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





Certification of Principal
Executive Officer


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 Quarterly Report
of SRKP 2, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30,
2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), I, Richard A. Rappaport, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
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.





/s/ Richard A. RappaportRichard
      A. Rappaport
                  Principal
      Executive Officer
                  October
      23, 2009
#### In the Matter of William Cahn, as District Attorney of Nassau County, Respondent, v. Paul Vario, Sr., Appellant.

Appeal from an order

of the County Court, Nassau County, dated March 7, 1969, which summarily adjudged appellant in criminal contempt of court for conduct committed in the presence of the court. On oral motion of the District Attorney of Nassau County, made on argument of the appeal, the appeal is dismissed, without costs. No appeal from such order ordinarily lies, the proper method of review being a proceeding pursuant to article 78 of the CPLR *(People*v. *Longo,*30 A D 2d 828), since in a summary proceeding the contemnor may not have adequate opportunity to develop a competent record for appellate review and in such circumstances may need an article 78 proceeding to give him the chance to develop the full record required *(People*v. *Zweig,*32 A D 2d 569). In the instant matter, appellant apparently concluded that the record of his appearance in the County Court was not full enough to support his views that he was improperly punished for contempt of that tribunal and so he brought on a habeas corpus proceeding, which was transformed into an article 78 proceeding and transferred to this court by the Supreme Court, Nassau County. Under the circumstances, the instant appeal is moot and this court will pass upon the issues tendered in the article 78 proceeding (see *People ex rel. Vario*v. *Kreuger,*32 A D 2d 571). Christ, Acting P. J., Rabin, Benjamin, Munder and Martuscello, JJ., concur.
2006-0236.

#### State v. Parker.

Ashtabula App. No. 2004-A-0004, 2005-Ohio-6908.

Pfeifer, J., dissents.
2004 Annual Salary Information



 Exhibit 10.56 
  
 2004 Annual Salary Information for Chief Executive Officer and Named Executive Officers 
  
 The following table sets forth as of March 1, 2005, the chief executive
officer and each named executive officer’s current annual salary: 
  

				
	 Named Executive Officer

	  	Salary


	 Larry C. Glasscock
	  	$	1,081,600
	 Keith R. Faller
	  	$	600,000
	 Thomas G. Snead Jr.
	  	$	560,000
	 David R. Frick
	  	$	535,000
	 Michael L. Smith
	  	$	535,000

  
 The named executive officers were
determined based on salary and annual bonus for 2004 as required by the Instructions to Item 402(a)(3) of Regulation S-K.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ARMANDO SANCHEZ-FUENTES,

AKA Armando Sanchez Puentes,

 Petitioner,

 v.

LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 14-71989

Agency No. A090-811-836

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted February 24, 2016** 

Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

Armando Sanchez-Fuentes, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an

immigration judge’s order of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.

FILED

MAR 02 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
§ 1252. We review de novo questions of law, and review for substantial evidence

the agency’s factual findings. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th

Cir. 2005). We deny the petition for review.

Sanchez-Fuentes fails to challenge the agency’s dispositive determination

that his convictions are aggravated felonies that constitute per se particularly

serious crimes that render him ineligible for withholding of removal. See 8 U.S.C.

§ 1231(b)(3)(B)(ii), (iv) (an aggravated felony with a sentence imposed of at least

5 years shall be considered a particularly serious crime); see Martinez-Serrano v.

INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues not specifically raised and

argued in a party’s opening brief are waived).

Accordingly, we need not reach Sanchez-Fuentes’ challenges to the agency’s

denial of withholding of removal regarding whether his crimes involved

aggravating factors and whether he has demonstrated membership in a protected

group or likelihood that he would be persecuted upon return to Mexico. See

Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004) (“courts and agencies are

not required to make findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the

results they reach”).

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of deferral of removal

under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), because Sanchez-Fuentes failed to

2 14-71989
establish that it is more likely than not that he would be tortured by or with the

consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Mexico. See 8 C.F.R. 

§ 1208.16(c)(2); Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008). 

Sanchez-Fuentes fails to establish that the agency did not consider all relevant

evidence in making its CAT determination. See Larita-Martinez v. INS, 220 F.3d

1092, 1095-96 (9th Cir. 2000) (petitioners must overcome presumption that agency

reviewed all evidence).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 

3 14-71989
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsUsing transonic small disturbance theory for predicting the aeroelastic stability of a flexible wind-tunnel modelThe CAP-TSD (Computational Aeroelasticity Program - Transonic Small Disturbance) code, developed at the NASA - Langley Research Center, is applied to the Active Flexible Wing (AFW) wind tunnel model for prediction of the model's transonic aeroelastic behavior. Static aeroelastic solutions using CAP-TSD are computed. Dynamic (flutter) analyses are then performed as perturbations about the static aeroelastic deformations of the AFW. The accuracy of the static aeroelastic procedure is investigated by comparing analytical results to those from previous AFW wind tunnel experiments. Dynamic results are presented in the form of root loci at different Mach numbers for a heavy gas and air. The resultant flutter boundaries for both gases are also presented. The effects of viscous damping and angle-of-attack, on the flutter boundary in air, are presented as well.Document ID19900010731Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeConference PaperAuthorsSilva, Walter A.*(Lockheed Engineering and Sciences Co. Hampton, VA., United States)*Bennett, Robert M.*(NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateMarch 1, 1990Subject CategoryAerodynamicsReport/Patent NumberNAS 1.15:102617NASA-TM-102617Meeting InformationMeeting: AIAA 31st Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials ConferenceLocation: Long Beach, CACountry: United StatesStart Date: April 2, 1990End Date: April 4, 1990Accession Number90N20047Funding Number(s)PROJECT: RTOP 505-63-21-04Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19900010731.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
#### Richard Clark et al. *v.*Leo J. Mulcahy et al.

*Fíalo G. Gnutti,*for the appellants (plaintiffs).

*Bernard F. McGovern, Jr.,*assistant attorney general, for the appellees (defendants).

Argued October 5

decided October 5, 1971

It appearing that the plaintiffs in the above-entitled ease have failed to prosecute their appeal from the Superior Court in Tolland County with proper diligence, it is, under Practice Book § 696, ordered by the Supreme Court, suo motu, that the appeal be and hereby is dismissed unless the appellants’ brief is field on or before November 15, 1971.
|   | (1) | The  Report  fully  complies  with  the  requirements  of  Section  13(a)  of  the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|--------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the  consolidated financial condition of the Company as of the dates presented and  the  consolidated  result  of  operations  of  the  Company  for  the  periods presented in this report. |
|--------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date: January 19, 2012 |   | /s/  Yijun Wang                         |   |
|----------------------------------|--------|---------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                             |   | Yijun Wang                                        |   |
|                             |   | Chief Executive Officer, President & Director |   |
#### CHEMICAL BANK & TRUST COMPANY, Petitioner, v. Honorable Edward J. DIMOCK, United States District Judge, Respondent.

No. 22961.

United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit.

Motion Submitted Jan. 11, 1954.

Decided Feb. 5, 1954.

Shearman & Sterling & Wright, New York City, for petitioner; John A. Wilson, New York City, of counsel.

Burlingham, Hupper & Kennedy, New York City, for Holland-American Line in support of petitioner; Harold M. Kennedy and Hervey C. Allen, Jr., New York City, of counsel.

Bennet, House & Couts, New York. City, for Arnold Bernstein, plaintiff below, in opposition; Victor House, Albert I. Edelman and Werner Usen, New York City, of counsel.

Before AUGUSTUS N. HAND, CLARK and FRANK, Circuit Judges.

*377PER CURIAM.

Petitioner charges that Judge Dimock disregarded our mandate in Bernstein v. N. V. Nederlandsehe-Amerikaansche Stoomvaart-Maatschappij (Chemical Bank & Trust Co.), 2 Cir., 173 F.2d 71, 75-76, but since we have amended our mandate in this case, 2 Cir., 210 F.2d 375, we find it unnecessary to pass on the validity of the petitioner’s contentions or the propriety of resort to mandamus.

Petition denied.
Editorial Note on Part 1955
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 1955 appear at 80 FR 9895, Feb. 24, 2015.

§ 1955.54 Redelegation of authority. Authorities will be redelegated to the extent possible, consistent with program objectives and available resources. ( a ) Any authority in this subpart which is specifically provided to the Administrator or to an Assistant Administrator may only be delegated to a State Director. The State Director cannot redelegate such authority.
( b ) Except as provided in paragraph (a) of this section, the State Director may redelegate, in writing, any authority delegated to the State Director in this subpart, unless specifically excluded, to a Program Chief, Program Specialist, or Property Management Specialist on the State Office staff.
( c ) The District Director may redelegate, in writing, any authority delegated to the District Director in this subpart to an Assistant District Director or District Loan Specialist. Authority of District Directors in this subpart applies to Area Loan Specialists in Alaska and the Director for the Western Pacific Territories.
( d ) The County Supervisor may redelegate, in writing, any authority delegated to the County Supervisor in this subpart to an Assistant County Supervisor, GS-7 or above, who is determined by the County Supervisor to be qualified. Authority of County Supervisors in this subpart applies to Area Loan Specialists in Alaska, Island Directors in Hawaii, the Director for the Western Pacific Territories, and Area Supervisors in the Western Pacific Territories and American Samoa.
#### § 201.3 Administrator.

The Administrator of the Agricultural Marketing Service may perform such duties as the Secretary requires in enforcing the provisions of the Act and of the regulations in this part.

[85 FR 40579, July 7, 2020]
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsFlight set 360T004 (STS-30)The performance of 360T004, Forth Flight, Redesigned Solid Rocket Motors (RSRM) is assessed in respect to joint sealing issues as seen from post-test inspection of the seals and sealing surfaces. The factory joint disassembly inspections for this flight set were omitted. The decision was based on the rational that there is sufficient information in the present data base, and this would give H-7 refurbishment operations faster turn around time for this set of hardware. The factory joint disassembly inspections will resume for 360H005, Fifth Flight, through 360L007, Seventh Flight, due to a new grease application being in effect during the assembly process. The left hand nozzle was forced into the snubbed position upon splash down. This required unique tooling to be manufactured to perform the disassembly of the internal nozzle joints. This was completed on February 5 and 6, 1990 at the H-5 Clearfield, Utah facility. The RSRM consisting of capture feature, field joints with the J-joint insulation configuration is illustrated. The nozzle-to-case joint design, which includes 100, 7/8-inch radial bolts in conjunction with a wiper O-ring and modified insulation design is also illustrated, as is the ignition system seals and a cross section of the igniter. The configuration of all internal nozzle joints is shown.Document ID19900012733Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeContractor Report (CR)AuthorsNelsen, Lowell V.*(Thiokol Corp. Brigham City, UT, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateMarch 1, 1990Subject CategoryMechanical EngineeringReport/Patent NumberTWR-17543-VOL-4NASA-CR-183927NAS 1.26:183927Accession Number90N22049Funding Number(s)CONTRACT_GRANT: NAS8-30490Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19900012733.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
#### In the Matter of Nicholas V. Midey, Jr., as Assistant Seneca County Public Defender, Petitioner, v Daniel A. De Pasquale, as Seneca County Judge, et al., Respondents.

— Petition unanimously dismissed, without costs. Memorandum: We hold that the filing in the county clerk’s office of the unsigned designation by respondent De Pasquale and of the schedule of terms and assignments (made and signed by the Chief Administrative Judge and approved by the Presiding Justice of the Appellate Division) both *1060of which established a Grand Jury term for Seneca County to commence on January 29, 1979 constituted due compliance with sections 190-c and 190-e of the Judiciary Law (see, also, Judiciary Law, § 212). (Article 78.) Present— Cardamone, J. P., Simons, Hancock, Jr., Callahan and Doerr, JJ.
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-84,065-01

EX PARTE FRANKLIN DAVIS

ON MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE AN APPLICATION FOR A

WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IN CAUSE NO. W12-12630-Y(A)

IN CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT NO. 7

DALLAS COUNTY

Per curiam.

O R D E R

This case is before us because applicant has filed a motion for an extension of time

to file an application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to the provisions of Texas Code

of Criminal Procedure Article 11.071.

1

On November 16, 2013, a jury convicted applicant of capital murder and the trial

Unless otherwise indicated all references to Articles refer to the Code of

1

Criminal Procedure.
Davis - 2

court sentenced him to death. The trial court immediately appointed the Office of

2

Capital Writs to represent applicant on an Article 11.071 writ application. During

3

several months of 2015, the Office of Capital Writs found itself in transition and without

a director. By Court appointment, the Office installed a new director on October 1, 2015.

On August 4, 2015, the State filed its brief on applicant’s direct appeal. Under

Article 11.071 § 4(b), this initially made applicant’s writ application due in the trial court

no later than September 18, 2015. Because the OCW timely requested and received the

statutorily allowed 90-day extension for filing, applicant’s writ application is now due in

the trial court on or before December 17, 2015. However, as the due date draws closer,

the new director of the OCW has expressed concern over whether he will have enough

time to complete his review of the case. Acknowledging that the trial court is without the

authority to grant the OCW another extension, the Office has filed with this Court an

early motion for an extension of time under Article 11.071 § 4A.

4

Under the circumstances, this Court holds that the OCW has shown good cause

supporting its request for additional time to file applicant’s writ application. Although

the extension allowed by Article 11.071 § 4A is technically only invoked after a party has

Applicant’s direct appeal is currently pending before this Court.

2

The Office of Capital Writs has been renamed. It is now the Office of Capital

3

and Forensic Writs.

The motion for an extension of time will not be sealed. However, the affidavit

4

accompanying the motion shall be sealed by order of this Court.
Davis - 3

failed to timely filed a writ application, we grant the OCW’s preemptive motion and hold

that it shall have an additional 90 days from the day the writ application is currently due

to file the application. Thus, applicant’s writ application shall be due in the trial court on

or before March 16, 2016.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS THE 5 DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2015.

TH

Do Not Publish
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1262 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase the applicable 

dollar amount for qualified carbon oxide which is captured and utilized 

for purposes of the carbon oxide sequestration credit. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 28, 2023 

Mr. SCHWEIKERT (for himself and Ms. SEWELL) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase 

the applicable dollar amount for qualified carbon oxide 

which is captured and utilized for purposes of the carbon 

oxide sequestration credit. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘CCU Parity Act of 

5 2023’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1262 IH

1 SEC. 2. INCREASE APPLICABLE DOLLAR AMOUNT FOR 

2 QUALIFIED CARBON OXIDE WHICH IS CAP3 TURED AND UTILIZED. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 45Q(b)(1)(A) of the In5 ternal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended— 

6 (1) in clause (i), by striking subclause (II) and 

7 inserting the following— 

8 ‘‘(II) for purposes of paragraph 

9 (4) of such subsection— 

10 ‘‘(aa) with respect to any 

11 qualified carbon oxide which is 

12 captured and used in the manner 

13 described in clause (i) of para14 graph (4)(B) of such subsection, 

15 $12, and 

16 ‘‘(bb) with respect to any 

17 qualified carbon oxide which is 

18 captured and utilized in the man19 ner described in clause (ii) of 

20 paragraph (4)(B) of such sub21 section, $17, and’’, and 

22 (2) in clause (ii), by striking subclause (II) and 

23 inserting the following: 

24 ‘‘(II) for purposes of paragraph 

25 (4) of such subsection— 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 1262 IH

1 ‘‘(aa) with respect to any 

2 qualified carbon oxide which is 

3 captured and used in the manner 

4 described in clause (i) of para5 graph (4)(B) of such subsection, 

6 an amount equal to the product 

7 of $12 and the inflation adjust8 ment factor for such calendar 

9 year determined under section 

10 43(b)(3)(B) for such calendar 

11 year, determined by substituting 

12 ‘2025’ for ‘1990’, and 

13 ‘‘(bb) with respect to any 

14 qualified carbon oxide which is 

15 captured and utilized in the man16 ner described in clause (ii) of 

17 paragraph (4)(B) of such sub18 section, an amount equal to the 

19 product of $17 and the inflation 

20 adjustment factor for such cal21 endar year determined under sec22 tion 43(b)(3)(B) for such cal23 endar year, determined by sub24 stituting ‘2025’ for ‘1990’.’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
4 

•HR 1262 IH

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

2 this section shall apply to carbon oxide captured and uti3 lized after December 31, 2023. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
§ 1775.36 Purpose. Grants may be made to organizations as defined in § 1775.35 to enable such organizations to assist associations to: ( a ) Identify and evaluate solutions to water problems of associations in rural areas relating to source, storage, treatment, and/or distribution.
( b ) Identify and evaluate solutions to waste problems of associations in rural areas relating to collection, treatment, and/or disposal.
( c ) Prepare water and/or waste disposal loan/grant applications.
( d ) Provide technical assistance/training to association personnel that will improve the management, operation, and maintenance of water and waste facilities.
( e ) Identify options to enhance the long-term sustainability of rural water and waste systems, including operational practices, revenue enhancements, partnerships, consolidation, regionalization, or contract services.
( f ) Address the contamination of drinking water and surface water supplies by emerging contaminants, including per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances.
( g ) Pay the expenses associated with providing the technical assistance and/or training authorized in paragraphs (a) through (f) of this section.
[70 FR 70878, Jan. 7, 2004, as amended at 85 FR 23210, Apr. 27, 2020]
#### ROBERT E. MARTIN, JR. *v.*TOWN OF WESTPORT

(AC 23680)

West, DiPentima and Dupont, Js.

Argued September 10

officially released November 4, 2003

Per Curiam.

The decision of the workers’ compensation commissioner is affirmed.