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



     In connection with the Annual Report of Research
Frontiers Incorporated (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the
year ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Robert L. Saxe, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive
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:

1.   The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
     13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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/ Robert L. Saxe
Robert L. Saxe
Chairman of the Board
and Chief Executive Officer
March 22, 2007
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsMesoscale Variability in SUCCESS DataAnalysis of meteorological, chemical and microphysical data from the airborne SUCCESS (SUbsonic aircraft Contrail and Cloud Effects Special Study) mission is reported. Careful analysis of the complex DC-8 flight pattern of May 2, 1996 reveals 19 linear flight segments within six main geographical areas, which we have analyzed. Significant mountain wave activity is revealed in the data from the MMS (Meteorology Measurement System) and MTP (Microwave Temperature Profiler) instruments on the DC-8, which resembles previous observations of mountain wave structures near Boulder, Colorado. Strong mountain-wave-induced upwelling downwind of the Rockies is noted. Turbulence is also noted in regions of the mountain wave consistent with overturning near the tropopause. Zonal winds recorded on the ER-2 are shown to be consistent with mountain wave breaking at or near critical levels in the stratosphere, consistent with the strong turbulence reported by the pilot during the ER-2 flight. These observations have been supported with spectral analyses and modeling studies. 'Postcasts' of mountain wave activity on May 2, 1996 using the Naval Research Laboratory Mountain Wave Forecast Model predicts both strong mountain wave activity near the tropopause and strong mountain-wave-induced turbulence in the stratosphere.Document ID20020090931Acquisition SourceHeadquartersDocument TypeContractor Report (CR)AuthorsEckermann, Stephen D.*(Computational Physics, Inc. Fairfax, VA United States)*Stewart, Richard W.Date AcquiredSeptember 7, 2013Publication DateSeptember 1, 1998Subject CategoryGeophysicsReport/Patent NumberNASA/CR-2000-209887NAS 1.26:209887Funding Number(s)CONTRACT_GRANT: NAS5-97247Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType20020090931.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
EXHIBIT 21
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                    Subsidiaries of the Registrant

Name                                             Jurisdiction of Incorporation         Percentage Ownership
----                                             -----------------------------         --------------------

<S>                                              <C>                                      <C>
Billion Luck Company Ltd.                        British Virgin Islands                100%

Hainan Zhongwei Agricultural Resources           People's Republic of China            61% (5% held by the
   Co. Ltd.                                                                            Registrant and 56% held
                                                                                       by Billion Luck)

First Goods and Materials Supply and             People's Republic of China            100% (held by HARC)
   Sales Corporation

Second Goods and Materials Supply and            People's Republic of China            100% (held by HARC)
   Sales Corporation

Hainan Zhongwei Trading Company Ltd.             People's Republic of China            100% (95% held by
                                                                                       HARC and 5% held by
                                                                                       Billion Luck)

Zhuhai Zhongwei Development Co. Ltd.             People's Republic of China            100% (held by HARC)

Hainan Weilin Timber Limited Liability
   Company                                       People's Republic of China            58% (held by HARC)

Silver Moon Technologies Limited                 British Virgin Islands                80%

Zhongwei Medi-China.com Limited                  Hong Kong Special Administrative
                                                 Region                                100% (held by Silver Moon)
</TABLE>
Open Literature Review Screen

Chemical Name: Atrazine

CAS No: 1912-24-9

Citation: Lytle, J. S. and T. F. Lytle (2002). "Uptake and loss of chlorpyrifos and

atrazine by Juncus effusus L. in a mesocosm study with a mixture of pesticides." .

Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 21(9): 1817-1825. (V11te, P 4't(l.f, (/21-)

Date of Screen: 08/21/09

Rationale for Not Conducting a Full Open Literature Review Summary: The study

evaluates a mixture of atrazine, chlorpyrifos, monosodium methanearsonate and

monomethylmercury chloride as the active ingredient; data on the single atrazine active

ingredient are not provided.

Primary Reviewer: Lisa Muto, Staff Scientist, Cambridge Environmental Inc.

Secondary Reviewer: Teri Myers, Senior Scientist, Cambridge Environmental Inc.

11.1.1.111

2087849
#### § 1752.1 Purpose.

This part prescribes the policies and procedures for loan and grant servicing for financial assistance made under the Rural Utilities Service (RUS) Telecommunications Infrastructure Loan Program, Rural Broadband Program, Distance Learning and Telemedicine Program, Broadband Initiatives Program, and the Rural e-Connectivity Pilot Program (in this part collectively referred to as the “RUS Telecommunications Programs”).
#### §§ 2003.15-2003.16 [Reserved]
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.

§ 2.602 Manager, U.S. Codex Office. ( a ) *Delegations.* Pursuant to § 2.15(a)(5), subject to reservations in § 2.15(b), the following delegations of authority are made by the Under Secretary for Trade and Foreign Agricultural Affairs. ( i ) Inform the public of the sanitary and phytosanitary standard-setting activities of the Codex Alimentarius Commission (19 U.S.C. 2578; Pres. Proc. 6780).
( ii ) Enter into agreements with organizations, institutions or individuals throughout the world to conduct activities related to the sanitary and phytosanitary standard-setting activities of the Codex Alimentarius Commission, including international outreach and education, in order to promote and support the development of a viable and sustainable global agricultural system; antihunger and improved international nutrition efforts; and increased quantity, quality, and availability of food (7 U.S.C. 3291).
( iii ) Coordinate with institutions and other persons throughout the world performing agricultural and related research, extension, and teaching activities by exchanging research materials and results with such institutions or persons or by conducting with such institutions or persons joint or coordinated research, extension, or teaching activities that are related to the sanitary and phytosanitary standard-setting activities of the Codex Alimentarius Commission and that address problems of significance to food and agriculture in the United States (7 U.S.C. 3291).
( iv ) Work with transitional and more advanced countries in food, agricultural, and related research, development, teaching, and extension activities related to the sanitary and phytosanitary standard-setting activities of the Codex Alimentarius Commission (7 U.S.C. 3291).
( v ) Enter into contracts, grants, cooperative agreements, and cost reimbursable agreements to carry out the Department's agricultural research, extension, or teaching activities related to the sanitary and phytosanitary standard-setting activities of the Codex Alimentarius Commission (7 U.S.C. 3318, 3319a).
( vi ) Determine amounts reimbursable for indirect costs under international agricultural programs and agreements (7 U.S.C. 3319).
( vii ) Coordinate policy formulation for USDA international science and technology programs concerning the sanitary and phytosanitary standard-setting activities of the Codex Alimentar ius Commission (7 U.S.C. 3291).
( b ) [Reserved]
[83 FR 22188, May 14, 2018, as amended at 87 FR 44272, July 26, 2022]
Document No. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

VS CASE NO. 3:94cr3122LAC

ANTHONY CURTIS

REFERRAL AND ORDER

Referred to Judge Lacey Collier on January 27, 2006

Motion/Pleadings: NOTICE OF MOTION 

Filed byDEFENDANT PRO SE on1/17/06 Doc.# 165

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 30th day of

January, 2006, that:

(a) The relief requested is NOTED.

(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-03122-LC-MD Document 166 Filed 01/30/06 Page 1 of 1
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 207 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 207

 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make members of health 
 care sharing ministries eligible to establish health savings accounts.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 4, 2013

 Mr. Schock (for himself, Mrs. Bachmann, Mr. King of Iowa, Mr. Jones, 
Mr. Huelskamp, Mr. Huizenga of Michigan, Mr. Pitts, Mr. Posey, Mr. Roe 
    of Tennessee, Mr. Walberg, and Mr. Westmoreland) 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 make members of health 
 care sharing ministries eligible to establish health savings accounts.

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

SECTION 1. MEMBERS OF HEALTH CARE SHARING MINISTRIES ELIGIBLE TO 
              ESTABLISH HEALTH SAVINGS ACCOUNTS.

    (a) In General.--Section 223 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
    ``(i) Application to Health Care Sharing Ministries.--For purposes 
of this section, membership in a health care sharing ministry (as 
defined in section 5000A(d)(2)(B)(ii)) shall be treated as coverage 
under a high deductible health plan.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall apply 
to taxable years beginning after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
Editorial Note on Part 1951
Editorial Notes: 1. Some of the exhibits referenced in this part 1951 are not published in the Code of Federal Regulations. Exhibits are available in any Rural Development office. 2. Nomenclature changes to part 1951 appear at 80 FR 9890-9894, Feb. 24, 2015.

§ 1951.218 Use of Rural Development loans and grants for other purposes. ( a ) If, after making a loan or a grant, the Administrator determines that the circumstances under which the loan or grant was made have sufficiently changed to make the project or activity for which the loan or grant was made available no longer appropriate, the Administrator may allow the loan borrower or grant recipient to use property (real and personal) purchased or improved with the loan or grant funds, or proceeds from the sale of property (real and personal) purchased with such funds, for another project or activity that: ( 1 ) Will be carried out in the same area as the original project or activity;
( 2 ) Meets the criteria for a loan or grant described in section 381E(d) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act, as amended; and
( 3 ) Satisfies such additional requirements as are established by the Administrator.
( b ) For the purpose of this section, Administrator means the Administrator of the Rural Housing Service or Rural Business-Cooperative Service that has the delegated authority to administer the loan or grant program that covers the property or the proceeds from the sale of property proposed to be used in another way.
( c ) If the new use of the property is under the authority of another Administrator, the other Administrator will be consulted on whether the new use will meet the criteria of the other program. Since the new project or activity must be carried out in the same area as the original project or activity, a new rural area determination will not be necessary.
( d ) Borrowers and grantees that wish to take advantage of this option may make their request through the appropriate Rural Development State Office. Permission to use this option will be exercised on a case-by-case-basis on applications submitted through the State Office to the Administrator for consideration. If the proposal is approved, the Administrator will issue a memorandum to the State Director outlining the conditions necessary to complete the transaction.
[72 FR 55018, Sept. 28, 2007]
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

ESTATE OF GLENN MITCHELL 

HAND, by and through PHYLLIS A. 

HAND, Personal Representative,

Plaintiff,

vs.

CASE NO.: 4:20-CV-66-AW-HTC

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF 

CORRECTIONS; CENTURION OF 

FLORIDA; MHM HEALTH 

PROFESSIONALS, INC.; DAVID E. 

RODRIGUEZ-RIVERA, M.D., a/k/a 

DAVID RODRIGUEZ, M.D.; JEAN 

MAX SAINT CHARLES, M.D.; JUAN 

SANTIAGO, M.D. a/k/a JUAN 

SANTIAGO RIVERA, M.D.; PETER 

FABIAN EDEMEKONG, M.D.; 

DRIANNA NISHELL LAW, ARNP,

Defendants.

________________________________/

NOTICE OF APPEAL TO COURT OF APPEALS

Notice is hereby given that Plaintiff, ESTATE OF GLENN MITCHELL 

HAND, by and through PHYLLIS A. HAND, personal representative, in the abovementioned case, hereby appeals to the United States Court of Appeals for the

Eleventh Circuit from the Order and Final Judgment dismissing Plaintiff’s § 1983 

claims [ECF Nos. 74 and 75] entered in this action on April 28, 2021, the District 

Court’s Order dismissing Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims [ECF No. 59] entered in this 

Case 4:20-cv-00066-AW-HTC Document 76 Filed 05/05/21 Page 1 of 3
2

action on January 13, 2021, and the District Court’s Order denying Plaintiff’s 

Motion to Amend Complaint and/or Motion for Reconsideration/Rehearing [ECF 

No. 70] entered in this action on April 8, 2021.

DATED this 5th day of May 2021.

/s/ Adam Anderson

Adam C. Anderson, Esq.

Florida Bar No. 125640

ADAM ANDERSON LAW FIRM

5 Miracle Strip Loop, Ste. 7

Panama City Beach, Florida 32407

Phone: (850) 588-3288

Fax: (850) 588-3287

Email: adam@winwithadam.com

Attorney for Plaintiff

Case 4:20-cv-00066-AW-HTC Document 76 Filed 05/05/21 Page 2 of 3
3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on May 5, 2021, I electronically filed the foregoing 

with the Clerk of the Court by using the CM/ECF system which will send a notice 

of electronic filing to the following: Francis H. Sheppard at 

fsheppard@rumberger.com and Kayla E. Platt Rady at krady@rumberger.com

(counsel for Defendants Centurion of Florida; MHM Health Professionals, Inc.; 

David E. Rodriguez-Rivera, M.D., a/k/a David Rodriguez, M.D.; Jean Max Saint 

Charles, M.D.; Juan Santiago, M.D. a/k/a Juan Santiago Rivera, M.D.; Peter Fabian 

Edemekong, M.D.; Drianna Nishell Law, ARNP), Thomas R. Thompson at 

tom@tcslawfirm.net and Mallory R. Bennett at mallory@tcslawfirm.net (counsel 

for Defendant Florida Department of Corrections).

DATED this 5th day of May 2021.

/s/ Adam Anderson

Adam C. Anderson, Esq.

Florida Bar No. 125640

ADAM ANDERSON LAW FIRM

5 Miracle Strip Loop, Ste. 7

Panama City Beach, Florida 32407

Phone: (850) 588-3288

Fax: (850) 588-3287

Email: adam@winwithadam.com

Attorney for Plaintiff

Case 4:20-cv-00066-AW-HTC Document 76 Filed 05/05/21 Page 3 of 3
#### HOFFMAN v. AMERICAN TOBACCO CO.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department.

June 18, 1914.)

PBINCIPAL AND AGENT (§ 3*)-THE RELATION—CbEATION AND EXISTENCE.

Where a tobacco company authorized a certain advertising concern to place advertisements for it, and such concern entered into an agreement with another advertising company, whereby the latter agreed to have defendant’s advertisements inserted in certain publications, the latter advertising company was not the agent of defendant.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Principal and Agent, Cent. Dig. §§ 3-9, IT, 12; Dec. Dig. § 3.*]

*152Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, First District.

Action by Edmund Hoffman against the American Tobacco Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.

Reversed.

Argued June term, 1914, before SEABURY, PAGE, and BIJUR, JJ.

Jonathan H. Holmes, of New York City, for appellant.

Dudley E. Latham, of New York City, for respondent.

*

For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes

PER CURIAM.

The facts in this case are not disputed. The plaintiff published a college newspaper known as the Pennsylvania. A concern known as the F. E. Anspacher Company was in the advertising business, as was also a concern known as the Frank Presbrey Company. This latter company had authority from the defendant to place advertisements of its products. The Anspacher Company and the Presbrey Company entered into an agreement whereby the former agreed to have the advertisements of the defendant’s products inserted in certain publications, of which plaintiff’s was one, and the advertisements were so published by plaintiff. Defendant’s business was all done with the Presbrey Company, and all advertisements placed by that company were paid by defendant to the Presbrey Company. The plaintiff sent his bills to the Anspacher Company, and that company in turn sent them to the Presbrey Company, who paid them; they sending the bills to defendant, who paid the Presbrey Company.

The theory of the plaintiff seems to be that the Anspacher Company was some sort of a subagent for the Presbrey Company, and in consequence became the agent of the defendant. There is nothing in the record, however, to support such a theory. There is a letter in evidence from the “Smoking Tobacco Department” on the defendant’s letter paper, which recognizes the Presbrey Company as its “advertising agent”; but this letter merely shows a certain relationship between those parties, and in no way creates the Anspacher Company an agent for the defendant. This case differs in many respects from the case of Clarke v. Watt, 83 Misc. Rep. 404, 145 N. Y. Supp. 145, and that case is no authority for the judgment in this.

The judgment should be reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event. All concur.
lps5322
#### § 201.30c Noxious-weed seeds of vegetable seed in containers of more than 1 pound.

Except for those kinds of noxious-weed seeds shown in § 201.16(b), the names of kinds of noxious-weed seeds and the rate of occurrence of each shall be expressed in the label in accordance with, and the rate shall not exceed the rate permitted by, the law and regulations of the State into which the seed is offered for transportation or is transported. If in the course of such transportation, or thereafter, the seed is diverted to another State of destination, the person or persons responsible for such diversion shall cause the seed to be relabeled with respect to noxious-weed seed content, if necessary, to conform to the laws and regulations of the State into which the seed is diverted.

[85 FR 40580, July 7, 2020]
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

JAMI CLAIRE, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v. Case No.: 4:20cv20-MW/MAF

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF

MANAGEMENT SERVICES, et al.,

Defendants.

____________________________/

ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION FOR EXTENSION

This Court has considered, without hearing, the parties’ joint motion for 

extension of time to respond to this Court’s Order for supplemental briefing. ECF 

No. 180. The joint motion is GRANTED. Plaintiffs’ deadline to file their 

supplemental brief is extended to on or before September 13, 2024. Defendants’ 

deadline to file their response is extended to on or before October 11, 2024.

SO ORDERED on September 6, 2024.

s/Mark E. Walker 

Chief United States District Judge

Case 4:20-cv-00020-MW-MAF Document 181 Filed 09/06/24 Page 1 of 1
#### Lillard *vs.*Fields.

Error. Case 36.

Error to the Franklin Circuit; FI. DavidGE, Jutlgc.-

*Amendment. Abatement.*

What tho court may ame-G *ex*cIuilk'ered b° done without auy formal order.

Death of plamuff in a ■priortoVho emanation of the writ fatal abatement.

Triplett, for plaintiff; *Monroe*and *Sanders,*for defendant.

April 6.

Chief Justice Robertson,

delivered tl e opinion of the Court

Thomas Lillard and Mark Lillard are plaintiffs in this writ of error, prosecuted to reverse a judgment obtained against Thomas Lillard only, Tho act of 1826 (Session Arts SO, Chapt. *23)*authorizes this court to amend the writ, by striking out the name of the unnecessary party. And as it is a rule, that what may be amended by the *court*ex officio should, without any formal or express order of amendment, be deemed as amended *nunc pro*tunc, this writ should be regarded as a writ prosccuted in the name of Thomas Lillard alone.

j}l]t the defendant in error has pleaded in abatement that Thomas Lillard, the plaintiff, had died prior to the impetration of the writ, and, that fact being admitted, the only question submitted to the court is, whether the writ is thereby abated?

The fact admitted, proves that the writ was false and misconceived as to thc true party who should be plaintiff. This error is not amendable and is la-ta!.

Wherefore the writ of error must be quashed.
#### § 2620.4 Denials.

If it is determined that a requested record is exempt from mandatory disclosure and that discretionary release would be improper, the Counsel to the Inspector General or the Counsel's designee shall give written notice of denial in accordance with subpart A of part 1 of this title.