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


CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION
      1350AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF
      2002


In
      condition with the Amendment No. 1 to Annual Report on Form 10-K of Polydex
      Pharmaceuticals Limited (the “Company”) for the fiscal year ended January 31,
      2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
      (the “Report”), I, George G. Usher, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
      certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350 as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:


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


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


By
            /s/  George G. UsherGeorge G. Usher,Chief Executive OfficerMarch 21, 2006


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.


---
### §4907. Permissive terms in plans

#### (a) Description of terms and provisions; prohibition

Any plan issued under this chapter may contain one or more of the terms and provisions described in this section, but except as provided in section 4906 of this title no others.

#### (b) Exemptions

The plan may provide for the exemption, from the provisions of the plan, of watermelons used for nonfood uses, and authority for the Board to establish satisfactory safeguards against improper use of such exemption.

#### (c) Designation of different handler payment and reporting schedules for assessments

The plan may provide for the designation of different handler payment and reporting schedules with respect to assessments, as provided for in sections 4906 and 4908 of this title, to recognize differences in marketing practices and procedures used in different production areas.

#### (d) Advertising and sales promotion programs or projects

The plan may provide for the establishment, issuance, effectuation, and administration of appropriate programs or projects for the advertising and other sales promotion of watermelons and for the disbursement of necessary funds for such purposes. Any such program or project shall be directed toward increasing the general demand for watermelons, and promotional activities shall comply with the provisions of section 4906(g) of this title.

#### (e) Marketing objectives of research and development projects and studies

The plan may provide for establishing and carrying out research and development projects and studies to the end that the marketing and use of watermelons may be encouraged, expanded, improved, or made more efficient, and for the disbursement of necessary funds for such purposes.

#### (f) Reserve funds; limitation

The plan may provide authority for the accumulation of reserve funds from assessments collected under this chapter, to permit an effective and continuous coordinated program of research, development, advertising, and promotion in years when watermelon production and assessment income may be reduced, except that the total reserve fund may not exceed the amount budgeted for two years operation.

#### (g) Foreign market sales

The plan may provide for the use of funds from assessments collected under this chapter, with the approval of the Secretary, for the development and expansion of sales of watermelons in foreign markets.

#### (h) Other terms and conditions

The plan may contain terms and conditions incidental to and not inconsistent with the terms and conditions specified in this chapter and necessary to effectuate the other provisions of the plan.

(Pub. L. 99–198, title XVI, §1648, Dec. 23, 1985, 99 Stat. 1625.)
###### U.S. Department of Education

###### Grant Performance Report (ED 524B)

###### Project Status Chart

PR/Award # (11 characters): ______________________

**SECTION A - Performance Objectives Information and Related Performance Measures Data**(See Instructions.  Use as many pages as necessary.)

**1. Project Objective [  ]** Check if this is a status update for the previous budget period.

Explanation of Progress (Include Qualitative Data and Data Collection Information)

###### U.S. Department of Education

###### Grant Performance Report (ED 524B)

###### Project Status Chart

PR/Award #  (11 characters): ______________________

**SECTION A - Performance Objectives Information and Related Performance Measures Data**(See Instructions.  Use as many pages as necessary.)

**2. Project Objective [  ]** Check if this is a status update for the previous budget period.

Explanation of Progress (Include Qualitative Data and Data Collection Information)

###### U.S. Department of Education

###### Grant Performance Report (ED 524B)

###### Project Status Chart

PR/Award # (11 characters): ______________________

**SECTION B - Budget Information (**See Instructions.  Use as many pages as necessary.)

**SECTION C - Additional Information  (**See Instructions.  Use as many pages as necessary.)

OMB No. 1894-0003

Exp. 07/31/2024

OMB No. 1875-0106

Exp. 06/30/2001

OMB No. 1875-0106

Exp. 06/30/2001

OMB No. 1894-0003

Exp. 07/31/2024

OMB No. 1875-0106

Exp. 06/30/2001

OMB No. 1875-0106

Exp. 06/30/2001

OMB No. 1894-0003

Exp. 07/31/2024

OMB No. 1875-0106

Exp. 06/30/2001

OMB No. 1875-0106

Exp. 06/30/2001

ED 524BPage **1** of **2**

# _1688561665.doc

# _1688561666.doc

# _1688561664.doc
#### In the Matter of Myron M. Sparber, an Attorney, Respondent. Co-Ordinating Committee on Discipline of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York, the New York County Lawyers’ Association and the Bronx County Bar Association, Petitioner.

First Department,

May 29, 1962.

*Henry Weiner*for petitioner.

*Per Curiam.*

In this disciplinary proceeding the respondent was admitted to practice on March 21, 1949 at a term of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, First Judicial Department. On April 3, 1962 respondent was convicted by a jury of a violation of section 1632 of the Penal Law, which is a felony under New York State law. In consequence of such conviction, and pursuant to subdivision 4 of section 90 of the Judiciary Law, the respondent has ceased to be an attorney and counselor at law or to be competent to practice law in this State. Accordingly, the respondent should be disbarred from the practice of law. *(Matter of Ginsberg,*IN Y2d 144.)

Rabin, J. P., Valente, McNally, Stevens and Eager, JJ., concur.

Respondent struck from the roll of attorneys and counselors at law in the State of New York pursuant to subdivision 4 of section 90 of the Judiciary Law of the State of New York.
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 7 (Tuesday, January 12, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2416-2417]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-00415]


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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding 
Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for 
approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 
1841 et seq.) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR part 225), and all other 
applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company 
and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the 
power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the 
banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, 
including the companies listed below.
    The public portions of the applications listed below, as well as 
other related filings required by the Board, if any, are available for 
immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank(s) indicated below and 
at the offices of the Board of Governors. This information may also be 
obtained on an expedited basis, upon request, by contacting the 
appropriate Federal Reserve Bank and from the Board's Freedom of 
Information Office at https://www.federalreserve.gov/foia/request.htm. 
Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards 
enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)).
    Comments regarding each of these applications must be received at 
the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors, 
Ann E. Misback, Secretary of the Board, 20th Street and Constitution 
Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20551-0001, not later than February 10, 2021.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis (David L. Hubbard, Senior 
Manager) P.O. Box 442, St. Louis, Missouri 63166-2034. Comments can 
also be sent electronically to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#6a290507070f041e19440b1a1a0603090b1e030504192a191e0619440c18084405180d"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="3c7f5351515952484f125d4c4c50555f5d485553524f7c4f48504f125a4e5e12534e5b">[email protected]</span></a>:
    1. HNB Bancorp, Inc., Hannibal, Missouri; to become a bank holding 
company by acquiring HNB National Bank, Hannibal, Missouri.


[[Page 2417]]


    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, January 7, 
2021.
Michele Taylor Fennell,
Deputy Associate Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 2021-00415 Filed 1-8-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### 1.400 Scope of subpart.

This subpart prescribes the policies and procedures for authorizing deviations from the FAR. Exceptions pertaining to the use of forms prescribed by the FAR are covered in part 53 rather than in this subpart.
#### Selwyn Cohen, Respondent, v American Beverage Corp., Appellant.

— Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered December 19, 1977, granting summary judgment in the amount of $30,000, but staying execution pending expeditious resolution of the defendant’s counterclaims, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs and without disbursements, and the motion denied. Appeal from order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered March 13, 1978, denying reargument, dismissed, without costs and without disbursements. The plaintiff was the president and a director of the defendant, a publicly held corporation. The corporation had issued 10-year subordinated debentures. The debenture agreement provided for setting aside $50,000 each year as a sinking fund against maturity, or alternately to acquire and retire each year $50,000 in face amount of such debentures. The corporation followed the latter procedure since it could acquire debentures on the market at a substantial discount. Because the parties were short on funds, a loan agreement was entered into, pursuant to which Mr. Cohen, its president, would lend to the corporation debentures owned by him in exchange for an advance of $35,000 in cash. There is a sharp dispute as to the reason for this agreement or for the options as alternatives for replacing the debentures or the repayment of the money loaned for the two years in which the arrangement was in effect. Among other things, the corporation contends that its president did not proceed diligently to purchase debentures in the open market, and thus eventually they had to pay the face value on the debentures. In view of the disputed issues and the fact that a determination with respect to the complaint would not conclude the matter, *Security-Columbian Banknote Co., Div. of U. S. Banknote Corp. v Strategic Data Centers*(36 AD2d 716), we reverse and deny summary judgment. An appeal does not lie from the denial of a motion for reargument. *(Dayon*v *Chemical Bank,*45 AD2d 827.) Concur— Kupferman, J. P., Birns, Markewich and Sandler, JJ.
Appeal No. 75-33.

#### Leroy W. Armstrong *v.*Virginia D. Armstrong.

*James P. Flynn,*for appellant. *Abedon, Stanzler, Biener, Skolnik & Lipsey, Milton Stanzler,*for appellee.

Motion of appellee, Virginia D. Armstrong, to advance for early argument is granted. The matter assigned to the calendar for May 5, 1975 for oral argument.
#### 1542.705-70 Solicitation and contract clause.

The Contracting Officer shall insert the clause in 1552.242-70, Indirect Costs, in solicitations and contracts where indirect costs apply, unless contracting with an educational institution where there are approved predetermined final indirect cost rates.

[62 FR 33573, June 20, 1997]
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT

T.M., A CHILD , Petitioner ,
v. Case No. 5D 17

- 3053 LT No. 2016

- CJ

- 004393

- A

- O STATE OF FLORIDA , Respondent

. ________________________________/ Opinion filed September 29, 2017
Petition for W rit of Habeas Corpus, A Case of Original Jurisdiction. Robert Wesley, Public Defender , and Stephanie Nicole Osman, Assistant Public Defender , Orlando, and Sarah L. B. Jordan, Assistant Public Defender, Kissimmee, for Petitioner. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Pamela J. Koller, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach , for Respondent.

PER CURIAM

. Petitioner seeks a writ of habeas corpus, alleging that he is being wrongfully
detained in sec ure detention. Petitioner pled to lewd and lascivious conduct on a victim
less than twelve years of age , and the trial court ordered Petitioner hel d in secure detention while awaiting an opening in a non - secure residential commitment program

. Petitioner did not score high enough for secure detention on his risk assessment2

instrument , and the State concedes that the trial court did not enter any writt en findings
otherw ise justifying secure detention. Generally , determinations regarding placement of a minor in secure detention are based on the risk assessment. § 985.245(1), Fla. Stat

. (2016). However, s ection 985.255 permits the court to otherwise orde r secure detention based upon written findings. See § 985.255, Fla. Stat. (2016). However, " [w] here a statute requires a written order giving findings and reasons, the transcript of the proceedings upon which the order was based
cannot act as a substitut e." A.D. v. State , 45 So. 3d 575, 576 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) ( quoting R.B.S. v. Capri , 384 So. 2d 692, 696 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980 ) )

. Although the trial court made findings of fact at the hearing sufficient to support secure detention, the trial court failed to enter a written order reflecting those findings as required by statute

. Therefore, we direct the trial court to either enter a written order justifying Petitioner's secure detention , or to order Petitioner's release therefrom, by 5:00 p.m. on the second b usiness day following the d ate of issuance of this opinion. See A.D. v. State , 45 So. 3d at 576

. PETITION GRANTED.

ORFINGER , EDWARDS , and EISNAUGLE, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>
                                  EXHIBIT 99.2

                   CERTIFICATE OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                                   OF ELKCORP

      Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.ss.
1350):

      I, Harold R. Beattie, Jr., Chief Financial Officer of ElkCorp, certify to
my knowledge and belief pursuant to Section 906 of Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
(18 U.S.C.ss. 1350) that:

      (1)   The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended December 31,
            2002, which this statement accompanies, 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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for
            the period ended December 31, 2002 fairly presents, in all material
            respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
            ElkCorp.

Dated: February 3, 2003
                                           By /s/ Harold R. Beattie, Jr.
                                              -------------------------------
                                                  Harold R. Beattie, Jr.
                                                  Chief Financial Officer
#### In the Matter of Harold Duchin, Petitioner, v. Lynn N. Peterson, as Nassau County Judge, Respondent.

Application, pursuant to article 78 of the Civil Practice Act, to prohibit a County Judge from proceeding with a jury trial in the County Court, Nassau County, of an indictment charging petitioner with the carnal abuse of a child and related crimes, after *623the County Judge’s refusal to accept petitioner’s tender of his written waiver of trial by jury. Petitioner contends that he has an absolute right to waive trial by jury; and that, even if the County Judge has discretionary power to reject the waiver, the exercise of such power in the circumstances here would constitute an abuse of discretion and would seriously prejudice petitioner’s right to a fair trial because of the nature of the charges and because there already has been adverse publicity. Application denied and petition dismissed. In our opinion, the remedy of prohibition is not available to petitioner. Prohibition should not issue except in cases of extraordinary circumstances or extreme necessity, and when there is no other adequate remedy *(Matter of Consolidated Edison Co.*v. *Murtagh,*201 Misc. 244, affd. 279 App. Div. 865). The protection of petitioner’s rights, on appeal, in the event of a judgment of conviction, is an adequate remedy *(People ex rel. Livingston*v. *Wyatt,*186 N. Y. 383; *Matter of Brandenburg*v. *Court of General Sessions,*189 Misc. 4, affd.. 272 App. Div. 1013). Presently, we do not reach the question as to whether there is an absolute right to waiver of trial by jury in a criminal case; or whether, absent such absolute right, the County Judge’s rejection of the waiver is an abuse of discretion. Beldock, Acting P. J., Ughetta, Kleinfeld, Christ and Pette, JJ., concur.
11 TH C OURT OF A PPEALS

E ASTLAND

, T EXAS

J UDGMENT

Cleveland Thomas and * From the 39th District Court

$832.82 U.S. Currency, of Haskell County,

Trial Court No. 11,891

.

Vs. No. 11

- 15

- 00100

- CV * June 5, 2015

The State of Texas

, * Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

(Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

Willson , J. , and Bailey, J. )

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that the appeal

should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction . Therefore, in accordance with this

court ’ s opinion, the appeal is dismissed.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

SHIRLEY WASHBURN,

ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF DONALD WASHBURN,

Respondent

v.

NORTHERN HEALTH FACILITIES, INC.; EXTENDICARE HEALTH FACILITIES, INC.; EXTENDICARE HEALTH SERVICES, INC.; EXTENDICARE HEALTH NETWORK, INC.; EXTENDICARE HOLDINGS, INC.; EXTENDICARE, INC.; EXTENDICARE REIT; EXTENDICARE, L.P.,

Petitioners :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 695 MAL 2015

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 28th day of February, 2017

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED

.

Justice Donohue did not participate in the consideration or decision of this

matter.
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane l unani m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T G E R A R D O O R T IZ C U E N C A ; M A R IA GR I S E L DA E S P I NO Z A, P et i t i o n ers, v. E R I C H . H O L D E R , J r ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 08- 72393 A ge nc yN os . A 079- 280- 760

A 079- 280- 761 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

an O r de rof

the B o ar do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d O c t obe r19, 2010 ** B efo re: O ’ S C A N N L A IN , T A L L M A N , an dB E A , C i rcu i tJu d g es. G e r ar do O rt i z C ue nc aand M ar i aG r i s e l daE s pi noz a , na t i ve s and c i t i z e ns of M exi co, pet i t i on for r evi ew of the B oard of Im m i grat i on A pp ea l s’ (“ B IA ”) order denyi ng thei r m ot i on t o reopen rem ov alproceedi ng s. W e have j uri sdi ct i on un der 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 . W e r e v ie w f o rab u s e o f

d is c r e tio n th e d e n ia l o f am o tio n to 

# FI LED OC T 26 2010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS08- 72393 2 re op en, and revi ew de no vo const i tut i on alcl ai m s, i ncl ud i ng i neff ec t i ve as si st ance o f c o u n s e l c la im s . Moh am m ed v. G on zales , 4 0 0 F .3 d7 8 5 , 7 9 1 - 9 2 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) . We d e n yth e p e t i t i o n f

o rr e v i e w. T he B I A di d notabus e i t s di s c r e t i on i n de ny i ng pe t i t i one r s ’ F e bruary13, 2 0 0 8 , m o tio n to r e o p e n f o rla c ko f

p r e ju d ic e . Se e I

tu rr i b a rr i a v . I

NS , 321 F . 3d 88 9, 89 9-90 (9th C i r. 20 03 ) ( prej ud i ce re sul t s w hen the performance of coun se l

“ w as so i nadequ at e thati tm ayhave aff ec t ed the ou t com e of the proceedi ng s” ) (i nt ernal qu ot at i on m arks om i tt ed). P E T I T I ON F OR RE V I E W DE NI E D.
EXHIBIT
13.2





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 Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report of Avino Silver &
Gold Mines Ltd. (the “Company”) on Form 20-F for the twelve months ended
December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the “Report”).  I, Lisa Sharp, Principal Financial
Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of
my knowledge and belief:





(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.













Date: February 10,
      2010/s/ Lisa
    SharpLisa
      Sharp,
              Principal
      Financial Officer
#### 1433.102 General.

For protests filed with GAO, the SOL shall be responsible for handling all bid protest matters. Any communications to GAO shall be coordinated with the regional and/or field solicitor and the Assistant Solicitor, Acquisitions and Intellectual Property.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

FASCIA EDWARDS, )

)

)

Plaintiff, )

) 12 C 371

v. ) Hon. Marvin E. Aspen

)

ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF )

FINANCE PROFESSIONAL )

REGULATIONS, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

ORDER

MARVIN E. ASPEN, District Judge:

Presently before us is the Report and Recommendation (“Report”) of Magistrate Judge 

Maria Valdez on Plaintiff’s motion to enforce the parties’ settlement agreement. (Mot. to 

Enforce (Dkt. No. 270); Report (Dkt. No. 279).) The Report recommends denying Plaintiff’s 

motion because we lack jurisdiction to hear this matter. (Report at 2–3.) Neither party filed 

objections to the Report by the deadline. After careful consideration of the Report and the 

parties’ submissions, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), we hereby adopt the 

Report. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for to enforce the settlement agreement is denied. It is 

so ordered.

___________________________________

Honorable Marvin E. Aspen

United States District Judge

Dated: May 31, 2019

Chicago, Illinois