alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

                      CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

                        OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

         Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections
(a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), each
of the undersigned officers of New Century Companies, Inc. (the "Company"), does
hereby certify, to such officer's knowledge, that:

         The Annual Report on Form 10-KSB/A/A for the fiscal year ended December
31, 2001 of the Company fully complies, in all material respects, with the
requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
and information contained in the Form 10-KSB/A fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

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

April 28, 2003                               /s/ David Duquette
                                             ----------------------------------
                                             Name:  David Duquette
                                             Title: Chief Executive Officer and
                                                    Chief Financial Officer
#### 22.103 Overtime.
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 21-11085

Summary Calendar

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Jesus Carreon-Grimaldo, 

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:19-CR-658-1 

Before Higginbotham, Higginson, and Duncan, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Jesus Carreon-Grimaldo appeals the 110-month sentence imposed as 

a result of his conviction for illegal reentry after having been removed. See 8 

U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(1). His sole argument on appeal is that we have 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

May 27, 2022

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 21-11085 Document: 00516336132 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/27/2022
No. 21-11085

2

jurisdiction to review the district court’s denial of his motion for a downward 

departure or variance made pursuant to U.S.S.G. 2L1.2, comment. (n.7). 

Carreon-Grimaldo concedes that the argument is foreclosed by United 

States v. Lucas, 516 F.3d 316, 350-51 (5th Cir. 2008), and United States v. 

Alaniz, 726 F.3d 586, 627 (5th Cir. 2013), but he wishes to preserve it for 

further review. The Government has moved, without opposition, for 

summary affirmance or, in the alternative, for an extension of time in which 

to file a brief on the merits. 

There is nothing in the record to indicate that the district court 

erroneously believed that it did not have the authority to depart. See United 

States v. Fillmore, 889 F.3d 249, 255 (5th Cir. 2018). Therefore, we do not 

have jurisdiction to review the denial of the motion for a downward 

departure. See id. Accordingly, this appeal is DISMISSED for lack of 

jurisdiction. The motion for summary affirmance is DENIED. The 

Government’s alternative motion for an extension of time is, likewise, 

DENIED.

Case: 21-11085 Document: 00516336132 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/27/2022
USGS HomeContact USGSSearch USGS
Open-File Report 2009-1289 
- Home 
- Summary 
- Maps 
- Data Catalog 
- WCMG Home Page 
- Search WCMG 
Bathymetry and Acoustic Backscatter: Northern Santa Barbara Channel, Southern Californiaby 
Pete Dartnell, David Finlayson, Jamie Conrad, Guy Cochrane, Samuel Johnson

2009
Abstract
Figure 1. The Santa Barbara Channel in southern California showing the location of the2008 USGS bathymetry and backscatter mapping (red box). The yellow line shows the3-nautical mile California State jurisdictional limit. 

In the summer of 2008, as part of the California Seafloor Mapping Program (CSMP) the U.S. Geological Survey, Coastal and Marine Geology mapped a nearshore region of the northern Santa Barbara Channel in Southern California (fig 1). The CSMP is a cooperative partnership between Federal and State agencies, Universities, and Industry to create a comprehensive coastal/marine geologic and habitat basemap series to support the Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) inititive. The program is supported by the California Ocean Protection Council and the California Coastal Conservancy. 

The 2008 mapping collected high resolution bathymetry and acoustic backscatter data using a bathymetric side scan system within State waters from about the 10-m isobath out over 3-nautical miles. This Open-File Report provides these data in a number of different formats, as well as a summary of the mapping mission, maps of bathymetry and backscatter, and FGDC metadata. 

For more information contact: Peter Dartnell

AccessibilityFOIAPrivacyPolicies and Notices

U.S. Department of the Interior | U.S. Geological SurveyURL: http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2009/1289/index.htmlPage Contact Information: Michael DigglesPage Last Modified: 11 April 2010 (pd)
207.470 Statutory requirements. ( a ) *Requirement for authorization of certain contracts relating to vessels, aircraft, and combat vehicles.* The contracting officer shall not enter into any contract for the lease or charter of any vessel, aircraft, or combat vehicle, or any contract for services that would require the use of the contractor's vessel, aircraft, or combat vehicle, unless the Secretary of the military department concerned has satisfied the requirements of 10 U.S.C. 3671-3677, when— ( 1 ) The contract will be a long-term lease or charter as defined in 10 U.S.C. 3674(a)(1); or
( 2 ) The terms of the contract provide for a substantial termination liability as defined in 10 U.S.C. 3674(b). Also see PGI 207.470.
( b ) *Limitation on contracts with terms of 18 months or more.* As required by 10 U.S.C. 3678, the contracting officer shall not enter into any contract for any vessel, aircraft, or vehicle, through a lease, charter, or similar agreement with a term of 18 months or more, or extend or renew any such contract for a term of 18 months or more, unless the head of the contracting activity has— ( 1 ) Considered all costs of such a contract (including estimated termination liability); and
( 2 ) Determined in writing that the contract is in the best interest of the Government.
( c ) *Leasing of commercial vehicles and associated equipment.* Except as provided in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, the contracting officer may use leasing in the acquisition of commercial vehicles and associated equipment whenever the contracting officer determines that leasing of such vehicles is practicable and efficient (10 U.S.C. 3681).
[61 FR 16879, Apr. 18, 1996, as amended at 61 FR 50451, Sept. 26, 1996; 74 FR 34266, July 15, 2009; 87 FR 76990, Dec. 16, 2022]
U.S. Dept Commerce/NOAA/NMFS/NWFSC/Publications
NOAA-NMFS-NWFSC TM-31: Data Collection -- Groundfish 

Appendix A.1Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Marine Fish Receiving Ticket.
To return to text, use your browser's Back button. Table of Contents
Case: 1:12-cv-01123 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/16/12 Page 1 of 7 PageID #:1
Case: 1:12-cv-01123 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/16/12 Page 2 of 7 PageID #:2
Case: 1:12-cv-01123 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/16/12 Page 3 of 7 PageID #:3
Case: 1:12-cv-01123 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/16/12 Page 4 of 7 PageID #:4
Case: 1:12-cv-01123 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/16/12 Page 5 of 7 PageID #:5
Case: 1:12-cv-01123 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/16/12 Page 6 of 7 PageID #:6
Case: 1:12-cv-01123 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/16/12 Page 7 of 7 PageID #:7
TIER -~TTO)RNEY GENERAL 

OF TEXAS 

AUSSTIN. TJCXAS %3?11 

May 31, 1977 

The Honorable Ann L. Postma 

County Attorney 

Childress County 

P. 0. Box 589 

Childress, Texas 79201 

Opinion No. H-1005 

Re: Maintenance and destruction of hospital district records. 

Dear Ms. Postma: 

You have requested our opinion concerning the medical 

and financial records of a hospital district. Your questions 

may be paraphrased as follows: 

1. Whether the records of Childress County 

Hospital District are public records. 

2. Whether the records of Childress County 

Hospital District may be destroyed or 

disposed of pursuant to article 6574b, 

§ 4, V.T.C.S. 

Article 657433, V.T.C.S., provides for the duplication 

and destruction of "public records" by the "governing body 

of any political subdivision of Texas." A hospital district 

is such a political subdivision. Bexar Counx Hospital 

District v. Cro*,, 327 S.W.2d 445 (Tex. 1959),Attorney 

General Opinions M-510 (1969); WW-886 (1960). A "public 

record" has been defined as: 

a written memorial made by a public 

officer authorized by law to perform 

that function and intended to serve 

as something written, said, or done. 

Nogueira v . State, 59 S.W.2d 831, 832 (Tex. Crim. App. 1933); 

Attorney General Opinion M-1240 (1972). In our view the 

medical and financial records of a hospital district would 

generally come within this definition. Of course, a "public 

record" under article 657413 is not necessarily a "public 

P. 4161 
The Honorable Ann L. Postma - page 2 (H-1005) 

record" under the Open Records Act, V.T.C.S. art. 6252-17a, 

and nothing in this opinion is intended to address the access 

of the public to any particular- records maintained by a 

hospital district. 

Since~ the records of a hospital district are within the 

operation of article 6574b, in our opinion such ~records may 

be duplicated and destroyed pursuant to its provisions. 

Records may be destroyed only after duplication and only after 

such records are at least five years old and after notice has 

been given to the State Librarian. V.T.C.S. art. 6574b, S 4; 

Attorney General Opinion H-852 (1976). 

SUMMARY 

Article 6574b, V.T.C.S., provides the procedure for the duplication and destruction 

of records of a hospital district. 

APPROVED: 

c. ROBERT HEATH, Chairman 

Opinion Committee 

km1 

p. 4162
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

FRANKLIN LUTHER JACKSON,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 286 MAL 2020

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 29th day of September, 2020, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED.
#### Pearl M. Harrison, Appellant, v. United Operating Corp. et al., Respondents.

In an action to enforce a written court-approved stipulation of settlement made in a prior consolidated action, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated January 10, 1964, which *898denied her motion for summary judgment for the relief demanded in the complaint. Order reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements; plaintiff's motion for summary judgment granted; and action remitted to the Special Term for the purpose of holding a hearing to determine the sum due to the plaintiff and for the entry of an appropriate judgment in her favor after such determination. The facts out of which this action arose are as follows: In 1959 one Harold Harrison, individually and as a stockholder and director of defendant corporations, instituted seven derivative actions against such corporations and against Max Harrison and Julian Wiener. The said actions were consolidated; and, after lengthy hearings before a Referee, the parties on August 10, 1960 entered into a stipulation of settlement signed by all the parties. An order confirming the stipulation of settlement was signed by a Justice of the Supreme Court on August 31, 1960 after a hearing at which the plaintiff Harold Harrison and the defendant Max Harrison in the consolidated action testified. The order provided that the action “is hereby settled and discontinued with prejudice against all the parties herein.” The stipulation, so far as here pertinent, provided as follows: “It is further agreed that in the event of the death of any of the parties, i.e.: Max Harrison, Julian Wiener and Harold Harrison, that the corporations will continue to pay the compensation of the deceased to the widow of the deceased at the same rate of total compensation as of the date of death, for a period of six (6) months thereafter without any requirement by the corporations for any services by the widow.” Max Harrison, the president of all the corporations, died on April 15, 1963; and plaintiff, his widow, commenced the instant action against all the corporations to recover the sum allegedly due under the stipulation of settlement. The defendants’ answers asserted the defense of *ultra vires,*i.e., that the signatories lacked authority to bind the corporate defendants to pay a surviving widow the compensation referred to in the stipulation. In our opinion, the prior order, based on the stipulation between the parties settling and discontinuing the consolidated action with prejudice against all parties, is binding and conclusive on all parties thereto; it may not be attacked collaterally in an independent action *(Crouse*v. *McVickar,*207 N. Y. 213; *Fuhrmann*v. *Fanroth,*254 N. Y. 479; *Horne*v. *McGinley,*252 App. Div. 296). Beldock, P. J., Kleinfeld, Christ, Hill and Rabin, JJ., concur,
204.2101 Definitions. As used in this subpart— *Covered defense telecommunications equipment or services* means— ( 1 ) Telecommunications equipment produced by Huawei Technologies Company or ZTE Corporation, or any subsidiary or affiliate of such entities;
( 2 ) Telecommunications services provided by such entities or using such equipment; or
( 3 ) Telecommunications equipment or services produced or provided by an entity that the Secretary of Defense reasonably believes to be an entity owned or controlled by, or otherwise connected to, the government of a covered foreign country.
*Covered foreign country* means— ( 1 ) The People's Republic of China; or
( 2 ) The Russian Federation.
*Covered missions* means— ( 1 ) The nuclear deterrence mission of DoD, including with respect to nuclear command, control, and communications, integrated tactical warning and attack assessment, and continuity of Government; or
( 2 ) The homeland defense mission of DoD, including with respect to ballistic missile defense.
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



I, Allan L. Bridgford, Chairman of Bridgford Foods Corporation (the Company), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:



|(1) | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period April 15, 2005 (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 780(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: May 23, 2005



/s/ Allan L. BridgfordAllan L. Bridgford, Chairman(Principal Executive Officer)
184

Hylebos Waterway Fish Injury Studies

Individual Data and Quality Assurance Results

CASE NARRATIVE

Juvenile Salmon Injury

DNA Adducts

Performance Evaluation

The PPL performance standard met 32P-labeling criteria.

Calibration

There were no deviations from the QA/SOP calibration criteria. All the calibration data that were

used to quantitate DNA adducts met the initial and continuing criteria detailed in the

“Commencement Bay Quality Assurance Plan” (QA Plan).

Method Blank

The acceptance criteria were met for the method blank.

Sample Duplicates

Three samples were processed and analyzed in duplicate. The relative percent differences (RPD)

for all analytes, were less than 50%.

Commentary on Samples:

Missing sample analyses:

One sample (143-30) was lost because the chromatogram was not quantifiable.

Values reported that are less than 10 nmol/mol:

If the storage phosphor images of the radioactivity distribution on the chromatograms are

sufficiently dean and distinct, then values less than 10 nmols DNA adducts/mol DNA for the large

diagonal radioactive zone containing adducts derived from polycyclic aromatic compounds can be

obtained. For the chromatography standards, the limit of detection for a single, well resolved spot

is 0.1 nmol DNA adduct/mol DNA.
185
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 7 (Tuesday, January 12, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2476-2477]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-00448]


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

SELECTIVE SERVICE SYSTEM


Forms Submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for 
Extension of Clearance

AGENCY: Selective Service System.

ACTION: Notice.

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

    The following forms have been submitted to the Office of Management 
and Budget (OMB) for extension of clearance in compliance with the 
Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35):

SSS FORMS 2, 3A, 3B and 3C

    Title: Selective Service System Change of Information, Correction/
Change Form, and Registration Status Forms.
    Purpose: To insure the accuracy and completeness of the Selective 
Service System registration data.

[[Page 2477]]

    Respondents: Registrants are required to report changes or 
corrections in data submitted on the SSS Form 1.
    Frequency: When changes in a registrant's name or address occur.
    Burden: A burden of two minutes or less on the individual 
respondent.
    Change: Registrant may now update their email address and phone 
number.
    Copies of the above identified forms can be obtained upon written 
request to the Selective Service System, Operations Directorate, 1515 
Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Virginia 22209-2425.
    Written comments and recommendations for the proposed extension of 
clearance of the form should be sent within 30 days of the publication 
of this notice to the Selective Service System, Operations Directorate, 
1515 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Virginia 22209-2425.
    A copy of the comments should be sent to the Office of Information 
and Regulatory Affairs, Attention: Desk Officer, Selective Service 
System, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, 
Room 3235, Washington, DC 20503.

Wadi Yakhour,
Chief of Staff.
[FR Doc. 2021-00448 Filed 1-11-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8015-01-P
#### 215.404-70 DD Form 1547, Record of Weighted Guidelines Method Application.

Follow the procedures at PGI 215.404-70 for use of DD Form 1547 whenever a structured approach to profit analysis is required.

[71 FR 69494, Dec. 1, 2006]
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      Exhibit 99


                         INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANT'S REPORT


Board of Directors
Carnegie Financial Corporation

We have reviewed the accompanying consolidated balance sheet of Carnegie
Financial Corporation and subsidiary as of September 30, 2000, and the related
consolidated statements of income for the three and nine-month periods ended
September 30, 2000 and 1999, the consolidated statement of changes in
stockholders' equity for the nine-month period ended September 30, 2000, and the
consolidated statement of cash flows for the nine-month period ended September
30, 2000 and 1999. These consolidated financial statements are the
responsibility of the Company's management.

We conducted our review in accordance with standards established by the American
Institute of Certified Public Accountants. A review of interim financial
information consists principally of applying analytical procedures to financial
data and making inquiries of persons responsible for financial and accounting
matters. It is substantially less in scope than an audit conducted in accordance
with generally accepted auditing standards, the objective of which is the
expression of an opinion regarding the financial statements taken as a whole.
Accordingly, we do not express such an opinion.

Based on our review, we are not aware of any material modifications that should
be made to the accompanying financial statements for them to be in conformity
with generally accepted accounting principles.

We have previously audited, in accordance with generally accepted auditing
standards, the consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 1999, and the
related consolidated statements of income, changes in stockholders' equity and
cash flows for the year then ended (not presented herein); and in our report
dated February 25, 2000 we expressed an unqualified opinion on those
consolidated financial statements.

Wexford, PA
October 24, 2000
14.303 Modification or withdrawal of bids. ( a ) Bids may be modified or withdrawn by any method authorized by the solicitation, if notice is received in the office designated in the solicitation not later than the exact time set for opening of bids. If the solicitation authorizes facsimile bids, bids may be modified or withdrawn via facsimile received at any time before the exact time set for receipt of bids, subject to the conditions specified in the provision prescribed in 14.201-6(v). Modifications received by facsimile shall be sealed in an envelope by a proper official. ( 1 ) The official shall— ( i ) Write on the envelope— ( A ) The date and time of receipt and by whom; and
( B ) The number of invitation for bids; and
( ii ) Sign the envelope.
( 2 ) No information contained in the envelope shall be disclosed before the time set for bid opening.
( b ) A bid may be withdrawn in person by a bidder or its authorized representative if, before the exact time set for opening of bids, the identity of the persons requesting withdrawal is established and that person signs a receipt for the bid.
( c ) Upon withdrawal of an electronically transmitted bid, the data received shall not be viewed and shall be purged from primary and backup data storage systems.
[48 FR 42171, Sept. 19, 1983, as amended at 54 FR 48983, Nov. 28, 1989; 60 FR 34738, July 3, 1995; 64 FR 51838, Sept. 24, 1999; 81 FR 83098, Nov. 18, 2016]