programs. The Director shall also consult with the heads of other Federal, State, and local agencies responsible for programs related to the purposes of this chapter with a view to encouraging greater use of volunteer services in those programs and establishing in connection with them systematic procedures for the recruitment, referral, or necessary preservice orientation or training of volunteers serving pursuant to this chapter. The Director, in consultation with the Director of the Office of Personnel Management and the Secretaries of Labor, Commerce, and the Treasury and officials of other appropriate departments and agencies, shall take all appropriate steps to encourage State and local governments, charitable and service organizations, and private employers (1) to take into account experience in volunteer work in the consideration of applicants for employment; and (2) to make provisions for the listing and description of volunteer work on all employment application forms.

(Pub. L. 93–113, title IV, §410, Oct. 1, 1973, 87 Stat. 410; Pub. L. 96–143, §10, Dec. 13, 1979, 93 Stat. 1078.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This chapter, referred to in text, was in the original "this Act", meaning Pub. L. 93–113, Oct. 1, 1973, 87 Stat. 394, known as the Domestic Volunteer Service Act of 1973, which is classified principally to this chapter. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 4950 of this title and Tables.

#### Amendments

1979—Pub. L. 96–143 inserted provisions requiring the Director in consultation with the Director of the Office of Personnel Management and the Secretaries of Labor, Commerce, and the Treasury and officials of other appropriate departments and agencies to take steps to encourage employers to review the consideration they give volunteer service in the information requested on their standard application forms.
EXHIBIT 99.1



                            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 ACI Telecentrics, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June, 30, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Rick N. Diamond, Chief
Executive 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:

         (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.




Dated: /s/ Aug 14, 2002                 By: /s/ RICK N. DIAMOND
       -----------------------              ------------------------------------
                                        Rick N. Diamond
                                        Chief Executive Officer


                                       19
Uni

ted 

Stat

es D

istr

ict C

ourt

For t

he N

orth

ern 

Dis

trict

 of C

alifo

rnia

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Uni

ted 

Stat

es D

istr

ict C

ourt

For t

he N

orth

ern 

Dis

trict

 of C

alifo

rnia

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

J. STEPHEN WILEY,

Plaintiff,

    v.

CENDANT CORPORATION SHORTTERM DISABILITY PLAN, ET AL.,

Defendant.                                                                      /

No. C 09-00423 CRB

JUDGMENT

The Court, having granted judgment for Defendant and against Plaintiff under Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 52, hereby enters judgment for Defendant as to the claims period of

August 2004 through August 2006.  The Court remands to the Plan the question of Plaintiff’s

eligibility for benefits post-August 2006.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 19, 2010                                                            CHARLES R. BREYERUNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:09-cv-00423-CRB   Document 63   Filed 01/19/10   Page 1 of 1

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2018-03-11T19:00:09-0400
      - US GPO, Washington, DC 20401
      - Superintendent of Documents
      - GPO attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by GPO
#### Froney Brink, appellant, v. Peter Brink, appellee.

Suit for separate maintenance. Bill dismissed for want of equity. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Washington county; the Hon. Louis Bernreuter, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the March term, 1923.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed July 2, 1923.

George W. Dowell, for appellant. J. Paul Carter, for appellee.

Mr. Justice Higbee

delivered the opinion of the court.
### §7274f. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, Pub. L. 102–190, div. C, title XXXI, §3134, Dec. 5, 1991, 105 Stat. 1575, which related to the Defense Environmental Restoration and Waste Management Account, was renumbered section 4401 of Pub. L. 107–314, the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003, by Pub. L. 108–136, div. C, title XXXI, §3141(g)(2), Nov. 24, 2003, 117 Stat. 1764, and is classified to section 2581 of Title 50, War and National Defense.
#### Anthony Castaldo et al., Respondents, v Migay Trucking Corp. et al., Respondents, and Ivar Gudmundsson, Appellant.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered May 10, 1977, unanimously reversed, on the law, defendant-appellant’s motion for renewal granted, and, on renewal, defendant-appellant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the affirmative defense of diplomatic immunity granted, and the complaint dismissed, and the action severed as to him, without costs and without disbursements; appeal from order of the same court, entered March 3, 1977, dismissed as academic, without costs, it having been superseded by the order entered May 10, 1977. On these papers, there is no doubt that the movant defendant is clothed with diplomatic immunity. (See *Kobelski v Permanent Mission of Fed. Republic of Germany to United Nations,*54 AD2d 867.) Nor may the case survive against defendant-appellant’s insurance carrier, that liability being purely derivative. We may not take cognizance of appellant’s request that we dismiss *Dole v Dow*cross claims of other defendants, not parties to this appeal; those matters are not properly before us. Concur—Silverman, J. P., Evans, Fein and Markewich, JJ. [62 AD2d 932.]
Editorial Note on Part 201
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 201 appear at 62 FR 38027, July 16, 1997.

§ 201.03 OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act. ( a ) OMB has approved the following information collection and recordkeeping requirements established by this part 201 (OMB Control No. 0412-0514, expiring July 31, 2000): Sec. 201.13(b)(1) 201.13(b)(2) 201.15(c) 201.31(f) 201.31(g) 201.32(b) 201.32(c) 201.51(c) 201.52(a) 201.74
( b ) USAID will use the information requested in these sections to verify compliance with statutory and regulatory requirements and to assist in the administration of USAID-financed commodity programs. The information is required from suppliers in order to receive payment for commodities or commodity-related services. The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average a half hour per response, including the time required for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to the Office of Procurement, Policy Division (M/OP/P), U.S. Agency for International Development, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington, DC 20523-7801, and the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0412-0514), Washington, DC 20503.
[64 FR 17535, Apr. 12, 1999]
#### Mynor Uria Rivera JUAREZ, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 06-70125.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 12, 2007.*

Filed March 19, 2007.

Martin Resendez Guajardo, Esq., Law Offices of Martin Resendez Guajardo, a Professional Corporation, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.

Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, OIL, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: KOZINSKI, LEAVY, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Mynor Uria Rivera Juarez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) summarily affirming an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).

We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for substantial evidence, *Ali v. Ashcroft,*394 F.3d 780, 784 (9th Cir.2005), we deny the petition for review.

Even assuming Juarez suffered past persecution, substantial evidence supports the IJ’s finding that the government rebutted the presumption of a well-founded fear of future persecution because the IJ did an individualized analysis of changed country conditions in Guatemala. *See Gonzalez-Hernandez v. Ashcroft,*336 F.3d 995, 1000-01 (9th Cir.2003).

Because Juarez cannot meet the lower standard of eligibility for asylum, he has failed to show that he is entitled to withholding of removal. *See Prasad, v. INS,*47 F.3d 336, 340 (9th Cir.1995).

We lack jurisdiction to consider Juarez’s challenge to the denial of CAT relief because he failed to exhaust it below. *See Barron v. Ashcroft,*358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir .2004).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
```

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 178 (Thursday, September 13, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 56697-56698]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-22567]

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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 8024]

Culturally Significant Object Imported for Exhibition 
Determinations: ``Steve McQueen''

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: 
Pursuant to

[[Page 56698]]

the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 
985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 1978, the 
Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681, 
et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, et seq.), Delegation of Authority No. 234 
of October 1, 1999, Delegation of Authority No. 236-3 of August 28, 
2000 (and, as appropriate, Delegation of Authority No. 257 of April 15, 
2003), I hereby determine that the object to be included in the 
exhibition ``Steve McQueen,'' imported from abroad for temporary 
exhibition within the United States, is of cultural significance. The 
object is imported pursuant to a loan agreement with the foreign owner 
or custodian. I also determine that the exhibition or display of the 
exhibit object at The Art Institute of Chicago, Chicago, IL, from on or 
about October 21, 2012, until on or about January 6, 2013, and at 
possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, is in 
the national interest. I have ordered that Public Notice of these 
Determinations be published in the Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, including a 
list of the exhibit object, contact Julie Simpson, Attorney-Adviser, 
Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-
632-6467). The mailing address is U.S. Department of State, SA-5, L/PD, 
Fifth Floor (Suite 5H03), Washington, DC 20522-0505.

    Dated: September 7, 2012.
J. Adam Ereli,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Educational and 
Cultural Affairs, Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2012-22567 Filed 9-12-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
```
#### Madeline Pehush, Respondent, v George Pehush, Appellant.

In a matrimonial action in which plaintiff had previously been granted a judgment of divorce, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County, dated June 28, 1977, which, *inter alia:*(1) granted plaintiff’s motion to punish him for contempt, subject to a purge provision; (2) directed that plaintiff may enter judgment for the amount of real estate taxes paid by her and for counsel fees awarded in the judgment of divorce; (3) awarded plaintiff an additional counsel fee in connection with the motion to punish defendant for contempt; and (4) denied defendant’s cross motion to modify the divorce decree. Order modified by deleting therefrom the first, third and fourth decretal paragraphs thereof, and substituting therefor provisions: (1) directing a hearing on the motion to punish for contempt to determine whether defendant’s nonpayments of alimony and child support were due to financial inability; (2) that the award of a counsel fee in connection with the motion to punish for contempt is to be determined after, and be based upon, the outcome of that hearing; (3) that defendant’s cross motion is denied to the extent that it seeks "forgiving all alimony and support arrears heretofore accrued”; (4) that defendant’s cross motion, to the extent that it seeks "suspension *in futuro*of all payments which may become due for alimony and support until such time as the defendant secures employment”, is to be determined at the hearing; and (5) that the motion and cross motion are otherwise denied, without prejudice. As so modified, order affirmed, without costs or disbursements. The record is insufficient to determine the issues of inability to pay, both as to sums owing in arrears, and as to whether there should be a modification, and therefore require a hearing (see Domestic Relations Law, § 246; *Matter of Halleck v Hayden,*47 AD2d 855; *Matter of Miraglio v Rivera,*45 AD2d 1010; *Matter of Myerberg v Myerberg,*41 AD2d 524). We note that defendant was laid off from his construction job after entry of the divorce decree, and has allegedly worked only sporadically since then. Damiani, J. P., Titone, Shapiro and Cohalan, JJ., concur.
### §288–3. Repealed. Pub. L. 114–255, div. A, title II, §2022(c)(2), Dec. 13, 2016, 130 Stat. 1054

Section, July 1, 1944, ch. 373, title IV, §487C, as added Pub. L. 103–43, title XVI, §1621, June 10, 1993, 107 Stat. 182; amended Pub. L. 105–392, title IV, §410(c), Nov. 13, 1998, 112 Stat. 3589, related to loan repayment program for research generally.
### §62. Repealed. Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, §53, 70A Stat. 641

Section, act May 18, 1920, ch. 190, §11 (proviso), 41 Stat. 604, related to longevity pay and credit for service in other branches. See section 517 of Title 10, Armed Forces, and sections 201, and 203 to 205 of Title 37, Pay and Allowances of the Uniformed Services.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Louis Camp, Appellant.

Judgment of conviction unanimously affirmed. No opinion. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Rabin, McNally and Bergan, JJ.
1

The Honorable Gary A. Fenner, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-3664

___________

Clark Lee Smith, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Missouri.

Mike Kemna; CO I. Knowles; Shanna *

Keeter; Russell Hollowell, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: May 23, 2006

Filed: May 24, 2006 

___________

Before MURPHY, BEAM, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Missouri inmate Clark Lee Smith appeals the district court’s1

 preservice

dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Having carefully reviewed the record, we

conclude dismissal of the complaint was proper for the reasons explained by the

district court. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment. See 8th Cir. R. 47A(a).

______________________________
April 11 , 2013



### JUDGMENT 

## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

GUILLERMO GARZA D/B/ A WILHOME BUILDERS & CONSTRUCTION
, Appellant

NO. 14

- 11

- 00724

- CV V.

JESSE CANTU , Appellee

________________________________ This cause, an appeal from the judgment in favor of appelle e, Jesse Cantu, signed, May 10 , 2011, was heard on the transcript of the record. We have inspected the record and find error in the judgment. We th erefore order the judgment of the court below REVERSED and REMAND the cause for proceedings in accordance with the court's opinion. We further order that all costs incurred by reason of this appeal be paid by appellee, Jesse Cantu.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
#### § 103.225 Completion of investigation.

The investigation will remain open until a determination is made under § 103.400, or a conciliation agreement is executed and approved under § 103.310. Unless it is impracticable to do so, the Assistant Secretary will complete the investigation of the alleged discriminatory housing practice within 100 days of the filing of the complaint (or where the Assistant Secretary reactivates the complaint, within 100 days after service of the notice of reactivation under § 103.115). If the Assistant Secretary is unable to complete the investigation within the 100-day period, HUD will notify the aggrieved person and the respondent, by mail, of the reasons for the delay.

[61 FR 14380, Apr. 1, 1996]
§ 1000.554 Which agencies have right of access to the recipient's records relating to activities carried out under NAHASDA? ( a ) HUD and the Comptroller General of the United States, and any of their authorized representatives, shall have the right of access to any pertinent books, documents, papers, or other records of recipients which are pertinent to NAHASDA assistance, in order to make audits, examinations, excerpts, and transcripts.
( b ) The right of access in this section lasts as long as the records are maintained.
AVS

Quality Management

System

Title: Domestic Change Worksheet

QPM#

AIR-ANM-030-F4

Date: December 17, 2008

Revision

1

Record of Contacts

FDMS Docket No. FAA-Wll"lO - 1/5 S

With whom outside the FAA has this proposal been discussed (e.g., ATA, RAA, ALPA, etc.)?

Organization Person Contacted Date

ATA ,foe Whil~ May, ZOIO

Hoeing Todd £ssdJ;IYll Jan. Feb & Aug, 2009

Boeing Everett Groat Feb & Man'h, 2009

Boeing Mike Sil"gr-!man M:lf(~h. 2009

UNCONTROLLED COPY WHEN DOWNLOADED

Chec!l. the Master List to Verify That This is the Corred Revision Before Use
UASolutions Group, Inc. www.uasolutionsgroup.com

2518 Auburn Drive, Cocoa, FL 329 26 ( 321 )

- 261

- 2547 uasolutionsgroup@uasolutionsgroup.com October 29, 2015

U. S. Department of Transportation
Federal Aviation Administration Office of Rulemaking, Bldg. 10A 800 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20591

RE: Summary Grant for Aerial Cartographics of America, Inc. Exemption Request Under Section 333 of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 , 4 9 U.S.C. § 44701(f), and 14 C.F.R. Part 11

Dear Sir or M adam:

Pursuant to Section 333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 ( FMRA)

, 49 U.S.C. § 44701(f), and 14 C.F.R. Part 11, Aerial Cartographics of America, Inc. (ACA) an operator of Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems (“sUAS”) equipped to conduct full service photography and v ideography

, seeks exemption f rom the following listed Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) to allow commercial operation of the previously approved DJI Phantom, DJI S1000 plus, Pulse Vapor 35, Pulse Vapor 55 within the National Airspace System (NAS) for controlled, low

- risk, aerial video and photography, aerial mapping and survey, site specific highway Lidar mapping and ortho image mapping, as well as powerline corridor and bridge inspections over certain areas of the United States,

conducted within and under the conditions outlined herein, or as may be established by the FAA, as required by Section 333 requirements.

ACA i n the accompanying petition, seeks exemption from the requirements of 14 C.F.R. §§ 45.27(a), 61.113(a) a nd (b), 91.7(a), 91.105, 91.119(c), 91.121

, 91.151(b)

, 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(1) and ( 2 ),and 91.417(a) and (b)

.
ACA has requested that the FAA not request public comment on its petition because it

would not set a ny precedent and because the relief requested is identical to numerous exemptions granted previously by the FAA . 14 C.F.R. § 11.87.

In addition

, ACA w ill be utilizing the s ame pr oven airframes and technologies the FAA has already accepted and approved in numerous previously approved exemptions. Combined, th eir comp rehensive Section 333 Exemption and the approvals the FAA has already given to their chosen products and th e technology, should provide the supportUASolutions Group, Inc. www.uasolutionsgroup.com

2518 Auburn Drive, Cocoa, FL 329 26 ( 321 )

- 261

- 2547 uasolutionsgroup@uasolutionsgroup.com necessary to the FAA for a S ummary G rant of ACA ’ s Section 333 Petition and expedite the process.

Kelly J. Neubecker CEO UASolutions Group, Inc.