alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### The Honorable David S. Doty, United States District Judge 1 

### for the District of Minnesota. ___________ No. 95-3981

___________ Dean Alexander, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of Minnesota. Steve Hokanson; Wesley * [UNPUBLISHED] Neidermeier, * * Appellees. *

___________ Submitted: June 6, 1996 Filed: June 12, 1996

___________ Before McMILLIAN, WOLLMAN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

___________
PER CURIAM. Dean Alexander appeals the district court's order denying his motion 1 to rec onsider the court's order granting defendants summary judgment i n this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. We affirm.
While incarcerated at the Minnesota Correctional Facility a t Still water (Stillwater), Alexander filed this action alleging Chaplain s Steve Hokonson and We sley Neidermeier violated his First Amendment rights when they failed to accede to his demand for a vegetarian diet, which he maintained was mandated by his Christian faith. The district court grante d defendants summary ju dgment, concluding Neidermeier was not a state actor and had not acted under color of state law, and Hokonson had acte d reasonably in denying Alexander's dietary reques t and had not violated his First

### -2-

Amendment rights. Alexander did not appeal this judgment. More tha n thirty da ys later, he sent the district court a letter, which the cour t construed as a "motion for reconsideration," and denied. Alexander timely appealed the denial. Construing Alexander's letter as a motion for relief from th e judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), we note it did not toll the time for fil ing a notice of appeal from the underlying judgment, because it was not filed within ten days of the judgment. See Fed. R. App
. P. 4(a)(4)(F) (time for filing notice of appeal is tolled by Rule 60 motio n filed no more than ten days after judgment entered). Thus, in reviewing the district court's denial of the Rule 60(b) motion, we determine onl y whether the district court abused its discretion in denying the motion; we do not pa ss on the propriety of the court's underlying grant of summar y judgment. See Sanders v. Clemco Indus. , 862 F.2d 161, 169 (8th Cir. 1988)
.
We con clude the district court did not abuse its discretion i n denyin g reconsideration, because none of the matters set forth i n Alexander's letter qu alified him for Rule 60(b) relief. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b); Sanders , 86 2 F.2d at 169 (Rule 60(b) provides for extraordinary relief which may be granted only upon adequate showing of exceptiona l circumstances). Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is affirmed.
A true copy.

Attest:
CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
EXHIBIT 32

Certification of CEO and CFO 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
on Form 10-Q of BlackRock Kelso Capital Corporation (the Company) for the quarter ended March 31, 2014 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), James R. Maher, as Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, and Corinne Pankovcin, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 consolidated financial condition
and consolidated results of operations of the Company.



|                      |  |                        
|--------------------- |  | -----------------------
|/s/ James R. Maher   
|Name:                 |  | James R. Maher         
|Title:                |  | Chief Executive Officer
|Date:                 |  | May 1, 2014            
|                     
|/s/ Corinne Pankovcin
|Name:                 |  | Corinne Pankovcin      
|Title:                |  | Chief Financial Officer
|Date:                 |  | May 1, 2014
Case 3:20-cv-05602-MCR-HTC Document 11 Filed 03/03/21 Page 1 of 2
Case 3:20-cv-05602-MCR-HTC Document 11 Filed 03/03/21 Page 2 of 2
# L_2021077EN.01000101.xml

| 5.3.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 77/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.3.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 77/1

---

COUNCIL DECISION (Euratom) 2021/390

of 20 February 2020

approving the conclusion, by the European Commission, of the Agreement between the European Atomic Energy Community and the Government of the Republic of India for research and development cooperation in the field of the peaceful uses of nuclear energy

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, and in particular the second paragraph of Article 101 thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the European Commission,

Whereas:

| (1) | The European Commission has, in accordance with the Council Directives of 3 July 2009, conducted negotiations on an Agreement between the European Atomic Energy Community and the Government of the Republic of India for research and development cooperation in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

The European Commission has, in accordance with the Council Directives of 3 July 2009, conducted negotiations on an Agreement between the European Atomic Energy Community and the Government of the Republic of India for research and development cooperation in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy.

| (2) | Those negotiations have now been successfully concluded. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Those negotiations have now been successfully concluded.

| (3) | The conclusion, by the European Commission, of the Agreement should be approved, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

The conclusion, by the European Commission, of the Agreement should be approved,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The conclusion, by the European Commission, of the Agreement between the European Atomic Energy Community and the Government of the Republic of India for research and development cooperation in the field of the peaceful uses of nuclear energy, is hereby approved (*1).

Article 2

This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.

Done at Brussels, 20 February 2020.

For the Council

The President

B. DIVJAK

---

(*1)  Agreement published in OJ L 440, 30.12.2020, p. 1.

*1

---
EXHIBIT 32.1



May 9, 2007

Securities and Exchange Commission

100 F Street, NE

Washington, DC 20549



Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, the undersigned officer of Lazard Group
LLC (the Registrant) hereby certifies that the Registrants quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2007 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable,
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.



|                                                      
|------------------------------------------------------
|                                                      
|/s/    Bruce Wasserstein                              
|Bruce Wasserstein Chairman and Chief Executive
Officer



The foregoing
certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
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 Quarterly  Report of Dolce Ventures Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2006 as filed with the  Securities
and  Exchange  Commission  on  the  date  hereof  (the  "Report"),  I,  John  F.
Passalaqua,  Secretary/Treasurer 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 to the best of my knowledge:

(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 result of operations of the Company.

                                    /s/ John F. Passalaqua
                                    ----------------------
                                    John F. Passalaqua
                                    Secretary/Treasurer, Dolce Ventures Inc.
                                    (Principal Financial Officer)

                                    May 15, 2006


                                  END OF FILING
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 Quarterly Report of Keyuan Petrochemicals, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report’), I, Fan Zhang, Acting Chief Financial Officer/Vice President of Accounting 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 at the dates and for the periods indicated.
 
 
 Date:   November 1, 2011
 
 /s/ Fan Zhang
 Fan Zhang
 Acting Chief Financial Officer/Vice President of Accounting
EXHIBIT 32.2

 

**CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I, Anthony Kai Yiu Lo, Co-Chief Executive Officer and principal financial officer of Shanghai Century Acquisition Corporation (the “Company”), do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge: 

 

|   | • |   | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarters ended June 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|--------|--------|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

|   | • |   | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |
|--------|--------|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

Date: August 14, 2006

 

|                                                                                                          |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| /s/ Anthony Kai Yiu Lo

Anthony Kai Yiu Lo

Co-Chief Executive Officer

(principal financial officer)

  |
*Thursday, October 29, 1998*

MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS

98-1439.

#### State ex rel. Hudson v. Indus. Comm.

Franklin App. No. 97APD03-347. This cause is pending before the court as an appeal from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County. Upon consideration of the joint application for dismissal,

IT IS ORDERED by the court that the application for dismissal be, and hereby is, granted. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED by the court that this cause be, and hereby is, dismissed.
2006-0589.

#### State v. Trouten.

Jefferson App. No. 04 JE 18, 2005-Ohio-6592. On motion for leave to file delayed appeal. Motion granted.

Resnicic, O’Connor and Lanzinger, JJ., dissent.

On motion for admission pro hac vice of Susan Lynn Ferguson by Eric J. Yavitch. Motion granted.
4.203 Taxpayer identification information.

(a) If the contractor has furnished a Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN) when completing the

solicitation provision at 52.204-3, Taxpayer Identification, or paragraph (l) of the solicitation

provision at 52.212-3, Offeror Representations and Certifications-Commercial Products and

Commercial Services, the contracting officer shall, unless otherwise provided in agency procedures,

attach a copy of the completed solicitation provision as the last page of the copy of the contract sent

to the payment office.

(b) If the TIN or type of organization is derived from a source other than the provision at 52.204-3 or

52.212-3(l), the contracting officer shall annotate the last page of the contract or order forwarded to

the payment office to state the contractor’s TIN and type of organization, unless this information is

otherwise provided to the payment office in accordance with agency procedures.

(c) If the contractor provides its TIN or type of organization to the contracting officer after award,

the contracting officer shall forward the information to the payment office within 7 days of its

receipt.

(d) Federal Supply Schedule contracts. Each contracting officer that places an order under a Federal

Supply Schedule contract (see subpart 8.4) shall provide the TIN and type of organization

information to the payment office in accordance with paragraph (b) of this section.

(e) Basic ordering agreements and indefinite-delivery contracts (other than Federal Supply Schedule

contracts).

(1) Each contracting officer that issues a basic ordering agreement or indefinite-delivery contract

(other than a Federal Supply Schedule contract) shall provide to contracting officers placing orders

under the agreement or contract (if the contractor is not required to provide this information to the

System for Award Management)-

(i) A copy of the agreement or contract with a copy of the completed solicitation provision at

52.204-3 or 52.212-3(l) as the last page of the agreement or contract; or

(ii) The contractor’s TIN and type of organization information.

(2) Each contracting officer that places an order under a basic ordering agreement or indefinitedelivery contract (other than a Federal Supply Schedule contract) shall provide the TIN and type of

organization information to the payment office in accordance with paragraph (a) or (b) of this

section.

Parent topic: Subpart 4.2 - Contract Distribution
#### § 370.4 Facilities for inspection and copying.

Facilities for public inspection and copying of the index and materials required to be made available under 5 U.S.C. 552(c)(2) will be provided by APHIS, on business days between 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. Requests for this information should be made to the FOIA Coordinator at the following address:

Freedom of Information Act Coordinator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Legislative and Public Affairs, Freedom of Information, 4700 River Road, Unit 50, Riverdale, Maryland 20737-1231.

Copies of such material may be obtained in person or by mail. Applicable fees for copies will be charged in accordance with the regulations prescribed by the Office of Operations and Finance, USDA, pursuant to § 2.75 of this title. See § 1.10 and appendix A—Fee Schedule in part 1, subtitle A of this title.

[44 FR 53490, Sept. 14, 1979, as amended at 51 FR 30836, Aug. 29, 1986; 59 FR 67611, Dec. 30, 1994]
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2222 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2222

 To provide for the liquidation or reliquidation of entries of certain 
                        manufacturing equipment.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 30, 2006

  Mr. DeMint introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To provide for the liquidation or reliquidation of entries of certain 
                        manufacturing equipment.

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

SECTION 1. CERTAIN MANUFACTURING EQUIPMENT ENTERED ON OR AFTER MAY 11, 
              1997, AND BEFORE OCTOBER 21, 1998.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding sections 514 and 520 of the Tariff 
Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1514 and 1520) or any other provision of law, 
not later than 90 days after the receipt of the request described in 
subsection (b), any article--
            (1) that was entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for 
        consumption--
                    (A) on or after May 11, 1997; and
                    (B) before October 21, 1998; and
            (2) with respect to which heading 9902.84.79 (as in effect 
        on December 31, 2001), 9902.84.85, or 9902.84.91 of the 
        Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States would have 
        applied if such article had been entered, or withdrawn from 
        warehouse for consumption, on December 31, 2001,
shall be liquidated or reliquidated as if heading 9902.84.79 (as in 
effect on December 31, 2001), 9902.84.85, or 9902.84.91, whichever is 
applicable, applied to such entry or withdrawal, and the Secretary of 
the Treasury shall refund any excess duty paid with respect to such 
entry.
    (b) Requests.--Liquidation or reliquidation may be made under 
subsection (a) with respect to any entry only if a request therefor is 
filed with the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection of the 
Department of Homeland Security, not later than 180 days after the date 
of enactment of this Act, that contains sufficient information to 
enable the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection--
            (1) to locate the entry; or
            (2) to reconstruct the entry if it cannot be located.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit
                32.1




CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




Pursuant
      to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of
      section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), the undersigned
      officer of O2 Secure Wireless, Inc., a Georgia corporation (the “Company”), does
      hereby certify, to the best of his knowledge, that:




1. 
      This Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2009 (the
      “Report”) of the Company complies in all material respects with the requirements
      of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;
      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/
      Craig
      Sellars                                                             
..


Craig
      Sellars, President and Chief Executive Officer





Date:
      May 20, 2009
#### U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY MISCELLANEOUS INVESTIGATIONS SERIES MAP I-2264

## Stratigraphic Framework of Cambrian and Ordovician Rocks in the Central
Appalachian Basin from Richland County, Ohio, to Rockingham County, Virginia

### By Robert T. Ryder

### Revised and Digitized By Robert D. Crangle,
Jr.

Online Version 1.0

---

#### DIGITAL MAP FILES

> Available files for download include PDF, EPS, and AI formats.
> 
> All file formats will produce a plot that faithfully replicates the format, symbols, colors, and line work of a USGS full-color printed map. (The actual published paper maps are 4-color offset-printed maps.)
> The PDF file is 7.2 MB, the EPS file is 19.2 MB, and the AI (Adobe Illustrator) file is 2.4
> MB.  Page size at 100% is approximately 45" by 36".  Plot resolution, quality, and colors will vary with plotter, inks, and paper used. Adobe Acrobat Reader 4 or later is required to read the PDF file,
> and Adobe Illustrator 9.0 or later is required to read the AI file.
> 
> Miscellaneous Investigations Series Map I-2264 [1.2
> MB PDF file]Miscellaneous Investigations Series Map I-2264 [19.2
> MB EPS file]  -- CAUTION, LARGE FILE SIZEMiscellaneous Investigations Series Map I-2264 [2.4
> MB AI file]

|If you wish to 
download the latest version of Acrobat Reader, free of charge, click here. | 
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 

The offset-printed version of this map is available for purchase from USGS Information Services. See
Ordering U.S. Geological Survey Products, call toll-free (from the U.S.) 1-888-ASK-USGS, or e-mail infoservices@usgs.gov.

---
#### Ira Weitzberg et al., Appellants, v Nassau County Department of Recreation and Parks et al., Respondents.

[815 NYS2d 466]

In an action, inter alia, for reinstatement and back pay, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Bucaria, J.), entered January 29, 2004, which denied their second motion for leave to renew a prior motion for class action status.

*683Ordered that the appeals by the plaintiffs Ira Weitzenberg, Carol Gartner, Steve Pilla, Marilyn Gressler, Ethel Zamurut, George Pinola, Maebell Mickens, and Cynthia Brown are deemed withdrawn, pursuant to a stipulation of settlement dated April 18, 2005; and it is further,

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from by the plaintiff Roberta Miller; and it is further,

Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the respondents. In 1998 this Court, inter alia, affirmed so much of an order as denied the plaintiffs’ first motion for class action status on the ground that their “conclusory allegations were insufficient to establish that the statutory prerequisites for class certification had been met” *Weitzenberg v Nassau County Dept. of Recreation & Parks,*249 AD2d 538, 539 [1998]). In an effort to obtain evidence to prove those allegations, the plaintiffs served their first notice of discovery and inspection in February 1999. After a long delay and extensive motion practice, the defendants partially complied with the discovery demand by providing some of the requested documents.

Despite the fact that the plaintiff Roberta Miller had obtained some documents from the defendants and could have gathered information from other sources during the past decade, she failed to offer any additional material facts that would warrant the renewal of the class certification issue *(see*CPLR 2221 [e]; *Foley v Roche,*68 AD2d 558, 568 [1979]). The general and conclusory allegations in the affirmation of Miller’s attorney and the exhibits attached thereto were not sufficient to establish that she met the statutory requirements for a class action *(see Rallis v City of New York,*3 AD3d 525, 526 [2004]; *Chimenti v American Express Co.,*97 AD2d 351, 352 [1983]; *Dupack v Nationwide Leisure Corp.,*70 AD2d 568, 569 [1979]).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the second motion insofar as asserted by Miller for leave to renew the underlying motion for class action status. Ritter, J.P., Krausman, Goldstein and Lifson, JJ., concur.
#### §§ 3570.72-3570.74 [Reserved]