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

The following certifications are being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350 and in accordance with SEC Release
No. 33-8238. These certifications shall not be deemed "filed" for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, nor shall they be incorporated by
reference in any filing of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.

Certification of Chief Executive Officer

Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Weider Nutrition International, Inc., a
Delaware corporation (the "Company"), hereby certifies, to his knowledge, that:



|Dated: October 7, 2003 |  | /s/BRUCE J. WOODBruce J. Wood
Chief Executive Officer
|---------------------- |  | -----------------------------------------------------

Certification of Chief Financial Officer

Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Weider Nutrition International, Inc. a
Delaware, corporation (the "Company"), hereby certifies, to his knowledge, that:



|Dated: October 7, 2003 |  | /s/JOSEPH W. BATYJoseph W. Baty
Chief Financial Officer
|---------------------- |  | -------------------------------------------------------

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

23

---

QuickLinks
# C_2023337EN.01000201.xml

| 25.9.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 337/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.9.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 337/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.11223 – PAI PARTNERS / INFRA GROUP)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2023/C 337/02)

On 18 September 2023, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the ‘Competition policy’ website of the Commission (https://competition-cases.ec.europa.eu/search). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the ‘Competition policy’ website of the Commission (https://competition-cases.ec.europa.eu/search). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32023M11223. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32023M11223. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.

---

(1)  
  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---
### 2002 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit

1-29-2002 

# C h a r les v . T in a D ' An gelo I nc

P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al :

D ock e t 99-1598

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s a t : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w
. v i l l a no v a
. e du/thir dc ir c uit_2002

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o y ou for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit a t V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. I t h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2002 D e c i sion s b y a n a uthor i z e d a dmini s tr a t or of V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. F or mor e infor m a t ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min

. C a rl s on@l a

w
. v i l l a no v a
. e du

. 

### R e c omme nde d C it a t ion

" C h a rle s v . T in a D ' An g e lo I nc " (2002). 2002 D e cisio n s

. P a pe r 59. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w
. v i l l a no v a
. e du/thir dc ir c uit_2002/59UNREPORTED - NO T PRECEDENTIAL

THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________
No. 99-1598

___________

TRYONE A. CHARLES

v.
TINA D'ANGELO, INC., d/b/a TINA'S BRIDAL BO UTIQUE; LEE WYCOFF, EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF TINA D'ANGELO-WYCOFF, DECEASED; LEE WYC OFF

Appellants.

___________

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVAN IA

(D.C. Civil No. 97-cv-04113) District Judge: The Honorable James T. G iles

___________ Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1( a) JANUARY 22, 2002

BEFORE: NYGAARD and STAPLETON, Circuit Ju dges, and CAPUTO, District Judge.

(Filed )

___________

MEMORANDUM OPINION OF THE COURT

___________

NYGAARD, Circuit Judge. Tyrone A. Charles filed a complaint agains t appellants contending that they breached, or illegally ended, a contract with him b ecause of his race. Heis AfricanAmerican. A jury returned a verdict in favor of ap pellants and against Charles. Appellants filed a petition to amend the judgment t o add an award of attorney's feespursuant to 42 U.S.C.  1988. The District Court denied their petition.

We review this denial for an abuse of discretion. Finding none, w e will affirm. The Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Award Act of 1976, 42 U.S.C.  1988, permits the court to award attorney's fees to the " prevailing party" in suits brought under the federal civil rights statutes. The district co urts have been given discretion to decide whether, in their judgment, a plaintiff's claim was frivolous or groundless. In this matter, the District Court compared the "thrust of the plai ntiff's contention" with the evidence he adduced at trial, and concluded that attorney's fee s were not indicated. We believe the decision was within the Court's discretion, see no abuse, and will affirm.

TO THE CLERK:
Please file the foregoing opinion.

Richard L. Nygaard Circuit Judge
#### § 57.4602 Gauges and regulators.

Gauges and regulators used with oxygen or acetylene cylinders shall be kept clean and free of oil and grease.
#### § 7.52 New technology.

MSHA may approve a battery assembly that incorporates technology for which the requirements of this subpart are not applicable, if the Agency determines that the battery assembly is as safe as those which meet the requirements of this subpart.
p. 1 

# OAR Box 1828 Prepped by Ollie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 54 ) ll-K - (B ) -4 2 Docket Number: 

# A-83-2 7

Printed 11/12/2008 11:12:49 AM Sheet 54 of 325P. 2 

# A- 8
II-K-(B)-4 2
EMERGINGTECHNOLOGIES . Lette r fro

m T . Hogan , EE

A t o R . Short , EPA:SASD . Jul y 8 , 1980 . THI S INFORMATION

CA N B E FOUNDI

N DOCKE T A-79-02 , ITE

M II-K-(B)-4 2
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-10202

Summary Calendar

SIYUAN LIU,

Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

LEE F. JACKSON, as Chancellor of the University of North Texas System;

DOCTOR SCOTT RANSOM, as President of the University of North Texas

Health Science Center; DOCTOR THOMAS MOORMAN, a natural person,

Defendants - Appellees

______________________________

CONSOLIDATED WITH 10-10674

______________________________

SIYUAN LIU,

Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

DOCTOR THOMAS MOORMAN, a natural person,

Defendant - Appellee

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas (Ft. Worth Div.)

USDC 4:09-CV-415

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

March 17, 2011

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 10-10202 Document: 00511414495 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/17/2011
No. 10-10202 c/w 10-10674

Before KING, BENAVIDES, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

*

Plaintiff-Appellant Siyuan Liu contends that the district court did not

consider his claim of fraud on the court. However, Liu never presented a motion

to the district court regarding the alleged fraud on the court or attempted in any

way to seek relief from the district court on this issue. Instead, Liu filed a notice

of appeal from the district court’s orders granting Defendants-Appellees’ 12(b)

motions to dismiss, even though nothing contained in the 12(b) motions relates

to the granting or denial of any fraud on the court allegations as set out in the

complaint. Because Liu failed to seek relief on his fraud on the court claim from

the district court, this issue is not properly before us. In addition, in his briefs

on appeal, Liu fails to allege any error by the district court regarding his 12(b)

dismissals. See Sanders v. Unum Life Ins. Co. of Am., 553 F.3d 922, 926 (5th

Cir. 2008) (“A party waives an issue if he fails to adequately brief it on appeal.”).

AFFIRMED.

Pursuant to 5th Cir. 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

2

Case: 10-10202 Document: 00511414495 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/17/2011
### §2422. Office of Defense Nuclear Security

#### (a) Establishment

There is within the Administration an Office of Defense Nuclear Security, headed by a Chief appointed by the Secretary of Energy. The Administrator shall recommend to the Secretary suitable candidates for such position.

#### (b) Chief of Defense Nuclear Security

(1) The head of the Office of Defense Nuclear Security is the Chief of Defense Nuclear Security, who shall report to the Administrator and shall implement the security policies directed by the Secretary and Administrator.

(2) The Chief shall have direct access to the Secretary and all other officials of the Department and the contractors of the Department concerning security matters.

(3) The Chief shall be responsible for the development and implementation of security programs for the Administration, including the protection, control and accounting of materials, and for the physical security for all facilities of the Administration.

(Pub. L. 106–65, div. C, title XXXII, §3232, Oct. 5, 1999, 113 Stat. 960; Pub. L. 109–364, div. C, title XXXI, §3117(b)(1), Oct. 17, 2006, 120 Stat. 2507; Pub. L. 118–31, div. C, title XXXI, §3111(2), Dec. 22, 2023, 137 Stat. 788.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2023—Subsec. (b)(3). Pub. L. 118–31 struck out "and cyber" after "physical".

2006—Pub. L. 109–364, §3117(b)(1)(A), struck out "Office of Defense Nuclear Counterintelligence and" before "Office of Defense Nuclear Security" in section catchline.

Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 109–364, §3117(b)(1)(B), added subsec. (a) and struck out heading and text of former subsec. (a). Text read as follows:

"(1) There are within the Administration—

"(A) an Office of Defense Nuclear Counterintelligence; and

"(B) an Office of Defense Nuclear Security.

"(2) Each office established under paragraph (1) shall be headed by a Chief appointed by the Secretary of Energy. The Administrator shall recommend to the Secretary suitable candidates for each such position."

Subsecs. (b), (c). Pub. L. 109–364, §3117(b)(1)(C), (D), redesignated subsec. (c) as (b) and struck out former subsec. (b) which related to the Chief of Defense Nuclear Counterintelligence.

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

#### Effective Date

Section effective Mar. 1, 2000, see section 3299 of Pub. L. 106–65, set out as a note under section 2401 of this title.
#### SWAN v. INDERLIED.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.

March 8, 1905.)

Action by Silas T. Swan against Edward C. Inderlied.

PER CURIAM.

Motion for leave to go to the Court of Appeals granted, and question certified as follows: “On the statement of facts, as conceded and stipulated by the parties and printed in the record, is the plaintiff entitled to judgment as demanded in the complaint?”
### §31307. Minimum training requirements for operators of longer combination vehicles

(a) Definition.—In this section, "longer combination vehicle" means a vehicle consisting of a truck tractor and more than one trailer or semitrailer that operates on the Dwight D. Eisenhower System of Interstate and Defense Highways with a gross vehicle weight of more than 80,000 pounds.

(b) Requirements.—The Secretary of Transportation shall maintain regulations establishing minimum training requirements for operators of longer combination vehicles. The training shall include certification of an operator's proficiency by an instructor who has met the requirements established by the Secretary.

(Pub. L. 103–272, §1(e), July 5, 1994, 108 Stat. 1020; Pub. L. 112–141, div. C, title II, §32931(c), July 6, 2012, 126 Stat. 829; Pub. L. 114–94, div. A, title V, §5508(b)(5), Dec. 4, 2015, 129 Stat. 1554.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 31307(a) | 49 App.:2302 (note). | Dec. 18, 1991, Pub. L. 102–240, §4007(f), 105 Stat. 2153. |
| 31307(b) | 49 App.:2302 (note). | Dec. 18, 1991, Pub. L. 102–240, §4007(b), 105 Stat. 2152. |

Section

In subsection (a), the words "a vehicle consisting" are substituted for "any combination" for clarity. The words "Dwight D. Eisenhower System of Interstate and Defense Highways" are substituted for "National System of Interstate and Defense Highways" because of the Act of October 15, 1990 (Public Law 101–427, 104 Stat. 927).

In subsection (b), the words "Not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall initiate a rulemaking proceeding" are omitted as executed.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2015—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 114–94, §5508(b)(5), amended Pub. L. 112–141, §32931(c). See 2012 Amendment note below.

2012—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 112–141, §32931(c), as amended by Pub. L. 114–94, §5508(b)(5), substituted "The Secretary of Transportation shall maintain" for "Not later than December 18, 1994, the Secretary of Transportation shall prescribe".

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

#### Effective Date of 2015 Amendment

Pub. L. 114–94, div. A, title V, §5508(b), Dec. 4, 2015, 129 Stat. 1554, provided that the amendment made by section 5508(b)(5) is effective as of July 6, 2012, and as if included in Pub. L. 112–141 as enacted.

#### Effective Date of 2012 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 112–141 effective Oct. 1, 2012, see section 3(a) of Pub. L. 112–141, set out as an Effective and Termination Dates of 2012 Amendment note under section 101 of Title 23, Highways.
### §404n. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 404n, comprising section 313 of the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003, Pub. L. 107–306, was editorially reclassified as section 3361 of this title.
Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-13-0002125

01-SEP-2016

01:56 PM
§ 56.6602 Static electricity dissipation during loading. When explosive material is loaded pneumatically into a blasthole in a manner that generates a static electricity hazard— ( a ) An evaluation of the potential static electricity hazard shall be made and any hazard shall be eliminated before loading begins;
( b ) The loading hose shall be of a semiconductive type, have a total of not more than 2 megohms of resistance over its entire length and not less than 1000 ohms of resistance per foot;
( c ) Wire-countered hoses shall not be used;
( d ) Conductive parts of the loading equipment shall be bonded and grounded and grounds shall not be made to other potential sources of extraneous electricity; and
( e ) Plastic tubes shall not be used as hole liners if the hole contains an electric detonator.
##### 



Exhibit 99-2

CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT

I, David E. Meador, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of The
Detroit Edison Company (the Company), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to the best of my
knowledge and belief:



|(1) |  | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2002 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C.
78m or 78o(d)); and
|--- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|   
|(2) |  | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.                                                                                             

|       |  |                 |                                                                                 | 
|------ |  | --------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 
|Dated: |  | August 14, 2002 | /s/ DAVID E. MEADOR                                                            
|       |  |                 |                                                                                
|       |  |                 | David E. Meador                                                                
|       |  |                 | Senior Vice
President and
Chief Financial Officer of
The Detroit Edison Company
#### City of Stamford *v.*Milivoje Kovac

The Supreme Court docket number is SC 14644.

*James V. Minor,*in support of the petition.

*Sigmund L. Miller,*in opposition.

Decided November 5, 1992

The plaintiffs petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 29 Conn. App. 105 (AC 10693), is granted, limited to the following questions:

“In the circumstances of this case, should the Appellate Court have treated the trial court’s temporary injunction as an appealable final judgment?

“In the circumstances of this case, did the Appellate Court-correctly conclude that the trial court exceeded its powers on issuing the temporary injunction?”
exv10w29



 



Exhibit 10.29



US LIQUIDS INC.

COMPENSATION PROPOSAL

William M. DeArman




	 	 	 
	Title	 	
Chairman and Interim Chief Executive Officer; direct
report to Board of Directors.
	 	 	 
	Base Salary	 	
$240,000
	 	 	 
	Incentive Plan	 	
Annual cash bonus targeted at 50% of base salary.
Bonus formula to be determined annually by Company’s
compensation committee and consistent with position and
formula established for other executive officers.
	 	 	 
	Equity Awards	 	
Option grant at current stock price for 300,000 shares.
Vesting monthly over 3 years. Only 100,000 shares
vested if employment is terminated prior to one year
from date of employment. In the event employee’s
position is made permanent then full vesting on sale,
change of control, termination without cause,
termination by employee for Good Reason (see severance
agreement)
	 	 	 
	Employment Agreement	 	
None.
	 	 	 
	Severance

Agreement	 	
Applicable the earlier of one year after date of
employment as Interim CEO or time at which employee’s
position is made permanent.
	 	 	 
	 	 	
Severance Pay: one year for “Termination Without
Cause” or termination by employee for “Good Reason”.
Severance amount based on total cash compensation.
Continuation of medical insurance during severance
period.
	 	 	 
	 	 	
Good Reason: Customary, but specifically including
relocation, reduction in compensation, reduction in
responsibilities, change of control of more than 30%
(unless from raising new capital or restructuring),
failure to have D&O insurance in force, wrongful acts
by executive officers which are not cured (e.g.
violations of Sarbanes Oxley, etc.)
	 	 	 
	Benefits	 	
Insurance, retirement plan, and other benefits
consistent with those of other executive officers.
	 	 	 
	Other	 	
One outside public company board position is permissible
§ 282.1 Purpose and authority. ( a ) The Act authorizes the Secretary to prescribe such rules and regulations as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of the Act (43 U.S.C. 1334). The Secretary is authorized to prescribe and amend regulations that the Secretary determines to be necessary and proper in order to provide for the prevention of waste, conservation of the natural resources of the OCS, and the protection of correlative rights therein. In the enforcement of safety, environmental, and conservation laws and regulations, the Secretary is authorized to cooperate with adjacent States and other Departments and Agencies of the Federal Government.
( b ) Subject to the supervisory authority of the Secretary, and unless otherwise specified, the regulations in this part shall be administered by the Director of BSEE.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Joshua White, Appellant.

Motion for leave to appeal as a poor person, will be treated as a motion to dispense with printing. Motion granted. The appeal will be heard on the original papers and on a typewritten brief. The appellant is directed to file five copies of his brief and to serve one copy. The appellant’s time to perfect the appeal is enlarged to the January 1961 Term. Motion for assignment of counsel granted. Norman B. Johnson, Esq., 1 Bainbridge Street, Brooklyn, New York, is assigned as counsel to prosecute the appeal. Nolan, P. J., Beldock, Ughetta, Kleinfeld and Christ, JJ., concur.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

February 19, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

135173 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

BENJAMIN ISRAEL SACHS, Personal Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, Representative of the Estate of Justices Janis Chernoff Sachs,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 135173 

 COA: 270321 
 Wayne CC: 99-929550-NH

SINAI HOSPITAL OF GREATER 

DETROIT, a/k/a SINAI HOSPITAL, 

and DETROIT MEDICAL CENTER, 

 Defendants-Appellants. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the September 20, 2007 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

l0211 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

February 19, 2008 

 Clerk