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

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


The undersigned officer of WORLDTEK CORP. hereby certifies, to the best of his
 knowledge that:

1.       The accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of the Company, for the
         annual period ended December 31, 2003, fully complies with the
         requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, 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.

Date:  May  28, 2004
                                                     /s/ Bernard Artz
                                                     ------------------
                                                     Bernard Artz
39–008

105TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1st Session 105–98

PROVIDING FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1385, THE

EMPLOYMENT, TRAINING, AND LITERACY ENHANCEMENT ACT OF 1997

MAY 15, 1997.—Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed

Mr. MCINNIS, from the Committee on Rules,

submitted the following

REPORT

[To accompany H. Res. 150]

The Committee on Rules, having had under consideration House

Resolution 150, by a nonrecord vote, report the same to the House

with the recommendation that the resolution be adopted.

BRIEF SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS OF RESOLUTION

The resolution provides for the consideration of H.R. 1385, the

‘‘Employment, Training, and Literacy Enhancement Act of 1997’’

under an open rule. The rule provides one hour of general debate

divided equally between the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

The rule makes in order the Committee on Education and the

Workforce amendment in the nature of a substitute as an original

bill for purpose of amendment, which shall be considered by division rather than by section and each division shall be considered

as read.

The rule waives clause 5(a) of rule XXI (appropriating on a legislative bill) against the committee amendment in the nature of a

substitute.

The rule also provides for the consideration of the (manager’s)

amendment numbered 1 printed in the Congressional Record if offered by Representative McKeon or his designee, which is considered as read, not subject to amendment or to a division of the question, and is debatable for 10 minutes equally divided between the

proponent and an opponent. If adopted, the amendment is considered as part of the base text for further amendment purposes.

Members who have preprinted their amendments in the Record

prior to their consideration will be given priority in recognition to
2

offer their amendments if otherwise consistent with House rules.

Finally, the rule provides for one motion to recommit, with or without instructions.

Æ
(No. 80-CC-0973

#### Patricia Rutledge, Claimant, *v.*The Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois and the State of Illinois, Respondents.

*Order on motion to dismiss filed January 19, 1983.*

*Order on motion to dismiss filed January 26, 1983.*

*Order filed May 13, 1987.*

Frank J. Mackey, Jr., for Claimant.

Baker & McKenzie, for Respondents.

*35ORDER

Holderman, J.

Pursuant to stipulation by and between the parties hereto, and it appearing to the Court that all costs have been paid and all matters in controversy for which said action was brought have been fully compromised, settled and adjourned;

It is hereby ordered, adjudged and decreed that the above-entitled action be, and the same hereby is, *36dismissed with prejudice and without costs to either party.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2775 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2775

         To suspend temporarily the duty on direct yellow 119.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              June 7, 2005

   Mr. Clay introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
         To suspend temporarily the duty on direct yellow 119.

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

SECTION 1. DIRECT YELLOW 119.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``      9902.05.70      Direct yellow 119   Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/  ''.
                         (CAS No. 102-71-                                                   31/2009
                         6) provided for
                         in subheading
                         3204.14.50)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
§ 401.645 Owner request to review HUD decision. ( a ) *HUD notice of decision.* ( 1 ) HUD will provide notice to the owner of: ( i ) A decision that the owner or project is not eligible for the Mark-to-Market program;
( ii ) A decision not to offer a proposed Restructuring Commitment to the owner; and
( iii ) A decision to offer a proposed Restructuring Commitment. The proposed Restructuring Commitment provided to the owner constitutes the notice of decision for purposes of requesting a review of a HUD decision.
( 2 ) The notice of decision will include the reasons for the decision.
( 3 ) The notice of decision will also notify the owner of the right to request a review of the decision or to cure any deficiencies on which the decision was based; the date by which the review request must be submitted or the deficiencies must be cured, which will be at least 30 days after the date of the notice of decision; and the address to which the review request is to be submitted.
( b ) *Review request by owner* — ( 1 ) *Written statement.* The review request must specify in writing: ( i ) Each item of the decision to which the owner objects;
( ii ) The reasons for the owner's objections; and
( iii ) All information in support of the objections that the owner wants HUD to consider.
( 2 ) *Scope of information submitted.* HUD will not consider information first submitted to HUD in conjunction with an owner's request for review except for: ( i ) Information that could not have been submitted previously; and
( ii ) New health and safety information.
( c ) *HUD review and final decision.* ( 1 ) HUD may expand the scope of review beyond the issues raised by the owner and may review and modify any term within the Restructuring Commitment without regard to whether the owner has raised an objection to that term, including adjustments to rents or expenses as underwritten by the PAE. If HUD does expand the scope of review, HUD will notify the owner of such action and provide an additional 30 days for the owner to raise any additional objections and provide additional information.
( 2 ) Within 30 days of HUD's receipt of the owner's review request and any additional objections and information, HUD will review the request and, using a standard of what is reasonable in light of all of the evidence presented, issue a final decision. The final decision will: ( i ) Affirm the notice of decision; or
( ii ) Modify the notice of decision and, if applicable, modify the Restructuring Commitment, in which event HUD will issue an amended or restated Restructuring Commitment that incorporates the final decision; or
( iii ) Revoke the notice of decision and, if applicable, terminate the Restructuring Commitment and notify the owner that the owner is not eligible for participation in the Mark-to-Market program or that a restructuring of the property is not feasible.
[72 FR 66040, Nov. 26, 2007]
### Page 1 of 3 **Disposition Comments Docket No:**  

### FAA - 2013 - 0379 These comments are in **Directorate ID:** 

### 2009 - SW - 26 - AD response to an SNPRM Originating Office Tracking No.: **Next Step:** FRAN SNPRM 

### N o C omments/Only

Supportive Comments Received

– If this box is checked, no signatures are required. No 

### Has the reference d service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? I f ye s, list latest revision and attach a cop y. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance. Instructions: Summarize all comments **by issue** (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of each issue. **All comments relating to the sam e issue should be discussed together.**  Do not list all of the issues from one commenter togeth er. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA - IR- M - 8040.1C Chapter 9. **ISSUE 1:** Select one o

f the following : If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree with because We disagree with because

Make the following changes to the AD: If **NO** , we don’t agree because **ISSUE 2**  **:** Select one of the following :

If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree with because We disagree with because Make the following changes to the AD:

### Page 2 of 3

If **NO** , we don’t agree because **For additional issues, do uble**  **- click**  **here**

### Page 3 of 3 **S ignature Section**  Signature indicates concurrence with this action. Originating Office Tracking No.: **ASE** Printed Name **: Date** 

**Branch M anager**  **Date**
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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

KATY SULLIVAN, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK FA, et 

al., 

Defendants. 

Case No. 09-cv-02161-EMC 

ORDER TO SHOW CASE 

 Plaintiff filed a Notice of Non-Settlement on July 17, 2015. Defendants JP Morgan Chase, 

et al. are ordered to file a response by July 23, 2015. Defendants shall appear on July 30, 2015 at 

1:30 p.m. before Judge Edward M. Chen, Courtroom 5, 17th Floor, Federal Building, 450 Golden 

Gate Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94102 to show cause why settlement should not be enforced. In 

addition to counsel, a representative of Defendants with full settlement authority shall appear. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: July 17, 2015. 

________________________ 

EDWARD M. CHEN 

United States District Judge 

Case 3:09-cv-02161-EMC Document 149 Filed 07/17/15 Page 1 of 1
* Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions

that have no precedential value and merely decide particular cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 95-40216 Summary Calendar

__________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

GERYLE EUGENE PETERSON,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. CA-L-92-236

- - - - - - - - - - December 20, 1995 Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Geryle Eugene Peterson appeals from the district court's order

denying his motion to vacate, set aside, or correct s entence

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. He contends that he was deprived of

his Sixth Ame ndment right to effective assistance of counsel at

trial and at sentencing, and that the district court erred in

denying the § 2255 motion without an evidentiary hearing. We have

reviewed the record and the district court's memorandum and find noNo. 95-40216

-2-

reversible error. Peterson has not demonstrated that he was

prejudiced by counsel's performance. S ee Strickland v. Washington

,

466 U.S. 668, 687-88 (1984); Lockhart v. Fretwell

, 506 U.S. 364

(1993) ; Spriggs v. Collins

, 993 F.2d 85, 88 (5th Cir. 1993). And,

an evidentiary hearing was not required. E .g., U.S. v. Smith

, 915

F.2d 959, 964 (5th Cir. 1990).

AFFIRMED
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS
**AUSTIN**

XI'. Jrurrse W. '8ltherspoon Dlstriot Attorney 69th Dietriot Rereford, Taxes

Dear ILIT.

'?,'ithersgoon:

Your requee whether or not property p Risk Insuranoe "01 this office. proceed6 or e ‘t;rs een receivedby

tion to this d iionorable

F. G ney Of ::ihlmcoune identioelquesn ~68 renderedby orney Oenaral, ldenoeemuch research end entirelyconour.
y benetiolsrp

with runds reGovernment68 oompeneation on of the 6ervioe and death er,Ss not exempt rr0m tbxstion. The hds being sui jurls the Zederel Governsuoh **fund8** through subsequent mutation6 tlpreeerve them to the benetiolary, ncloslngherewith 6 copy Of the bbove mentioned opinion rendsrod by F. 0. IdoKinsey.

'!3usting

that this 6nswers your inquiry, i remain

Your8 very truly
### §1467. Working capital fund; establishment; uses; reimbursement

There is established a working capital fund of $300,000, to be available without fiscal year limitation, for expenses necessary for the maintenance and operation of (1) a central reproduction service; (2) communication services; (3) a central supply service for stationery, supplies, equipment, blank forms, and miscellaneous materials, for which adequate stocks may be maintained to meet in whole or in part requirements of the bureaus and offices of the Department in the city of Washington and elsewhere; (4) a central library service; (5) health services; and (6) such other similar service functions as the Secretary determines may be performed more advantageously on a reimbursable basis. Said fund shall be reimbursed from available funds of bureaus, offices, and agencies for which services are performed at rates which will return in full all expenses of operation, including reserves for accrued annual leave and depreciation of equipment.

(Sept. 6, 1950, Ch. 896, ch. VII, title I, §101, 64 Stat. 680.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was formerly classified to section 502 of Title 5 prior to the general revision and enactment of Title 5, Government Organization and Employees, by Pub. L. 89–554, §1, Sept. 6, 1966, 80 Stat. 378.
### §3521. Authorization of appropriations

There are authorized to be appropriated to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs to carry out the provisions of this subchapter, and for no other purpose, $8,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001.

(Added Pub. L. 104–13, §2, May 22, 1995, 109 Stat. 184, §3520; amended Pub. L. 106–398, §1 [[div. A], title X, §1064(b)], Oct. 30, 2000, 114 Stat. 1654, 1654A–275; renumbered §3521, Pub. L. 107–198, §3(a)(1), June 28, 2002, 116 Stat. 730.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2002—Pub. L. 107–198 renumbered section 3520 of this title as this section.

2000—Pub. L. 106–398 substituted "subchapter" for "chapter".

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

#### Effective Date of 2000 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 106–398 effective 30 days after Oct. 30, 2000, see section 1 [[div. A], title X, §1065] of Pub. L. 106–398, Oct. 30, 2000, 114 Stat. 1654, formerly set out as an Effective Date note under former section 3531 of this title.

#### Effective Date

Section effective May 22, 1995, see section 4 of Pub. L. 104–13, set out as a note under section 3501 of this title.
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3053

To remediate groundwater contamination caused by perchlorates in the city 

of Santa Clarita, California. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 23, 2005

Mr. MCKEON introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL

To remediate groundwater contamination caused by 

perchlorates in the city of Santa Clarita, California.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Eastern Santa Clara 

5 River Basin Protection Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. EASTERN SANTA CLARA RIVER BASIN GROUND7 WATER RESTORATION. 

8 (a) EASTERN SANTA CLARA RIVER BASIN.—

9 (1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of the Army, 

10 in cooperation with Federal, State, and local govern-
2

•HR 3053 IH 

1 ment agencies, shall participate in studies and other 

2 investigative activities and in the construction, plan3 ning, and design of projects determined by the Sec4 retary to offer a long-term solution to the problem 

5 of groundwater contamination caused by per6 chlorates in the Eastern Santa Clara River Basin, in 

7 the city of Santa Clarita, California. 

8 (2) SOURCES OF PERCHLORATE.—The inves9 tigative activities and projects described in para10 graph (1) shall include sites that are—

11 (A) sources of perchlorate; and 

12 (B) located in the city of Santa Clarita, 

13 California. 

14 (b) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is 

15 authorized to be appropriated $10,000,000 to carry out 

16 this section. Such sums shall remain available until ex17 pended. 

18 SEC. 3. GROUNDWATER REMEDIATION WITHIN THE SANTA 

19 CLARITA VALLEY FOR PERCHLORATE CON20 TAMINATION. 

21 Section 219(f) of the Water Resources Development 

22 Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 3835; 113 Stat. 335) is amended 

23 by adding at the end the following: 

24 ‘‘(75) SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA.—

25 $25,000,00 to remediate groundwater contamination 
3

•HR 3053 IH 

1 in the Eastern Santa Clara River Basin, Santa 

2 Clarita, California. The Secretary shall allow credit 

3 for in-kind services provided by the non-Federal 

4 sponsor before the initiation of the project, not to 

5 exceed the non-Federal cost of the project. If the in6 kind services provided by the non-Federal sponsor 

7 before the initiation of the project exceed the non8 Federal cost of the project, the Secretary shall reim9 burse the non-Federal sponsor for such services.’’.

Æ
**Exhibit      32.1**

**CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO**

**18      U.S.C. ss.1350,**

**AS      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

|                                                  |                                                  |                                                                                                                                                                                                                      |
|-------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                  | **Advanced                Optics Electronics, Inc.,** |
|                                             |                                             |                                                                                                                                                                                                                 |
| Date: May                21,                2007 | By:                                         | /s/ Leslie                Robins                               |
|                                                  | Leslie Robins                                         |
|                                                  | Chief                Executive Officer                |

----
#### § 401.407 Closing conducted by PAE.

After the owner has executed the Restructuring Commitment, the PAE must arrange for a closing to execute all documents necessary for implementation of the Restructuring Plan. The PAE must use standard documents approved by HUD, with modifications only as necessary to comply with applicable State or local laws, or such other modifications as are approved in writing by HUD.
CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF
THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of INverso Corp.
(the “Company”) on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended
June 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned 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
undersigned’s knowledge:

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

and

(b) the information contained in the Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company.

INverso Corp.

Date: September 22, 2006

By:   /s/   Thomas Kirchner

Thomas Kirchner

Chief Executive 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.
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3288 

To suspend temporarily the duty on pro-jet magenta M700. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 14, 2005 

Mr. CASTLE introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on pro-jet magenta M700. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. PRO-JET MAGENTA M700. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

7 new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.13.05 Nickel [substituted 

naphthenyl azo] substituted 

triazole, sodium salt (PMN 

No. P–03–307) (provided for 

in subheading 3204.14.30) .. Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2008 ’’. 

8 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

9 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 
2 

•HR 3288 IH 

1 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

2 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ
§ 3288.110 Alternative Process agreements. ( a ) *Required agreement.* To use the Alternative Process, the manufacturer, retailer, and installer of the manufactured home at issue, as appropriate, must agree: ( 1 ) That there is a defect in the manufactured home;
( 2 ) That the manufacturer, retailer, or installer is responsible for the defect;
( 3 ) That the homeowner is not responsible for the defect;
( 4 ) To engage a neutral to evaluate the dispute and make an assignment of responsibility for correction and repair; and
( 5 ) To notify the homeowner of, and allow the homeowner to be present at, any meetings and to inform the homeowner of the outcome.
( b ) *Additional element of agreement.* In addition, the parties should agree to act upon the neutral's assignment of responsibility for correction and repair.