alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32-1

Certificate Pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 United States Code

The undersigned officer hereby certifies, as to the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Exelon Corporation for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2007, that (i) the report fully complies with the
requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and (ii) the information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Exelon
Corporation.



/s/    John W. RoweJohn W. RoweChairman, Chief Executive Officer and President


Date: October 26, 2007



189
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


The undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that this Annual
Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2004 fully complies with
the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended, and the information contained in such report fairly presents,
in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
NetCo Investments Inc.


/s/ Michael Jackson                             Date: March 23, 2005
------------------------------------
Michael Jackson
Director, President, Secretary,
Treasurer


                                      - 1 -
<PAGE>
9904.411-50 Techniques for application. ( a ) Material cost shall be the acquisition cost of a category of material, whether or not a material inventory record is used. The purchase price of material shall be adjusted by extra charges incurred or discounts and credits earned. Such adjustments shall be charged or credited to the same cost objective as the purchase price of the material, except that where it is not practical to do so, the contractor's policy may provide for the consistent inclusion of such charges or credits in an appropriate indirect cost pool.
( b ) One of the following inventory costing methods shall be used when issuing material from a company-owned inventory: ( 1 ) The first-in, first-out (FIFO) method.
( 2 ) The moving average cost method.
( 3 ) The weighted average cost method.
( 4 ) The standard cost method.
( 5 ) The last-in, first-out (LIFO) method.
( c ) The method of computation used for any inventory costing method selected pursuant to the provisions of this Standard shall be consistently followed.
( d ) Where the excess of the ending inventory over the beginning inventory of material of the type described in 9904.411-40(c) is estimated to be significant in relation to the total cost included in the indirect cost pool, the cost of such unconsumed material shall be established as an asset at the end of the period by reducing the indirect cost pool by a corresponding amount.
#### 852.237-73 Crime Control Act—Requirement for Background Checks.

As prescribed in 837.403-70(d), insert the following clause:

# Crime Control Act—Requirement for Background Checks (OCT 2019)

(a) Public Law 101-647, also known as the Crime Control Act of 1990 (Act), requires that all individuals involved with the provision of child care services, as defined in the Act, to children under the age of 18 undergo a criminal background check.

(b) The Contracting Officer will provide the necessary information to the Contractor regarding the process for obtaining the background check. The Contractor may hire a staff person provisionally prior to the completion of a background check, if at all times prior to the receipt of the background check during which children are in the care of the newly-hired person, the person is within the sight and under the supervision of a previously investigated staff person.

(c) The Contractor shall comply with the requirements of the Act. The Act also applies to all applicable subcontracts awarded under the contract. Accordingly, the Contractor shall ensure that each of its employees, and any subcontractor staff, is made aware of, understands, and complies with the provisions of the Act.

(End of clause)

[84 FR 46456, Sept. 4, 2019]
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Donald Burke, Appellant.

[775 NYS2d 597]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Rooney, J.), rendered February 13, 2002, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that the People failed to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution *(see People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, resolution of issues of credibility, as well as the weight to be accorded to the evidence presented, are primarily questions to be determined by the trier of fact, which saw and heard the witnesses *(see People v Gaimari,*176 NY 84, 94 [1903]). Its determination should be accorded great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record *(see People v Garafolo,*44 AD2d 86, 88 [1974]). Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence *(see*CPL 470.15 [5]). Florio, J.P., Smith, Crane and Rivera, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER 
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, J. Dean Burden, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of Atomic Guppy, Inc. on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended October 31, 2008 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Annual Report on Form 10-KSB fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Atomic Guppy, Inc.





|                        |  |     |                                                                                                         
|----------------------- |  | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: February 13, 2008 |  |     | ATOMIC GUPPY, INC.                                                                                      
|                        |  |     |                                                                                                         
|                        |  | By: | /s/ J. Dean Burden                                                                                      
|                        |  |     | J. Dean Burden                                                                                          
|                        |  |     | Chief Executive Officer,                                                                                
|                        |  |     | President and sole Director, principal executive officer and 
principal financial and accounting officer



[A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Atomic Guppy, Inc.. and will be retained by Atomic Guppy, Inc. and furnished to the United States Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.]
#### ROBERTS, Respondent, v. GIFFORD, Appellant, et al.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

January 10, 1906.)

Action by Elmer E.-Roberts, individually, etc., against William B. Gifford, impleaded, etc.

PER CURIAM.

Orders affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.

HISCOCK, J.,

not sitting. .
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

**CRAIG GRAY,**

**Petitioner**

**v.**

**COURT OF COMMON PLEAS**
**PHILADELPHIA,**

**Respondent :** 

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**: No. 7 EM 2015** 

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW **, this 9th day of March, 2015, the Application for Lea ve to File Original** 

**Process is** GRANTED **, and the Petition for Writ of Mandamus and/or Extr aordinary** 

**Relief is** DENIED

**.**
* Pursuant to Local 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 Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-60150 (Summary Calendar)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

BOBBY EARL KEYS,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi

(USDC No. 3:95-CV-38-S)

- - - - - - - - - - September 19, 1996 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Bobby Earl Keys, prisoner # 03344- 043, appeals the district

court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. Keys asserts as

grounds for relief the limitation of defense counsel’s summation,

the Governmen t’s cross-examination of his alibi defense, the

violation of his speedy-trial rights, the suggesti veness of the

pretrial identification procedure, the admission of “mugshots,” the

admission of false testimony, and the denial of his right to2

counsel during the Government’s pretrial investigation.

Keys may not obtain relief under § 2255 on his summation and

post-arrest-silence issues because he raised these issues on direct

appeal. U ni ted States v. Kalish , 780 F.2d 506, 508 (5th Cir.),

cert. denied , 476 U.S. 1118 (1986). Keys has not shown prejudice

resulting from the continuance of the trial date. United States

v. Garcia , 995 F.2d 556, 560 (5th Cir. 1993). Keys’s conclusional

allegations regarding the pretrial and in-court identification

procedures are insufficient to raise a constitutional issue, and he

has failed to show that the procedures were “impermissibly

s uggestive” or led to a “substantial likelihood o f

misidentification.” Koch v. Puckett , 907 F.2d 524, 530 (5th Cir.

1990); Herrera v. Collins

, 904 F.2d 944, 946 (5th Cir.), cert.

denied , 498 U.S. 925 (1990).

Keys failed to demonstrate that the admission of “mugshots”

influenced the jury’s verdict. U nited States v. Torres-Flores

, 827

F.2d 1031, 1035-39 (5th Cir. 1987). Keys failed to demonstrate

that Agen t Lorrain’s testimony was false and that the Government

knew of the falsity. B lackmon v. Scott
, 22 F.3d 560, 565 (5th

Cir.), cert. denied

, 115 S. Ct. 671 (1994). A defendant has no

right to counsel at “photographic displays co nducted by the

Government for the purpose of allowing a witness to attempt an

identification.” United States v. Ash , 413 U.S. 300, 321 (1973).

Keys abandoned his argument that witness Ivy presente d perjured1 Brady v. Maryland , 373 U.S. 83 (1963).

3 testimony as well as his Brady

, 1 and Jenck’s Act claims. E vans v.

City of Marlin, Tex. , 986 F.2d 104, 106 n.1 (5th Cir. 1993).

Keys’s motions for permis sion to supplement the record with

additional evidence and for the appointment of an expert at

government expense are DENIED.

Keys has failed to demonstrate that he is entitled to relief

under § 2255. Accordingly, the decision of the district court

denying § 2255 relief and dismissing his motion is AFFIRMED.
#### 932.501 General
Featured Grant OpportunitySchool Emergency Response to Violence (Project SERV) (Funding Opportunity) 

Featured Grant OpportunityShare with Youth: NOAA Student Opportunities Database

Featured Grant OpportunityShort Courses in Social Determinants of Health for Research Education in Nursing Research (Funding...

Featured Grant OpportunityResearch on Law Enforcement Responses to Opioid Overdoses (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityComprehensive Partnerships to Advance Cancer Health Equity (CPACHE) Program (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityRisk and Protective Factors of Family Health and Family Level Interventions (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityPersonnel Development to Improve Services and Results for Children with Disabilities--Doctoral...

Featured Grant OpportunityStanding Announcement for Tribal Title IV-E Plan Development Grants (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityProviding Research Education Experiences to Enhance Inclusivity for a Diverse Substance Use and...

Featured Grant OpportunityFY 2024 Research on School-Based Hate Crimes (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityChallenge America (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityResearch and Evaluation on Firearm Violence and Mass Shootings (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityNational Juvenile Court Data Archive (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityGraduate Research Fellowship (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityCommunity Programs for Outreach and Intervention with Youth and Young Adults at Clinical High Risk...

Featured Grant OpportunityPrint and Disseminate Child Victims and Witnesses Support Materials (Funding Opportunity)

## Breadcrumb

            -           Synthesis of Research and Resources to Support at-Risk Youth      

# Synthesis of Research and Resources to Support at-Risk Youth

This report by the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) at the Department of Health and Human Services provides a synthesis of research and existing ACF resources for serving at-risk youth. It describes the body of knowledge on at-risk youth and how at-risk youth are currently being served by programs in and outside of ACF that have been shown to put youth on a path toward self-sufficiency. Based on the review of research and resources, it identifies issues to consider in creating conceptual frameworks for developing and enhancing ACF programs that can or do serve at-risk youth.

https://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/opre/resource/synthesis-of-research-and-resources-to-support-at-risk-youth
9904.412-63 Effective Date. ( a ) This Standard is effective as of February 27, 2012, hereafter known as the “Effective Date”, and is applicable for cost accounting periods after June 30, 2012, hereafter known as the “Implementation Date.”
( b ) Following the award of a contract or subcontract subject to this Standard on or after the Effective Date, contractors shall follow this Standard, as amended, beginning with its next cost accounting period beginning after the later of the Implementation Date or the award date of a contract or subcontract to which this Standard is applicable. The first day of the cost accounting period that this Standard, as amended, is first applicable to a contractor or subcontractor is the “Applicability Date of the CAS Pension Harmonization Rule” for purposes of this Standard. Prior to the Applicability Date of the CAS Pension Harmonization Rule, contractors or subcontractors shall follow the Standard in 9904.412 in effect prior to the Effective Date. ( 1 ) Following the award of a contract or subcontract subject to this Standard received on or after the Effective Date, contractors with contracts or subcontracts subject to this Standard that were received prior to the Effective Date shall continue to follow the Standard in 9904.412 in effect prior to the Effective Date. Beginning with the Applicability Date of the CAS Pension Harmonization Rule, such contractors shall follow this Standard, as amended, for all contracts or subcontracts subject to this Standard.
( 2 ) Following the award of a contract or subcontract subject to this Standard received during the period beginning on or after the date published in the Federal Register and ending before the Effective Date, contractors shall follow the Standard in 9904.412 in effect prior to the Effective Date. If another contract or subcontract, subject to this Standard, is received on or after the Effective Date, the provisions of 9904.412-63(b)(1) shall apply.
[76 FR 81319, Dec. 27, 2011, as amended at 77 FR 43543, July 25, 2012]
(December 6, 1966)

#### In the Matter of Phyllis W. Smith, Petitioner, v. New York State Thruway Authority et al., Respondents.

Herlihy, J.

This in an article 78 proceeding transferred to this court pursuant to CPLR 7804, subd. [g]. The petitioner, a Thruway toll collector, was discharged after a hearing upon the grounds of rude and abusive treatment to patrons, being under the influence of liquor and being asleep while on duty. A charge of using vulgar and obscene language was not sustained. The proceedings were instituted as a result of a letter signed by four college students protesting the manner in which they were treated by the petitioner while they were patrons of the Thruway on July 21, 1965. The record shows that the conduct of the patrons was far from exemplary and, in some respects, they may have been the agitators and agressors, but such does not excuse or justify the conduct of the petitioner which was in direct violation of and contrary to the regulations of the Authority. Exhibit 10 in *580evidence is captioned “ Department of Toll Collections ” and provides in part as follows: 2 (b) 8. “General Instructions of Personnel” “Employees shall be courteous and orderly in all contacts and dealing with the public.” 3. “Conduct and Duties of Toll Collectors ” “ All patrons using the Thruway are to be treated with utmost respect and courtesy at all times regardless of the circumstances.” There was evidence offered on behalf of the Authority, denied by the petitioner, that on this occasion she appeared to have been drinking and smelled strongly of alcohol and that her conduct had been generally rude and abusive in that she did utter a “ cuss word” and she did not courteously co-operate with the patrons whose car had become mechanically disabled. The resolution of the issues was premised on credibility, the hearing officer having elected to accept the testimony of one of the patrons involved and a -State Trooper, which testimony we find to be substantial. The charge of sleeping on duty related to other occasions, March 8, 1965 and May 25, 1965, and again the issue was one of credibility and the evidence was substantial to sustain the charge. There was offered for the purpose of determining the degree of penalty the work performance record of petitioner which showed a marginal performance and we cannot say that the penalty was excessive. Determination confirmed, without costs. Gibson, P. J., Reynolds and Staley, Jr., JJ., concur with Herlihy, J.; Aulisi, J., not voting.
IIB 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 1121 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 21, 2024 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural 

Resources 

AN ACT 

To prohibit a moratorium on the use of hydraulic fracturing. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

HR 1121 RFS

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Protecting American 

3 Energy Production Act’’. 

4 SEC. 2. PROTECTING AMERICAN ENERGY PRODUCTION. 

5 (a) SENSE OF CONGRESS.—It is the sense of Con6 gress that States should maintain primacy for the regula7 tion of hydraulic fracturing for oil and natural gas produc8 tion on State and private lands. 

9 (b) PROHIBITION ON DECLARATION OF A MORATO10 RIUM ON HYDRAULIC FRACTURING.—Notwithstanding 

11 any other provision of law, the President may not declare 

12 a moratorium on the use of hydraulic fracturing unless 

13 such moratorium is authorized by an Act of Congress. 

Passed the House of Representatives March 20, 

2024. 

Attest: KEVIN F. MCCUMBER, 

Clerk. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-11-00551-CR

JUAN ANTONIO CASTILLO

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

On Appeal from the

105th District Court of Kleberg County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 09-CRF-0284

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be AFFIRMED. The Court 

orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

August 14, 2014
Exhibit 32-8

Certificate Pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 United States Code

The undersigned officer hereby certifies, as to the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of PECO Energy Company for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2008, that (i) the report fully complies with the
requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and (ii) the information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of PECO Energy
Company.



/s/    Phillip S. BarnettPhillip S. BarnettSenior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer


Date: July 23, 2008



198
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20-1288

ARMANDO DESPAIGNE ZULVETA,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

THE BARRETT LAW FIRM, Dan Barrett; CLAWSON AND STAUBES, LLC; 

THE HARTFORD MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY; LARMORE 

LANDSCAPE ASSOCIATES, INC.; CONSOLIDATED LANDSCAPING INC.; 

BROWN CRUMP VANORE & TIERNEY, L.L.P.; BRENT’S LAWN CARE,

Defendants - Appellees,

and

TIMOTHY DOMIN; TURNER PADGET GRAHAM & LANEY, PA; ERIC K. 

ENGLEBARDT; GALLIVAN WHITE & BOYD, P.A.; HAYNSWORTH 

SINKLER BOYD, P.A.; J. BEN ALEXANDER; KENNETH SHAW; THE 

HAYNSWORTH PERRY AMERICAN INNS OF COURT; WILSON JONES 

CARTER & BAXLEY PA; WILSON SHELDON; HENRY M. HERLON, Judge; 

G. ANDERSON ROSS, Judge,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at 

Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles, District Judge. (1:19-cv-00978-CCE-JLW)

Submitted: November 19, 2020 Decided: November 23, 2020

Before WILKINSON, KING, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.
2

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Armando Despaigne Zulveta, Appellant Pro Se. Charles Daniel Barrett, BARRETT LAW 

FIRM, Clemmons, North Carolina; Ann Cox Rowe, DAVIS & HAMRICK, LLP, WinstonSalem, North Carolina; R. Scott Brown, William John Cathcart, Jr., BROWN, CRUMP, 

VANORE & TIERNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina; Andrew Garrison Pinto, PINTO, 

COATES, KYRE & BOWERS, PLLC, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3

PER CURIAM:

Armando Despaigne Zulveta appeals the district court’s order dismissing his civil 

complaint without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We have reviewed the 

record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in 

forma pauperis, we deny Zulveta’s motion to expedite decision and affirm for the reasons 

stated by the district court. Zulveta v. The Barrett Law Firm, No. 1:19-cv-00978-CCEJLW (M.D.N.C. Mar. 2, 2020). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument 

would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED