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




CERTIFICATIONS
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,
William J. Worthen, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the
Quarterly Report of Alsius Corporation on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period
ended September 30, 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 quarterly report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in
all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of
Alsius Corporation.




Date:
      November 6, 2008
                
                By:
                /s/
      William J. WorthenName:
                William
      J. WorthenTitle:
                President
      and Chief Executive
Officer






I,
Gregory J. Tibbitts, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the
Quarterly Report of Alsius Corporation on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period
ended September 30, 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 quarterly report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in
all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of
Alsius Corporation




Date:
      November 6, 2008
                
                By:
                /s/
      Gregory J. TibbittsName:
                Gregory
      J. TibbittsTitle:
                Chief
      Financial Officer





A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Alsius Corporation and will be retained by Alsius Corporation and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1


                        CERTIFICATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                                  AS ADOPTED BY
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

         In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of Boundless Motor
Sports Racing, Inc. (the "Company") for the period ending September 30, 2003 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Paul A. Kruger, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial
Officer of the Company, certify in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to my knowledge 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 results of
                  operations of the Company.


                                                /s/ Paul A. Kruger
                                                Paul A. Kruger
                                                Chief Executive Officer
                                                and Chief Financial Officer
                                                Date: January 28, 2004
§ 1753.79 Construction by force account. The borrower shall require that: ( a ) Minor construction by the force account method be supervised by a competent foreman. The work shall be performed in accordance with all regulatory and safety codes.
( b ) Daily time and material reports, referenced by the work project number, shall be kept to record labor and materials used as construction is performed.
( c ) The construction foreman shall maintain a tabulation of all construction units installed.
Document No. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

VS CASE NO. 3:94cr3154LAC

DAMEON DALEY

REFERRAL AND ORDER

Referred to Judge Lacey Collier on March 14, 2008

Motion/Pleadings: MOTION FOR BAIL PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. 3742(a)(3) PENDING 

ADJUDICATION OF 3582(c))(2) 

Filed by DEFENDANT PRO SE on 3/13/2008 Doc.# 237

RESPONSES:

on Doc.#

on Doc.#

Stipulated Joint Pldg.

Unopposed Consented

WILLIAM M. McCOOL, CLERK OF COURT

s/Mary Maloy

LC (1 OR 2) Deputy Clerk: Mary Maloy

ORDER

Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is ORDERED this 20th day of

March, 2008, that:

(a) The relief requested is DENIED.

(b) 

 s/L.A. Collier

LACEY A. COLLIER

Senior United States District Judge

Entered On Docket: By: 

Rules 58 & 79(a) FRCP or 32(d)(1) & 55 FRCRP

Copies sent to:

Case 3:94-cr-03154-LC-MD Document 238 Filed 03/20/08 Page 1 of 1
Editorial Note on Part 1944
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 1944 appear at 80 FR 9885, Feb. 24, 2015.

§ 1944.419 Final grantee evaluation. Near the end of the grant period but prior to the last month, an evaluation of the grantee will be conducted by Rural Development. The State Director may use Rural Development employees or an organization under contract to Rural Development to provide the evaluation. The evaluation is to determine how successful the grantee was in meeting goals and objectives as defined in the agreement, application, this regulation, and any amendments. ( a ) This is a quantitative evaluation of the grantee to determine if it met its goals in: ( 1 ) Assisting the project number of families in obtaining adequate housing.
( 2 ) Meeting the goal of assisting very low-income families.
( 3 ) Meeting the family labor requirement in § 1944.411(h) and exhibit B-2 of this subpart.
( 4 ) Keeping costs within the guides set in § 1944.407.
( 5 ) Meeting order objectives in the Agreement.
( b ) The evaluation is a narrative addressed to the State Director with a copy of the National Office, Single Family Housing Processing Division. It will be in 3 parts, namely; findings, recommendations, and an overall rating. The rating will be either unacceptable, acceptable, or outstanding, as follows: ( 1 ) Outstanding if the grantee met or exceeded all of the goals in paragraph (a) of this section.
( 2 ) Acceptable if the grantee met or exceeded all of the goals as defined in paragraph (a) except two.
( 3 ) Unacceptable if the grantee failed to obtain an acceptable rating.
( c ) After the State Director has reviewed the evaluation, a copy will be mailed to the grantee. The grantee may request a review of the evaluation with the District Director. This review is for clarification of the material and to dispute the findings if they are known to be wrong. The rating is not open for discussion except to the extent it can be proven that the findings do not support the rating. If this is the case, the District Director will file an amendment to the State Director.
#### § 1599.16 Noncompliance with an agreement.

If a recipient fails to comply with a Federal statute or regulation or the terms and conditions of the agreement, and FAS determines that the noncompliance cannot be remedied by imposing additional conditions, FAS may take one or more of the actions set forth in 2 CFR 200.338, including initiating a claim as a remedy. FAS may also initiate a claim against a recipient if the donated commodities or procured commodities are damaged or lost, or the sale proceeds, goods received through barter, FAS-provided funds, interest, or program income are misused or lost, due to an action or omission of the recipient.
###### Editorial Note on Part 2

#### Editorial Notes:

1. Nomenclature changes to part 2 appear at 83 FR 22178, May 14, 2018.

2. Nomenclature changes to part 2 appear at 83 FR 61310, Nov. 29, 2018

3. Nomenclature changes to part 2 appear at 85 FR 65504, Oct. 15, 2020.

4. Nomenclature changes to part 2 appear at 87 FR 44266, July 26, 2022.

#### § 2.55 Deputy Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services.

Pursuant to § 2.19(a), subject to reservations in § 2.19(b), and subject to policy guidance and direction by the Under Secretary, the following delegation of authority is made by the Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services to the Deputy Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services, to be exercised only during the absence or unavailability of the Under Secretary: Perform all the duties and exercise all the powers which are now or which may hereafter be delegated to the Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services.
Need to return call by / at/between and . Signature: ___________________________ 

Project No.: 0172.07.005.507 DISTRIBUTION 

Page _1_ of __1_

Project Name: 304(m) Annual Review 

TELEPHONE CALL RECORD 

 Outgoing Call

Date: 8/31/2010 Time: 11:15 am 

Company Name: Alabama Department of Environmental 

 Management (ADEM) 

Contact Name: Donald Brown, ADEM 

Phone No.: (334) 271-7812 

Name: Elizabeth Sabol Eastern Research Group, Inc.

GENERAL SUBJECT : 2008 DMR Mercury Discharges for AL State Docks – Mud Lakes (AL0002976) 

 

TOPICS DISCUSSED AND ACTION TAKEN 

I called the Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM) on Tuesday, August 31, to speak 

Donald Brown to discuss mercury discharges from AL State Docks – Mud Lakes facility. I asked Mr. Brown if 

he had any information on the facility, specifically DSCH 001. I also asked him to confirm the mercury 

discharges and flow data for Outfall 001 in September, June, and December 2008. 

Mr. Brown confirmed the mercury concentrations. Mr. Brown also retrieved the permit and stated that the 

facility was a former aluminum ore tailing impoundment lakes operated by Aluminum Company of America 

(ALCOA). These lakes are currently used to accumulate and treat aluminum ore tailing leachate prior to 

discharge to the Mobile River. Mr. Brown stated that mercury does not have a permit limit. Mr. Brown stated 

that he would forward me the permit for the facility (ADEM, 2006). 
From: "Brown, Donald K" <dkbrown@adem.state.al.us> 

To: "'elizabeth.sabol@erg.com'" <elizabeth.sabol@erg.com> 

Date: 8/31/2010 2:49 PM 

Subject: FW: Scan from a Xerox WorkCentre 

Attachments: DOC001.PDF 

Hi Elizabeth, here is the permit you were asking for. If you need anything else please feel free to contact me. 

Donald K. Brown 

Alabama Department of Environmental Management 

14oo Coliseum Blvd. 

Montgomery Al, 36110-2059 

NPDES/SID Permits Branch 

Industrial Section 

E-Mail: dkbrown@adem.state.al.us 

Phone: (334) 271-7812 

Fax: (334) 279-3051 

 

-----Original Message----- 

From: xerox@adem.state.al.us [mailto:xerox@adem.state.al.us] 

Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2010 1:49 PM 

To: Brown, Donald K 

Subject: Scan from a Xerox WorkCentre 

Please open the attached document. It was scanned and sent to you using a Xerox WorkCentre. 

Attachment File Type: PDF 

WorkCentre Location: machine location not set 

Device Name: XRXWATER2 

For more information on Xerox products and solutions, please visit http://www.xerox.com
Exhibit
32.2





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 Annual Report of IR BioSciences Holdings, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB/A for the year ended December 31, 2007 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
John N. Fermanis, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. ss.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 results of operations of the Company.




IR
      BIOSCIENCES HOLDINGS, INC.Date: 
      September 25, 2008
            By:
            /s/ John N.
      FermanisJohn
      N. FermanisChief
      Financial Officer





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906, an other document
authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required
by Section 906, has been provided to Company and will be retained by the Company
and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
#### S. Tribble, Sr. *vs. W.*Frame.

Trespass. Case 177.

October 24

'See case.

Erior to tbe M ntgom *try*Circuit; Robbins Judge.

Trespass, *action of.*

*Monroe*and *Hoggin,*for plaintiffs; *Hanson,*for defendant.

Chief Justice Robertson

delivered the opinion of the court.

Samcer Tribble, Sr. sued Win, Frame, Sr. in trespass *quare clausum Jrigit,*for the entry described in the case of Tribble et al. vs. B. Frame, just decided. The cáse was once before in this court. See VII Mon. 529.

After it was remanded, new assignments were made, and the parties pleaded until they concluded on the sing’e point of possession in fact, at the time of the alleged trespass. Tribble averring that he was in the actual possession, and Frame traversing that averment. However irregular the pleading or informal its issue may be, the issue was material. And, therefore, if the facts, (the same as those detailed in Tribble et al. vs. B. Frame, supra) had justified the verdict and judgment obtained by the defendant, Tribble would have no just cause for complaining. But, as already decided, the proof did not, in onr opinion, authorize the deduction that Tribble was not in the actual and exclusive possession when Frame made the entry for which this suit was brought.

Wherefore, the judgment must be reversed, and the cause remanded for a new trial.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 3:95cr03093/LAC

CHARLES SPIGNER,

Defendant.

_______________________________/

ORDER

Before the Court is Defendant’s response to the show cause order issued on July 3,

2008, requiring him to demonstrate excusable neglect or good cause for his failure to file a

timely notice of appeal from the Court’s April 14, 2008, Order denying his motion for

reduction of sentence.

Defendant points to delays which occurred in the filing or processing of his notice of

appeal and the two motions that preceded it. However, none of these delays save the notice

of appeal from being filed late, even after taking into consideration the mailbox rule and

giving Defendant the benefit of the doubt that he indeed placed each pleading into the prison

mail system on the date he ascribes on his certificates of service. 

Case 3:95-cr-03093-LC-CJK Document 208 Filed 07/28/08 Page 1 of 2
Case No. 3:95cr03093/LAC Page 2 of 2

Even if one subtracts the period between Defendant’s filing of the motion for

extension of time to file the motion for reconsideration (April 21, 2008) and the Court’s

ruling thereon (April 29, 2008), which equals seven days; and the period between

Defendant’s filing of the motion for reconsideration (May 7, 2008) and the Court’s ruling

thereon (May 15, 2008), which equals eight days, the total number of days that expired

before the notice of appeal was placed in the mail (May 20, 2008) was thirty-six days. Thus,

after subtracting the 15 days attributable to the filing of the motions, Defendant’s filing of

the notice of appeal was clearly beyond the ten day deadline under Fed.R.App.P. 4(b)(1).

Moreover, as the Eleventh Circuit held, Defendant’s motion for reconsideration did not serve

to toll the time period because it was not filed within ten business days of the Order from

which he appealed. 

Defendant does not otherwise attempt to excuse his failure to timely file.

Accordingly, the Court finds Defendant has failed to show excusable neglect or good cause

to excuse his late filing of the notice of appeal.

As directed by the Eleventh Circuit, the Clerk is directed to return the file to the

Eleventh Circuit for further proceedings.

ORDERED on this 28th day of July, 2008.

 s/L.A. Collier 

Lacey A. Collier

Senior United States District Judge

Case 3:95-cr-03093-LC-CJK Document 208 Filed 07/28/08 Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

PENSACOLA DIVISION 

IN RE: 3M COMBAT ARMS 

EARPLUG PRODUCTS

 Case No. 3:19md2885 

LIABILITY LITIGATION 

This Document Relates to: 

Vilsmeyer, 7:20cv113 

 

Judge M. Casey Rodgers 

Magistrate Judge Gary R. Jones 

DEPOSITION DESIGNATIONS ORDER NO. 5 

 This Order addresses Plaintiff’s objections and counter-designations to 

Defendants’ affirmative deposition designations and Defendants’ objections to 

Plaintiff’s counter-designations thereto for the following witness depositions:

1. Schaefer, Lynne (11/9/2021) 

2. Skarda Craft, Jami (11/23/2021) 

3. Vandersluis, Michele (11/17/2021) 

4. Vilsmeyer, Christina (11/19/2021) 

SO ORDERED this 11th day of March, 2022. 

 M. CASEY RODGERS 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 7:20-cv-00113-MCR-GRJ Document 113 Filed 03/11/22 Page 1 of 1
CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS AND ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS

*May 19, 2006*

[Cite as *05/19/2006 Case Announcements,*2006-Ohio-2453.]

MERIT DECISIONS WITHOUT OPINIONS

2006-0521.

#### Norfolk S. Ry. Co. v. Pub. Util. Comm.

Public Utilities Commission, No. 05-297-RR-FED. On motion to dismiss. Motion to dismiss granted. Cause dismissed.

Moyer, C.J., Resnick, Lundberg Stratton, O’Donnell and Lanzinger, JJ., concur.

Pfeifer and O’Connor, JJ., dissent.
###### Editorial Note on Part 226

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 226 appear at 70 FR 43261, July 27, 2005.

#### § 226.27 Information collection/recordkeeping—OMB assigned control numbers.

| 7 CFR section where requirements are described | Current OMB control number |
| --- | --- |
| 226.3-226.4 | 0584-0055 |
| 226.6-226.10 | 0584-0055 |
| 226.14-226.16 | 0584-0055 |
| 226.23-226.24 | 0584-0055 |

[50 FR 53258, Dec. 31, 1985]