alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit
      32.01**






**CERTIFICATION
      OF INTERIM CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**


(Pursuant
      to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)





I,
      Catherine Thompson, Interim Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
      of MATRIXX RESOURCE HOLDINGS, INC. (the "Registrant"), do hereby certify in
      accordance with 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, based on my knowledge:




(1) 
       the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Registrant, to which this
      certification is attached as an exhibit (the "Report"), fully complies with
      the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
      Act of  1934, as amended ;




and




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




Date:
      November 20, 2006




/s/
      Catherine Thompson


Catherine
      Thompson


Interim
      Chief Executive Officer and


Chief
      Financial Officer
§ 846.14 Amount of individual civil penalty. ( a ) In determining the amount of an individual civil penalty assessed under § 846.12, the Office shall consider the criteria specified in section 518(a) of the Act, including: ( 1 ) The individual's history of authorizing, ordering or carrying out previous violations, failures or refusals at the particular surface coal mining operation;
( 2 ) The seriousness of the violation, failure or refusal (as indicated by the extent of damage and/or the cost of reclamation), including any irreparable harm to the environment and any hazard to the health or safety of the public; and
( 3 ) The demonstrated good faith of the individual charged in attempting to achieve rapid compliance after notice of the violation, failure or refusal.
( b ) The penalty will not exceed $20,457 for each violation. Each day of a continuing violation may be deemed a separate violation and the Office may assess a separate individual civil penalty for each day the violation, failure or refusal continues, from the date of service of the underlying notice of violation, cessation order or other order incorporated in a final decision issued by the Secretary, until abatement or compliance is achieved.
[53 FR 3675, Feb. 8, 1988, as amended at 62 FR 63277, Nov. 28, 1997; 70 FR 70701, Nov. 22, 2005; 74 FR 34493, July 15, 2009; 79 FR 18448, Apr. 2, 2014; 81 FR 44541, July 8, 2016; 82 FR 9354, Feb. 6, 2017; 83 FR 10616, Mar. 12, 2018; 84 FR 10676, Mar. 22, 2019; 85 FR 20836, Apr. 15, 2020; 86 FR 29515, June 2, 2021; 87 FR 15887, Mar. 21, 2022; 88 FR 24336, Apr. 20, 2023; 89 FR 23911, Apr. 5, 2024]
### §3391. Definitions

For the purpose of this subchapter, "agency", "Senior Executive Service position", "senior executive", "career appointee", "limited term appointee", "limited emergency appointee", "noncareer appointee", and "general position" have the meanings set forth in section 3132(a) of this title.

(Added Pub. L. 95–454, title IV, §403(a), Oct. 13, 1978, 92 Stat. 1161.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 3391, added Pub. L. 95–437, §3(a), Oct. 10, 1978, 92 Stat. 1056, which related to definitions for part-time career employment opportunities, was renumbered as section 3401 of this title by Pub. L. 95–454, title IX, §906(c)(1)(B), Oct. 13, 1978, 92 Stat. 1226.

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

#### Effective Date

Section effective 9 months after Oct. 13, 1978, and congressional review of provisions of sections 401 through 412 of Pub. L. 95–454, see section 415(a)(1), (b) of Pub. L. 95–454, set out as an Effective Date note under section 3131 of this title.
*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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 01-10638

Summary Calendar

 

LARRY BEASLEY,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

JANIE COCKRELL, DIRECTOR,

TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE,

INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION,

 Respondent-Appellee.

 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:01-CV-333-H

 

March 8, 2002

Before POLITZ, STEWART, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Larry Beasley, Texas prisoner # 419554, appeals the denial of his 28 U.S.C. §
1

 Beasley v. Cockrell, No. 01-10638 (5th Cir. Sept. 26, 2001) (unpublished).

2

 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(3).

3 Horsley v. Johnson, 197 F.3d 134, 137 (5th Cir. 1999) (dismissal of

unexhausted claim without prejudice was abuse of discretion where the state court

would have considered the claim procedurally defaulted).

2

2254 petition. We previously granted his motion for a COA on the issue “[w]hether

Beasley has identified a property interest in the restoration of good-time credits

forfeited upon the revocation of his parole such that he was entitled to due process

before restoration of the good-time credits was denied.”1

The Respondent argues for the first time on appeal that Beasley has failed to

exhaust his administrative and state-court remedies. The Respondent was not served

with Beasley’s petition in the district court; therefore, it has not waived the right to rely

on the exhaustion defense.2 We therefore vacate the judgment of the district court and

remand this matter for a determination whether Beasley has exhausted his

administrative and state-court remedies. If the district court determines that Beasley’s

claim is not exhausted, it should further determine whether the petition should be

dismissed without prejudice to allow him to pursue his claim in Texas state court.3

VACATED and REMANDED; Motion to Supplement Record on Appeal

GRANTED.
### §3224a. Authorization of support by Director of National Intelligence for certain workforce activities

#### (a) Authorization

The Director may, with or without reimbursement, obligate or expend amounts authorized to be appropriated or otherwise made available for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence for covered workforce activities for the purpose of supporting a covered workforce activity of an element of the intelligence community.

#### (b) Notification

Not later than 30 days after the date on which the Director exercises the authority in subsection (a), the Director shall submit to the congressional intelligence committees and the Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate written notification of such exercise.

#### (c) Covered workforce activity defined

In this section, the term "covered workforce activity" means an activity relating to—

(1) recruitment or retention of the intelligence community workforce; or

(2) diversity, equality, inclusion, or accessibility, with respect to such workforce.

(July 26, 1947, ch. 343, title X, §1025, as added Pub. L. 117–103, div. X, title III, §304, Mar. 15, 2022, 136 Stat. 965.)
## Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas

JUDGMENT

The State of Texas, Appellant

No. 06

- 13

- 00109

- CR v.
Earl Scott Chesnut, Appellee Appeal from the 8th District Court of Hopkins County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 1021768 ). Memorandum Opinion delivered by J ustice Carter, Chief Justice Morriss and Justice Moseley participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court

below

. We affirm the judgment of the trial court

. We further order that the appellant, The State of Texas, pay all costs of this appeal.

RENDERED FEBRUARY 1 2, 2014 BY ORDER OF THE COURT JOSH R. MORRISS, III CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST: Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
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 Annual Report of Clean Systems Technology Group, Ltd.
(the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2002 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Jacob Lustgarten Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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 result of operations of
          the Company.


April 30, 2003
                                              By: /s/ Jacob Lustgarten
                                              Name: Jacob Lustgarten
                                              Title: Chief Executive Officer



<PAGE>
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 996 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

<DOC>
118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 996

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 3, 2023

     Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland 
                   Security and Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 3901 MacArthur Blvd., in New Orleans, Louisiana, as the ``Dr. Rudy 
                         Lombard Post Office''.

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

SECTION 1. DR. RUDY LOMBARD POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 3901 MacArthur Blvd., in New Orleans, Louisiana, shall be 
known and designated as the ``Dr. Rudy Lombard Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Dr. Rudy 
Lombard Post Office Building''.

            Passed the House of Representatives October 2, 2023.

            Attest:

                                             KEVIN F. MCCUMBER,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
- All
            - Title
            - Author
            - Subject
            - Date
            - Full-Text

            -                              Explore                            ******                - Educational Resources
              - Archival Collections
              -                                      Themes                                    ******                  - Economic Data
                - Federal Reserve
                - View all 
              - Timelines 
            -                              Browse                            ******                - Titles
              - Authors
              - Subjects
              - Dates 
            -                              About                            ******                - About FRASER
              - FAQ
              - Contact Us
              -                                      FRASER API                                    ******                  - REST API
                - OAI-PMH 
            - Inside FRASER Blog

            - **

Home                 > Browse by Title > Hourly Entrance Rates Paid to Common Laborers 1942

              																	Davis, Robert L.					,	Dana, John L.					 and 	United States. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Division of Industrial Relations. 						*Hourly Entrance Rates Paid to Common Laborers 1942 : Bulletin of the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, No. 733*,												Washington, D.C: 								G.P.O., 										1943,									https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/title/4224,			accessed on September 22, 2024.						    

        - **FRASER**
        - About
        - FAQ
        - Legal and Privacy
        - FRASER API

          -                              @FedFRASER 
          - ** Contact Us
          -  **  What's New  
          -  **  Inside FRASER
### §200308. Contracts for acquisition of land and water

Not more than $30,000,000 of the amount authorized to be appropriated from the Fund by section 200303 of this title may be obligated by contract during each fiscal year for the acquisition of land, water, or interest in land or water within areas specified in section 200306(a)(2) of this title. The contract may be executed by the head of the department concerned, within limitations prescribed by the Secretary. The contract shall be a contractual obligation of the United States and shall be liquidated with money appropriated from the Fund specifically for liquidation of that contract obligation. No contract may be entered into for the acquisition of property pursuant to this section unless the acquisition is otherwise authorized by Federal law.

(Pub. L. 113–287, §3, Dec. 19, 2014, 128 Stat. 3179.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 200308 | 16 U.S.C. 460l–10a. | Pub. L. 88–578, title I, §9, formerly §8, as added Pub. L. 90–401, §4, July 15, 1968, 82 Stat. 355; Pub. L. 91–308, §3, July 7, 1970, 84 Stat. 410; renumbered §9, Pub. L. 92–347, §2, July 11, 1972, 86 Stat. 459; Pub. L. 93–303, §3, June 7, 1974, 88 Stat. 194. |

Section

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

#### Rescission of Contract Authority

Provisions rescinding contract authority provided for specific fiscal years by 54 U.S.C. 200308 (formerly 16 U.S.C. 460l–10a) were contained in the appropriation acts that were listed in a note under former section 460l–10a of Title 16, Conservation, and in the following appropriation acts:

Pub. L. 115–31, div. G, title I, May 5, 2017, 131 Stat. 443.

Pub. L. 114–113, div. G, title I, Dec. 18, 2015, 129 Stat. 2532.

Pub. L. 113–235, div. F, title I, Dec. 16, 2014, 128 Stat. 2402.

Pub. L. 113–76, div. G, title I, Jan. 17, 2014, 128 Stat. 295.
### Geologic setting and petrochemistry of the Late Cretaceous-early Tertiary intrusives in the northern Front Range mineral belt, Colorado

By: D.J. Gable

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/pp1280

#### Links

- More information:  **National Geologic Map Database Index Page**                            (html)
-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plate:  **Plate 1**                            (pdf)
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
MEMORANDUM

DATE: August 6, 2015

TO: File / Public Docket EPA–R09–OAR–2015-

FROM: Nicole Law, EPA Region 9, Air Rules Office

RE: Call with San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control Districts on July 29, 

2015 regarding facilities using compliance fee option in SJVAPCD Rule 4702 

between Nicole Law (EPA Region 9) and Errol Villegas (SJVAPCD)

SJVAPCD (Errol) explained he obtained information regarding Rule 4702 from the southern 

region staff. The District is aware of 2 facilities that use the fee compliance option under rule 

4702 for a total of 7 engines. EPA (Nicole) asked to clarify if these facilities were only located 

in the southern region of the District and whether this information is available for the entire 

District. Errol confirmed that although the southern region staff collected the information, it 

applies to the entire District. 2 facilities elect to use the compliance fee option and the majority

of engines comply with the limits of Table 2 in the rule.
<PAGE>

Exhibit 31.2

                                 CERTIFICATIONS

I, Steven G. Larson, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of LaserCard Corporation;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements
made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not
misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

        (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to
ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

        (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls
and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

        (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most
recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting;
and

5. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of
directors:

        (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design
or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; and

        (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control
over financial reporting.


Date: February 8, 2005

/s/ Steven G. Larson
--------------------
Steven G. Larson
Chief Financial Officer


                                       39
#### PEOPLE ex rel. BROOKLYN CITY R. CO., Appellant, v. STATE BOARD OF TAX COM’RS, Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.

January 23, 1903.)

Proceeding by the people of the state of New York, on the relation of the Brooklyn City Railroad Company, against the State Board of Tax Commissioners.

No opinion. Order appealed from affirmed on the facts and reversed on the law, and assessment vacated, upon opinions in People ex rel. Metropolitan St. Ry. Co. v. State Board of Tax Com’rs (decided this term) 80 N. Y. Supp. 85. Form of order, if not agreed upon, to be settled by CHASE, J.
§ 1906.110 Self-evaluation. ( a ) The Agency shall, within one year of the effective date of this part, evaluate its current policies and practices, and the effect thereof, that do not or may not meet the requirements of this part, and to the extent modification of any of those policies and practices is required, the Agency shall proceed to make the necessary modifications.
( b ) The Agency shall provide an opportunity to interested persons, including individuals with handicaps or organizations representing individuals with handicaps to participate in the self-evaluation process by submitting comments (both oral and written).
( c ) The Agency shall, for at least 3 years following completion of the self-evaluation, maintain on file, and make available for public inspection— ( 1 ) A description of areas examined and any problems identified; and
( 2 ) A description of any modifications made.
FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T J UNE 8, 2012 J OHN L EY CL ERK [PUBLISH]
IN THE UN ITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR T HE ELE VENTH C IRC UIT

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ No. 0 9-1189 7

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C . Doc ke t No . 07-00 022-C V-W LS-1 CHA RL ES A. REHB ER G,
Pla int iff-Appe lle e,
ve rsus JAM ES P. PAULK, in h is i ndi vid

ua l c ap ac ity , KENNET H B . HODGE S, III, in h is i ndi vid

ua l c ap ac ity

and in h is o ffici alc ap ac ity

a s Di stri ct Att orne y of Dou ghe rty

Co unt y KELLY R. BUR

KE, i n hi s ind ivi dua l c ap ac ity , De fend ants-Ap pe lla nts , DOUGHERTY C OUNTY, De fend ant.____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appe alfrom

the Uni te d Sta

te s Di stri ct

Co urt for the Mi ddl e Dist

ric t of Ge orgia

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (June 8, 2 012) ON REMAND FRO MTH E SUP REM E C OUR T

OF TH E U NIT ED STAT ES Be fore C ARN ES, HULL an d ANDE RSON, Ci rcui t Ju dge s. PER C URIAM : On M arc h 21 , 201 1, t

he Uni te d Sta

te s Supre m e Co urt gra

nte d Pla int iff Re hbe rg’ s pe tit ion

for ce rtiora

ri a s to the porti on o f thi s C ourt’ s Ju ly 16, 2010 de ci sio n in

Re hbe rg v. Pa

ulk , 611 F.3d 8 28, 8 39–4 0 (11t h C ir. 20 10), t

hat
co nc lud ed

De fend ant Pa

ulk ha d a bsol ute im

m uni ty for his grand j ury

te sti m ony . On Ap ril 2 , 201 2, t

he Uni te d Sta

te s Supre m e Co urt a ffirm ed . R eh be rg v. Pa

ulk , 566 U.S. —, 132 S. C t. 1 497 (2012). W e now re m an d th is c as e to t he Uni te d State s Di stri ct

Co urt for t

he Mi ddl e Dist

ric t of Ge orgia

for furthe r proc ee din gs
co nsi ste nt w ith

our J uly 16, 2010 opi nio n, a

nd s pe ci fic al ly

for entry of ju dgm ent i n favo r of the De fend ants o n a ll cl ai m s e xc ep t for t he ret al iatory

prose cutio n c la im ag ai nst Pau lk i n C ount

7 of R eh be rg’ s c om

pla int
. REMANDE D.

2
#### SPEC, Inc., Respondent, v Sequa Corporation, Appellant.

[833 NYS2d 421]

Appeal from order, Supreme Court, New York County (Herman Cahn, J.), entered February 23, 2006, unanimously withdrawn in accordance with the terms of the settlement and release agreement of the parties hereto. No opinion. Order filed. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Williams, Buckley and McGuire, JJ.