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

 

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADDED BY

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Banner Resources Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Robert Krause, President and Treasurer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.ss. 1350, as added by ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

|   | (a) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|--------|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

|   | (b) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of and for the period covered by the Report. |
|--------|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

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

 

Date:   August 20, 2007

 

 

|   | By  /*s/ Robert Krause* |        |
|--------|-------------------------|--------------------------------------|

Robert Krause, President and Treasurer

(Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
#### § 29.96 Order in which made.

Appeals shall be heard and passed upon, so far as practicable, in the order in which they are filed.
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 quarterly report of Banner Resources Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended September 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Robert Krause, Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial and Accounting 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) 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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------





|Date: | November 15, 2007
|----- | -----------------

By:/s/ Robert Krause

| | Robert Krause
| | -------------

President and Treasurer

Principal Executive Officer and

Principal Financial and Accounting Officer







---
§ 247.26 Return of administrative funds. ( a ) *Must State agencies return administrative funds that they do not use at the end of the fiscal year?* Yes. If, by the end of the fiscal year, a State agency has not obligated all of its allocated administrative funds, the unobligated funds must be returned to FNS.
( b ) *What happens to administrative funds that are returned by State agencies at the end of the fiscal year?* If, in the following fiscal year, OMB reapportions the returned administrative funds, the funds are used to support the program. Such funds are not returned to State agencies in the form of administrative funds in addition to the legislatively mandated grant per assigned caseload slot.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 0584-0293)
§ 319.37-11 Packing and approved packing material. ( a ) Plants for planting for importation into the United States must not be packed in the same container as plants for planting whose importation into the United States is not authorized pending pest risk analysis in accordance with § 319.37-4.
( b ) Any plants for planting at the time of importation or offer for importation into the United States shall not be packed in a packing material unless the plants were packed in the packing material immediately prior to shipment; such packing material is free from sand, soil, or earth (except as designated in the Plants for Planting Manual); has not been used previously as packing material or otherwise; and is approved by the Administrator as not posing a risk of introducing quarantine pests. Approved packing materials are listed in the Plants for Planting Manual.
( c ) If the Administrator determines that a new packing material may be added to the list of packing materials, or that a packing material currently listed should no longer be approved, APHIS will publish in the Federal Register a notice that announces our proposed determination and requests comment on the change. After the close of the comment period, APHIS will publish another notice informing the public of the Administrator's decision on the change to the list of approved packing materials.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 0579-0190)
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

September 25, 2020

No. 04

- 20

- 00134

- CV

H.L. ZUMWALT CONSTRUCTION, INC.,

Appellant

v.

ROAD REPAIR, LLC,

Appellee

From the 111th Judicial District Court

, Webb County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2015CVQ002791D2

Honora ble Monica Z. Notzon , Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Appellant’s first unopposed motion for extension of time is GRANTED.

Appellant’s reply brief is due October 6 , 2020.

_________________________________ Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunt o set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 25th day of September, 2020

.

___________________________________ MICHAEL A. CRUZ

, Clerk of Court
Exhibit 99.4

                                                                  EDWARD D. FORD
                                                            6505 St. Andrews Way
                                                          Whistler, B.C. V0N 1B6
                                 March 16, 2006

International Gemini Technology Inc.
#208 - 828 Harbourside Drive
North Vancouver, B.C. V7P 3R9

Attention: Martin Schultz, Secretary

Dear Sirs:

Re: Outback Capital Inc. ("OCI")

Further to our April 16, 2005 Letter  Agreement,  our recent  discussions and in
consideration of your Subscription Agreement dated April 15, 2005 with OCI, this
letter is meant to confirm the following:

     1.   I own 3,000,000 unencumbered common shares of OCI (the "Shares");

     2.   The Letter Agreement granted to you an option to acquire the Shares in
          exchange  for  1,000,000   common  shares  of   International   Gemini
          Technology Inc. (the "Option");

     3.   By this  letter I agree to extend the expiry of the Option to any time
          prior to 5:00 pm  (Vancouver  Time) March 31, 2007;  provided that you
          have first fully performed under the Subscription Agreement.

I trust this clearly  outlines our mutual  agreement,  and ask that you indicate
same by  executing  the enclosed  copy of this letter and  returning it to me at
your earliest convenience. Thank you.

Sincerely,

"signed"

EDWARD D. FORD


Acknowledged and agreed, this 16th day of March 2006


INTERNATIONAL GEMINI TECHNOLOGY INC.


Per "signed"

Martin Schultz, Secretary
§ 301.87-6 Compliance agreement; cancellation. ( a ) Any person engaged in the business of growing, handling, or moving regulated articles may enter into a compliance agreement to facilitate the movement of regulated articles under this subpart.[1] The compliance agreement shall be a written agreement between a person engaged in such a business and Plant Protection and Quarantine, in which the person agrees to comply with the provisions of this subpart and any conditions imposed pursuant to such provisions.
( b ) Any compliance agreement may be canceled orally or in writing by the inspector who is supervising its enforcement whenever the inspector finds that such person has failed to comply with the provisions of this subpart or any conditions imposed pursuant to such provisions. If the cancellation is oral, the decision and the reasons for the cancellation shall be confirmed in writing as promptly as circumstances allow. Any person whose compliance agreement has been canceled may appeal the decision, in writing, to the Deputy Administrator within ten days after receiving written notification of the cancellation. The appeal shall state all of the facts and reasons upon which the person relies to show that the compliance agreement was wrongfully cancelled. The Deputy Administrator shall grant or deny the appeal, in writing, stating the reasons for the decision, as promptly as circumstances allow. If there is a conflict as to any material fact, a hearing shall be held to resolve the conflict under rules of practice which shall be adopted by the Administrator of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA, for the proceeding.
[48 FR 50059, Oct. 31, 1983, as amended at 59 FR 67609, Dec. 30, 1994; 87 FR 80016, Dec. 29, 2022] Footnotes -
301.87-6
[1] Compliance Agreement forms are available without charge from the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Plant Protection and Quarantine, Domestic and Emergency Operations, 4700 River Road Unit 134, Riverdale, Maryland 20737-1236, and from local offices of Plant Protection and Quarantine. (Local offices are listed in telephone directories.)
#### § 29.3011 Color intensity.

The varying degree of saturation or chroma. Color intensity as applied to tobacco describes the strength or weakness of a specific color or hue. It is applicable to all colors except variegated. Color intensity is reversed in its application to grades of greenish and green tobaccos and is omitted from these grade specifications. (See Elements of quality.)

[24 FR 8771, Oct. 29, 1959. Redesignated at 49 FR 16757, Apr. 20, 1984]
Editorial Note on Part 3400
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 3400 appear at 76 FR 4806, Jan. 27, 2011.

§ 3400.3 Eligibility requirements. ( a ) Except where otherwise prohibited by law, any State agricultural experiment station, all colleges and universities, other research institutions and organizations, Federal agencies, private organizations or corporations, and individuals, shall be eligible to apply for and to receive a special research project grant under this part, provided that the applicant qualifies as a responsible grantee under the criteria set forth in paragraph (b) of this section.
( b ) To qualify as responsible, an applicant must meet the following standards as they relate to a particular project: ( 1 ) Have adequate financial resources for performance, the necessary experience, organizational and technical qualifications, and facilities, or a firm commitment, arrangement, or ability to obtain such (including proposed subagreements);
( 2 ) Be able to comply with the proposed or required completion schedule for the project;
( 3 ) Have a satisfactory record of integrity, judgment, and performance, including, in particular, any prior performance under grants and contracts from the Federal Government;
( 4 ) Have an adequate financial management system and audit procedure which provides efficient and effective accountability and control of all property, funds, and other assets; and
( 5 ) Be otherwise qualified and eligible to receive a research project grant under applicable laws and regulations.
( c ) Any applicant who is determined to be not responsible will be notified in writing of such findings and the basis therefor.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2465 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2465

 To require the Surgeon General of the Public Health Service to submit 
 to Congress an annual report on the effects of gun violence on public 
                                health.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 20, 2013

Ms. Kelly of Illinois introduced the following bill; which was referred 
                to the Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To require the Surgeon General of the Public Health Service to submit 
 to Congress an annual report on the effects of gun violence on public 
                                health.

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

SECTION 1. REPORT ON EFFECTS OF GUN VIOLENCE ON PUBLIC HEALTH.

    Not later than one year after the date of the enactment of this 
Act, and annually thereafter, the Surgeon General of the Public Health 
Service shall submit to Congress a report on the effects on public 
health of gun violence in the United States during the relevant period, 
and the status of actions taken to address such effects.
                                 <all>
```
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. CASE NO. 1:92-cr-01027-MP-AK

EDGAR ARNOLD GARCIA,

Defendant.

________________________________/

O R D E R

This matter is before the Court on Doc. 137, Motion for Judicial Recusal, filed by

Defendant Edgar Garcia. In his motion, Defendant moves for my recusal in this case for alleged

“pervasive bias and prejudice.” Under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), a judge must recuse himself

whenever his impartiality might reasonably be questioned. “[A]dverse rulings alone do not

provide a party with a basis for holding that the court’s impartiality is in doubt.” Byrne v.

Nezhat, 261 F.3d 1075, 1103 (11th Cir. 2001). Defendant Garcia utilizes the vast majority of his

motion for recusal to argue the merits of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus, which has

already been denied. Importantly though, Defendant does not cite a single example beyond

adverse rulings that demonstrates bias or prejudice. Defendant fails to demonstrate facts which

reasonably place the undersigned’s impartiality in doubt. Therefore, Defendant’s motion for

recusal is denied.

DONE AND ORDERED this 20th day of March, 2008

 s/Maurice M. Paul 

 Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge

Case 1:92-cr-01027-MP-AK Document 139 Filed 03/20/08 Page 1 of 1
**Exhibit 32**

**CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the report of Ridgewood Energy P Fund, LLC (the “Fund”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), each of 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: 

(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 Fund. 

| Dated: | July 27, 2007 | RIDGEWOOD ENERGY P FUND,   LLC |
|--------|---------------|--------------------------------|
|   |          |                           |   |
|   |          |                           |   |
|   |          | By:                            | /s/ ROBERT E. SWANSON |
|   |          |                           |  |
|   |          | Name:                          | Robert E. Swanson |
|   |          | Title:                         | President and Chief   Executive Officer   (Principal Executive Officer) |
|   |          |                           |   |
| Dated: | July 27, 2007 |                           |   |
|   |          | By:                            | /s/ KATHLEEN P. MCSHERRY |
|   |          |                           |  |
|   |          | Name:                          | Kathleen P. McSherry |
|   |          | Title:                         | Senior Vice President and   Chief Financial Officer   (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer) |

A signed original of this written statement or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement has been provided to Ridgewood Energy P Fund, LLC and will be retained by Ridgewood Energy P Fund, LLC and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 225 (Tuesday, November 23, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 71455-71456]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-29428]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-73,145]


The Jewelry Stream, Los Angeles, CA; Notice of Affirmation 
Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration

    By application dated October 1, 2010, a California state workforce 
official requested administrative reconsideration of the Department of 
Labor's termination of investigation applicable to workers and former 
workers of M&L Manufacturing, Inc. and The Jewelry Stream, Los Angeles, 
California. The termination notice was signed on August 20, 2010, and 
was published in the Federal Register on September 3, 2010 (75 FR 
54187).
    The termination of investigation was based on information obtained 
during the initial investigation that the firm identified in the Trade 
Adjustment Assistance (TAA) petition--M&L Manufacturing, Inc. and The 
Jewelry Stream, Los Angeles, California--is not one firm but are 
separate, unaffiliated companies. Therefore, the Department determined 
that the petition is invalid.
    In the request for reconsideration, the state workforce official 
stated that the individual on whose behalf the TTA petition was filed 
believed that the aforementioned companies are one firm. In support of 
the request for reconsideration, the state workforce official supplied 
new and additional information provided by the individual who sought 
assistance from the state

[[Page 71456]]

workforce official (``I started to work for M&L Manufacturing, Inc. on 
August of 1990, but for some reason and without notification I started 
to receive my checks in 2005 under the name of The Jewelry Stream * * * 
I was under the impression that I had worked for the same company from 
1990 to 2008.''
    The Department has carefully reviewed the request for 
reconsideration and the existing record, and has determined that the 
Department will conduct further investigation to determine if the 
petitioning workers (the newly clarified worker group, The Jewelry 
Stream, Los Angeles, California) meet the eligibility requirements of 
the Trade Act of 1974, as amended.

Conclusion

    After careful review of the application, I conclude that the claim 
is of sufficient weight to justify reconsideration of the U.S. 
Department of Labor's prior decision. The application is, therefore, 
granted.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 10th day of November, 2010.
Del Min Amy Chen,
Certifying Officer, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2010-29428 Filed 11-22-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
Ejectment.

#### King *vs.*Stone.

[Mr. Turner for plaintiff: Mersrs. Allan and Dana for defendant.]

From the Circuit Court por Estile County.

*June*6.

Upon affidavit, that the lessor in ejectment, is an infant, the court will give a rule upon the *441plt’f, to show cause why security for costs should not he given; and, at the return of thes rule, if no cause is shown, the-proceedings will., be staid until the security is given, or the cause for requiring it removed.

*440Judge Marshall

delivered the Opinion of the Court.

Upon the affidavit of the defendant in an action of ejectment, that the lessor of the plaintiff is an infant, and his residence unknown, the Circuit Court might have made a rule upon the plaintiff’s attorney, to show cause why *441security for costs should not be given. And upon the return of the rule, without cause'shown,,or security offered, the proceedings should be stayed until security is given, or the cause of requiring it-removed. *Adams on Ejectment,*135, 317.

Upon an affidavit alleging a lessor ' s infancy, the court gave a rule on the plt’f, to give security, on or before the calling-of the cause at the next term; and none being given, dismissed the action: this was error.

A judgment foi costs against *an infant*lessor, upon a dismissal of the action, for want' of security for costs — • - held erroneous-.,

In the present case, the rule made upon the filing of the defendant’s affidavit, required, unconditionally, that security for costs should be given, on or before the calling of the cause at the next term, on the ground that it appeared that the lessor was an infant; and no security having been given, nor cause shown against the requisition, at the next term, the suit was dismissed absolutely,., and the costs adjudged directly against the lessor of the plaintiff, who, as the record stands, must be taken.to.be an infant.

We know of no principle or authoritative precedent which authorizes this'proceeding; and the judgment for costs against the lessor, seems, to be particularly inappropriate, not only because he is not the formal plaintiff in the suit, but because -the reason why security might be required from him is that, being an infant, he could not otherwise have been made liable for costs.

Wherefore, the order dismissing the suit, and the judgment for costs, are reversed, and the cause is remanded for further proceedings, not. inconsistent with this opinion.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

ARCHIE HOGAN, JR.,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 4:20-cv-280-AW-MAF

3101 GINGER DRIVE OPERATIONS, 

LLC, d/b/a HERITAGE HEALTHCARE 

CENTER AT TALLAHASSEE,

Defendant.

_______________________________/

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Both sides have filed notices indicating that the parties have settled and asking 

that the court retain jurisdiction to enforce the settlement. ECF Nos. 14, 15. Based 

on those notices, the case is dismissed, with each side to bear its own fees and costs 

(except as otherwise provided in the settlement agreement). The court will retain 

jurisdiction to enforce the agreement. The clerk will close the file.

SO ORDERED on November 16, 2020.

s/ Allen Winsor

United States District Judge

Case 4:20-cv-00280-AW-MAF Document 16 Filed 11/16/20 Page 1 of 1
§ 3.73 Determination of indebtedness. ( a ) In determining that an employee is indebted to USDA and that 31 CFR parts 900 through 904 have been satisfied and that salary offset is appropriate, USDA will review the debt to make sure that it is valid and past due.
( b ) If USDA determines that any of the requirements of paragraph (a) of this section have not been met, no determination of indebtedness will be made and salary offset will not proceed until USDA is assured that the requirements have been met.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

ALAN GOLDFARB, P.A.,

Appellant,

v.

FLOYD BROWN, as Personal Representative of the Estate of CAROLE N. 

BROWN,

Appellee.

No. 4D18-3741

[September 19, 2019]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm 

Beach County; Susan R. Lubitz, Judge; L.T. Case No. 502016CA008514.

Joel S. Perwin of Joel S. Perwin, P.A., Miami, for appellant.

Joseph P. Discepola of Freedland Harwin Valori, PLLC, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

CONNER, KLINGENSMITH and KUNTZ, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.