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 Cardima, Inc. (the “Company”) 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, Robert Cheney, Chief
Executive 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 to the best of
my knowledge:





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





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





August
      14, 2008
              By:
              /s/ Robert
      CheneyRobert
      CheneyChief
      Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer




This
certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed to be filed by the Company
for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  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.
#### In the Matter of Gayton Millefiore, Appellant, v. U. S. Casualty Co. et al., Respondents. Workmen's Compensation Board, Respondent.

Appeal by claimant from a decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Board, one member dissenting, affirming the decision of a Referee which disallowed his claim predicated upon an alleged industrial accident. In its decision the board noted that at the time of his injury claimant was in the employ of his father and that claimant and his mother, who kept the books of the employer, were the only witnesses who testified in support of the claim. Adverting to the superior opportunity of the Referee to appraise their veracity, the board upon review adopted the evaluation implicit in his finding that the accident did not arise out of and in the course of employment and in effect also rejected their testimony. What we said in two recent decisions is apposite here: *“*The question of credibility is strictly within the province of the board and it was not bound as a matter of law to accept the testimony of claimant and his employer. The rejection of this evidence denuded the record of proof connecting the accident with the employment. *(Matter of Daus*v. *Gunderman & Sons,*283 N. Y. 459; *Matter of Gordon*v. *Gordon & Hyman,*11 A D 2d 833, motion for leave to appeal denied 8 H Y 2d 710; *Matter of Brenner*v. *Utilities Laundry,*14 A D 2d 626.) ” *(Matter of Manolakis*v. *Edison S. S. Corp.,*15 A D 2d 845-846; *Matter of Van De Walker*v. *Syracuse Bowling Center,*16 A D 2d 728.) Decision unanimously affirmed, without costs. Present — Bergan, P. J., Gibson, Herlihy, Reynolds and Taylor, JJ.
§ 44.21 Filing and form of documents. ( a ) *Where to file.* After a petition has been referred to the Office of the Chief Administrative Law Judge, the parties will be notified of the name and address of the administrative law judge assigned to the case. All further documents shall be filed with the administrative law judge at the address designated or with the Chief Administrative Law Judge, if the assignment has not been made. While the petition is before the Assistant Secretary at any stage of the proceeding, all documents should be filed with the Assistant Secretary of Labor for Mine Safety and Health, 201 12th Street South, Arlington, VA 22202-5452.
( b ) *Caption, title and signature.* ( 1 ) The documents filed in any proceeding under this part shall be captioned in the name of the operator of the mine to which the proceeding relates and in the name of the mine or mines affected. After a docket number has been assigned to the proceeding by the Office of the Chief Administrative Law Judge, the caption shall contain such docket number.
( 2 ) After the caption each such document shall contain a title which shall be descriptive of the document and which shall identify the party by whom the document is submitted.
( 3 ) The original of all documents filed shall be signed at the end by the party submitting the document or, if the party is represented by an attorney, by such attorney. The address of the party or the attorney shall appear beneath the signature.
[43 FR 29518, July 7, 1978, as amended at 67 FR 38384, June 4, 2002; 80 FR 52985, Sept. 2, 2015]
### §41729. COVID–19 vaccination status

(a) In General.—An air carrier (as such term is defined in section 40102) may not deny service to any individual solely based on the vaccination status of the individual with respect to COVID–19.

(b) Rule of Construction.—Nothing in this section shall be construed to apply to the regulation of intrastate travel, transportation, or movement, including the intrastate transportation of passengers.

(Added Pub. L. 118–63, title XI, §1107(a), May 16, 2024, 138 Stat. 1417.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 1107(a) of Pub. L. 118–63, which directed the addition of this section at end of this chapter, was executed by adding this section at the end of subchapter I of this chapter to reflect the probable intent of Congress.

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

#### Rule of Construction

Pub. L. 118–63, title XI, §1107(c), May 16, 2024, 138 Stat. 1417, provided that: "Nothing in this section [enacting this section], or the amendment made by this section, shall be construed to permit or otherwise authorize an executive agency to enact or otherwise impose a COVID–19 vaccine mandate."
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

June 22, 2022

No. 04-22-00092-CV

IN RE TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY AND PROTECTIVE SERVICES

Original Mandamus Proceeding1

ORDER

On February 15, 2022, Relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus. Respondent and Real 

Party in Interest filed responses. 

Having considered the petition, the record, and the responses, we conditionally grant the 

petition for writ of mandamus. 

We order the Honorable Mary Lou Alvarez to, no later than fifteen days from the date of 

this order, vacate paragraph 2.8 of the February 8, 2022 “Order Following Hearing Regarding 

Placement,” which requires Relator to “enter a Child Specific Contract for [J.F.] at the rate of $500 

per day, for the purpose of placement within Bexar County whether it is in a foster home, group 

home, or transitional living.” See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(c).

We are confident the trial court will promptly comply, but the writ will issue if the 

Honorable Mary Lou Alvarez fails to comply as ordered.

Our February 16, 2022 stay of the February 8, 2022 “Order Following Hearing Regarding 

Placement” is lifted.

It is so ORDERED on June 22, 2022.

_____________________________

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2020-PA-01628, styled In the Interest of J.F., a Child, pending in the 

407th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Mary Lou Alvarez presiding.
04-22-00092-CV

- 2 -

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

court on this 22nd day of June, 2022.

_____________________________

Michael A. Cruz, Clerk of Court
###### Editorial Note on Part 250

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 250 appear at 77 FR 50891, Aug. 22, 2012.

#### § 250.103 Where can I find more information about the requirements in this part?

BSEE may issue Notices to Lessees and Operators (NTLs) that clarify, supplement, or provide more detail about certain requirements. NTLs may also outline what you must provide as required information in your various submissions to BSEE.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
        <C> <S>
<ARTICLE>  5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted  from  the
Balance Sheet at June 30, 1999 and Income Statement for the period  ended
June 30,  1999  and is qualified in its entirety  by  reference  to  such
financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<C>                                    <S>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                          6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                      DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                           JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                 906
<SECURITIES>                           0
<RECEIVABLES>                          15,508
<ALLOWANCES>                           0
<INVENTORY>                            22,870
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                       783,919
<PP&E>                                 1,444
<DEPRECIATION>                         448
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                         785,363
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                  551,417
<BONDS>                                0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                  0
<PREFERRED>                            0
<COMMON>                               11,648
<OTHER-SE>                             0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>           785,363
<SALES>                                13,417
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                       13,417
<CGS>                                  8,621
<TOTAL-COSTS>                          314,577
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                     20,395
<INCOME-PRETAX>                       (284,781)
<INCOME-TAX>                           0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                    0
<DISCONTINUED>                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                        0
<CHANGES>                              0
<NET-INCOME>                          (284,781)
<EPS-BASIC>                         (0.025)
<EPS-DILUTED>                         (0.025)



</TABLE>
#### § 56.10002 Inspection and maintenance.

Inspection and maintenance of carriers (including loading and unloading mechanisms), ropes and supports, and brakes shall be performed by competent persons according to the recommendations of the manufacturer.
[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 242 (Wednesday, December 16, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 81486-81487]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-27592]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Investigation Nos. 701-TA-506 and 508 and 731-TA-1238-1243 (Review)]


Non-Oriented Electrical Steel From China, Germany, Japan, Korea, 
Sweden, and Taiwan

Determination

    On the basis of the record \1\ developed in the subject five-year 
reviews, the United States International Trade Commission 
(``Commission'')

[[Page 81487]]

determines, pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 (``the Act''), that 
revocation of the countervailing duty orders on non-oriented electrical 
steel from China and Taiwan and the antidumping duty orders on non-
oriented electrical steel from China, Germany, Japan, Korea, Sweden, 
and Taiwan would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of 
material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably 
foreseeable time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The record is defined in Sec.  207.2(f) of the Commission's 
Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 207.2(f)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background

    The Commission instituted these reviews on November 1, 2019 (84 FR 
58743) and determined on February 4, 2020 that it would conduct full 
reviews (85 FR 8325, February 13, 2020). Notice of the scheduling of 
the Commission's reviews and of a public hearing to be held in 
connection therewith was given by posting copies of the notice in the 
Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 
Washington, DC, and by publishing the notice in the Federal Register on 
June 2, 2020 (85 FR 33711). In light of the restrictions on access to 
the Commission building due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Commission 
conducted its hearing through written testimony and video conference on 
October 8, 2020. All persons who requested the opportunity were 
permitted to participate.
    The Commission made these determinations pursuant to section 751(c) 
of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)). It completed and filed its 
determinations in these reviews on December 10, 2020. The views of the 
Commission are contained in USITC Publication 5140 (December 2020), 
entitled Non-Oriented Electrical Steel from China, Germany, Japan, 
Korea, Sweden, and Taiwan: Investigation Nos. 701-TA-506 and 508 and 
731-TA-1238-1243 (Review).

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: December 10, 2020.
Lisa Barton,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2020-27592 Filed 12-15-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
#### Samuel L. Buchman, Respondent, v Ruth Buchman, Appellant.

In a matrimonial action, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered August 11, 1977, which (1) denied the branches of her cross motions which sought dismissal of plaintiff’s application for a downward modification of the alimony provisions contained in a judgment of divorce and (2) directed a hearing as to plaintiff’s application and the balance of defendant’s cross motions which, *inter alia,*sought to fix arrears. Order affirmed, without costs or disbursements. The parties were divorced in 1972. The plaintiff-respondent had brought an action for divorce against the defendant-appellant alleging cruel and inhuman treatment. She then agreed to consent to the divorce if the plaintiff waived the protection of section 236 of the Domestic Relations Law against awarding alimony to a *974wife who is found guilty of certain misconduct. A stipulation was drawn up which provided for the disposition of property and for alimony in the amount of $70 per week. The alimony provision was incorporated into the decree, but the stipulation did not survive. Thereafter, in November, 1976, plaintiff moved for a downward modification of alimony on the ground of a substantial change of circumstances. Defendant cross-moved for a money judgment for the amount of arrears, enforcement remedies and summary judgment on the motion for a downward modification. She claims that the court lacked jurisdiction to modify the alimony provision since her consent to the divorce on a fault ground was based upon her husband’s agreement to pay alimony. In effect, she claims a contractual right to the amount of alimony contained in the decree, and that the court, therefore, does not have the power to alter the provision under any circumstances. Defendant relies on *Vranick v Vranick*(41 AD2d 663) and *Carter v Carter*(52 AD2d 835) to support her position. Those cases, however, are completely inapposite for they stand for the proposition that the amount of alimony based on a waiver of section 236 of the Domestic Relations Law cannot be increased because the waiver sets a maximum on the husband’s liability. We do not agree with defendant’s reasoning. The reason for allowing downward modification based on a substantial change of circumstances is that the full power of the court stands behind enforcement of alimony provisions. The Court of Appeals, in *Goldman v Goldman*(282 NY 296, 301), ordered a downward modification of alimony in a decree which incorporated a stipulation. It held that "the drastic remedies provided by law for the enforcement of a marital obligation” conferred on the court power over the amount of support in the decree, even if that amount was the result of a voluntary agreement between the parties. When the court is asked to invoke its power to enforce an alimony provision in the decree, it must have the authority to inquire into the circumstance of nonpayment. If there has been a substantial change of circumstances, it can modify the decree downward. The hearing in this case is to be held without delay. Titone, J. P., Rabin, Shapiro and Cohalan, JJ., concur.
### §60502. Discriminating duty on goods imported in foreign vessels or from contiguous countries

(a) Imposition of Duty.—A discriminating duty of 10 percent ad valorem (in addition to other duties imposed by law) is imposed on goods—

(1) imported in a vessel not of the United States unless the vessel—

(A) is entitled by law or treaty to enter the ports of the United States on payment of the same duties as are payable on goods imported in a vessel of the United States; or

(B)(i) is owned only by citizens of the United States; and

(ii) after entering a port of the United States, becomes documented as a vessel of the United States before leaving that port; or

(2) produced or manufactured in a foreign country not contiguous to the United States and imported from a country contiguous to the United States, unless imported in the usual course of strictly retail trade.

(b) Seizure and Forfeiture.—If goods are imported without payment of the duty required by this section, the goods and the vessel in which they are imported may be seized by, and forfeited to, the United States Government.

(Pub. L. 109–304, §9(b), Oct. 6, 2006, 120 Stat. 1680.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 60502(a) | 19:128. | Oct. 3, 1913, ch. 16, §IV(J)(1), 38 Stat. 196; Mar. 15, 1915, ch. 171, §1, 38 Stat. 1193; Pub. L. 103–182, title VI, §689(a)(1), Dec. 8, 1993, 107 Stat. 2222. |
| | 46 App.:146. | |
| 60502(b) | 19:130 (last sentence related to 19:128). | Oct. 3, 1913, ch. 16, §IV(J)(2), 38 Stat. 196. |

Section

In this section, the word "goods" is substituted for "goods, wares, or merchandise" to eliminate unnecessary words.

In subsection (a)(1), subparagraphs (A) and (B) are substituted for "but this discriminating duty shall not apply to goods, wares, or merchandise which shall be imported in vessels not of the United States entitled at the time of such importation by treaty or convention or Act of Congress to be entered in the ports of the United States on payment of the same duties as shall then be payable on goods, wares, and merchandise imported in vessels of the United States, nor to goods, wares, and merchandise imported in a vessel owned by citizens of the United States but not a vessel of the United States if such vessel after entering an American port shall, before leaving the same, be documented under chapter 121 of title 46" to eliminate unnecessary words.

Subsection (a)(2) is substituted for "or which being the production or manufacture of any foreign country not contiguous to the United States, shall come into the United States from such contiguous country" and "but this discriminating duty shall not apply . . . nor to such products or manufactures as shall be imported from such contiguous countries in the usual course of strictly retail trade" to eliminate unnecessary words.

Subsection (b) is substituted for the source provision for consistency with section 60501(d) and to eliminate unnecessary words. See note for section 60501(d) in this report.
### §1685. Transfer of property or money for administration of Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands

After June 30, 1952, transfers to the Department of the Interior pursuant to chapters 1 to 11 of title 40 and division C (except sections 3302, 3307(e), 3501(b), 3509, 3906, 4710, and 4711) of subtitle I of title 41 of equipment, material and supplies, excess to the needs of Federal agencies may be made at the request of the Secretary of the Interior without reimbursement or transfer of funds when required by the Interior Department for operations conducted in the administration of the Territories and the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands.

(July 9, 1952, ch. 597, title I, §108, 66 Stat. 460.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was formerly classified to section 1438 of this title.

In text, "chapters 1 to 11 of title 40 and division C (except sections 3302, 3307(e), 3501(b), 3509, 3906, 4710, and 4711) of subtitle I of title 41" substituted for "the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949" on authority of Pub. L. 107–217, §5(c), Aug. 21, 2002, 116 Stat. 1303, which Act enacted Title 40, Public Buildings, Property, and Works, and Pub. L. 111–350, §6(c), Jan. 4, 2011, 124 Stat. 3854, which Act enacted Title 41, Public Contracts.
Electronically FiledIntermediate Court of AppealsCAAP-11-000064711-JAN-201308:45 AM
Regulatory Evaluation 

2.o tl ~uc- - Docket No. FAA- )ol( --)() 3/ Directorate Identifier: ) J -AD 

(f'you make changes to the values in the table belmv, you must ensure the totals update according(v. {f 

they do not, click (or Tab) into and then out of the changed cell. 

Estimated Costs: 

Action Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine, 

(e.g., Inspection, propeller, appliance) 

Work-hours Labor Parts Cost Total Costs Number of Total Cost replacement) (include cost (labor+ u.s. for U.S. Fleet Do not include oncondition costs here access, testing, (@$85/h parts) Registered 

and close-up) our) Products 

Replace N2 Sensor 1.0 $8,000 0 

Harness 

!-------· 

r---

The known number of products in compliance: 

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $ 0 

Costs covered under warranty (if known) $ 

On-Condition Costs: 

Action Work-hours Labor cost Parts Cost Cost per Product 

(e.g., Inspection, (include access, (@$85/hour) 

replacement) testing, and closeup) 

~ •• _ 

~P"''i~l •·nn-;irlPratinns for Economic Analysis (Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table 

that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be u · ,,d to explain warranty cos£.\):
(No. 85-CC-1831

#### John M. Hogan, Claimant, *v.*The State of Illinois, Respondent.

*Opinion filed June 29, 1993.*

Smith & Munson, for Claimant.

Roland W. Burris, Attorney General (John R. Buckley, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel), for Respondent.

OPINION

Patchett, J.

This claim arises out of a motorcycle accident which occurred on August 1, 1982, at or near the intersection of Elmhurst Road on eastbound Interstate 90. Claimant lost control of his motorcycle and he sustained *59serious injuries. There were no witnesses to the accident, except the Claimant.

The claim was filed alleging that the accident was due to a pothole in the road, which is maintained by the Illinois Department of Transportation. A trial was held before the commissioner of this Court. Claimant produced no evidence or witnesses other than himself that a pothole caused the accident, or even that an unsafe condition existed at the time of the occurrence. Evidence did come in that Claimant stated to the trooper who investigated the accident that he was used to riding a smaller motorcycle and had lost control of the one he was riding at the time of the accident.

It is clearly established law that the State does have a duty to maintain the highways in a reasonably safe condition for the purposes for which they are intended. *(Robertson v. State*(1983), 35 Ill. Ct. Cl. 862.) The State has a duty to persons using streets and roads to exercise reasonable care in their maintenance and repair. *(Baren v. State*(1974), 30 Ill. Ct. Cl. 162.) The Claimant, however, retains the burden to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the State breached its duty by allowing a dangerous and hazardous condition to exist even though it knew of the existence of the condition. Further, the Claimant has the burden of proof to prove that the breach of duty was a proximate cause of Claimants injuries and damages. *(Roach v. State*(1986), 38 Ill. Ct. Cl. 171.) Claimant has simply failed to meet that burden of proof, and therefore, we deny this claim.