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 Kalex Corp. (the “Company”) on Form 10-KSB
      for the period ended June 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
      on
      the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, acting in the capacity of the
      Company’s Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer, certify,
      pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his 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 results of operation of the Company.





SIGNATURE
            TITLE
            DATE/s/
                Kuno Laren
              Kuno
                Laren
            President,
                Principal
              Executive
                Officer and
              Principal
                Financial Officer
            November
                13, 2006
#### §§ 4285.71-4285.80 [Reserved]
+ NASA Portal + Goddard Space Flight Center + GSFC Earth Sciences Division


## GISS Surface Temperature Analysis Station Data In our analysis, we can only use stations with reas onably long, consistently measured time records. Th is is a subset of the of stations (copied from GHCN's website and augmented from SCA R). That subset of list of stations that contribute to the final products may slightly change with each update, as the numbe r of stations that get dropped due to the shortness of their temperature record may decrease when new data are a dded. The figures below indicate the number of stations with record length at least N years as a function of N , a. the number of reporting stations as a function of t ime, b . the percent of hemispheric area located within 1200 km of a reporting station. c.

Data and graphs for the individual stations can be downloaded using the form below . 

### Download Station Data Note: In the tables, DJF, the Northern Hemisphere Winter mean, uses the December of the previous year, and s o does metANN, the "meteorological annual mean", i.e. the mean ove r the 4 seasons (Dec-Nov mean). For a description of how the seasonal and annual means are computed, read on ... . 1) Select a specific data set from the pull-down me nu below. Data Set: after combining sources at same location Note to prior users: We no longer include data adju sted by GHCN and have renamed the middle option (old name: prior to homogeneity adjustment). 2) Click at desired location on the map below or enter here a station name to search for: Search If clicking on the map gives unexpected (bad) resul ts, please check that you have not specified a "zoo m in" or "zoom out" option in your web browser's View settings. 

## Page 1 of 2 Data @ NASA GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis: Sta tion Data

7/23/2010 http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data/

### Return to GISTEMP homepage + NASA Privacy Policy and Important Notices GISS Website Curator: Robert B. Schmunk Responsible NASA Official: James E. Hansen Page updated: 2010-07-02



## Page 2 of 2 Data @ NASA GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis: Sta tion Data

7/23/2010 http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data/
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 Report of Silver Pearl Enterprises, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies 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 his 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 results of operation of the Company.





/s/ DENISE D. SMITH

Denise D. Smith

Sole Member of the Board of Directors

Dated: April 13, 2010





/s/ DENISE D. SMITH

Denise D. Smith

Chief Executive Officer

Dated: April 13, 2010





/s/ DENISE D. SMITH

Denise D. Smith

Chief Financial Officer

Dated: April 13, 2010





/s/ DENISE D. SMITH

Denise D. Smith

Principal Accounting Officer

Dated: April 13, 2010




This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
#### § 29.3586 Elements of quality and degrees of each element.

These standardized words or terms are used to describe tobacco quality and to assist in interpreting grade specifications. Tobacco attributes or characteristics which constitute quality are designated as elements of quality. The range within each element is expressed by the use of words or terms designated as degrees. These several degrees are arranged to show their relative value, but the actual value of each degree varies with type, group, and grade.

| Elements | | | Degrees | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Maturity | Immature | Underripe | Mature | Ripe. |
| Body | | Thin | Medium | Heavy. |
| Leaf structure | | Close | Firm | Open. |
| Leaf surface | | Rough | Crepy | Smooth. |
| Oil | | Lean | Oily | Rich. |
| Finish | | Dull | Normal | Clear. |
| Color intensity | | Pale | Moderate | Deep. |
| Elasticity | | Inelastic | Semielastic | Elastic. |
| Width | | Narrow | Normal | Spready. |
| Uniformity | | (1) | (1) | (1). |
| Injury tolerance | | (1) | (1) | (1). |
| | | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 1 Expressed in percentage. | | | | |
#### Theresa Hepner, Appellant, v Noreen Fitall, Respondent.

— In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, plaintiff appeals from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, entered August 30, 1979, as is in favor of defendant upon the trial court’s granting of the defendant’s motion for judgment at the close of plaintiff’s case, at a jury trial limited to the issue of liability only. Judgment reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, the provision granting defendant’s motion is deleted, the motion is denied, and a new trial is granted, with costs to abide the event. The evidence presented by the plaintiff was sufficient to establish a prima facie case. Titone, J. P., Mangano, Rabin and Cohalan, JJ., concur.
# 3.102 [Reserved]

**Parent topic:**Subpart 3.1 - Safeguards
### Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA

- 

### FAA

- 2012

- 000 2 Directorate Identifier: 

### 2011

-NE

- 4 2

- AD If you make changes to the values in the table below, you must ensure the totals update accordingly. If they do not, click (or Tab) into and then out of the changed cell

. **Estimated Costs:**  Action (e.g., Inspection, replacement) Do not include on

condition costs here Costs per **Product** (e.g., aircraft, engine,

propeller, appliance) Work

- h ours (include access, testing, and close

- up) Labo r

cost ( @ $8 5 /h our) Part s Cost Total Costs ( labor + parts) Number of

**U.S. Registered**  **Products** Total Cost

for U

. S

. Fleet


### Replacement of all 6 ECi Cylinder s 18 .0 $1,530.0 0 $ 

### 10,200 $11,730.00 6,000 $70,380,000. 00 

### For each engine, cylinder visual, compression test, and leak check

- 4 times the first year 24.0 $2,040.0 0 $ 2,040.00 

### 6,000 $12,240,000. 00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.0 0 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 

### The known number of products in compliance: Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $82,620,000 

### Costs covered under warranty ( if known ) $
**On**
**- Condition Costs:**  Action (e.g., Inspection, replacement) Work

- h ours

(include access, testing, and close

up) Labor cost

( @ $8 5 /hour) Parts Cost Cost per Product

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

### Special considerations for Economic An **alysis** ( Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs) 

### : 

### This evaluation is based on 36,000 ECi cylinders that would affect 6,000 engines.
**Executive Order 12866:** Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”? YES * NO

* Explanation: **DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:** Is the AD significant? YES * NO

* Explanation: **Regulatory Flexibility Act:** Will the AD have a signi ficant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? E xplain for either a Yes or No answer. YES NO Explanation: **Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:** This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific require ments for aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation? YES * NO


### * Explanation 

### :
Editorial Note on Part 3407
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 3407 appear at 76 FR 4810, Jan. 27, 2011.

§ 3407.1 Background and purpose. ( a ) The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 *et seq.*) establishes national policies and goals for the protection of the human environment. Section 102(2) of NEPA directs all Federal agencies to give appropriate consideration to the environmental consequences of proposed actions in their decisionmaking and to prepare detailed environmental statements on major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.
( b ) The purpose of this regulation is to supplement the regulations for implementation of NEPA established by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) and codified at 40 CFR parts 1500-1508, as adopted by USDA in 7 CFR part 1b.
( c ) Unless otherwise noted, parenthetical citations throughout this part refer to the CEQ regulations.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 

A & E BAIL BONDS, INC., § 

a Delaware corporation, § 

 § No. 535, 2019 

 Respondent Below, § 

 Appellant, § Court Below—Superior Court 

 § of the State of Delaware 

 v. § 

 § 

STATE OF DELAWARE, § Cr. ID No. 1710006739 (N) 

 § 

 Plaintiff Below, § 

 Appellee. § 

 Submitted: June 17, 2020 

 Decided: June 24, 2020 

Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; TRAYNOR and MONTGOMERY-REEVES, 

Justices. 

ORDER 

 This 24th day of June, 2020, after careful consideration of the parties’ briefs 

and the record on appeal, we find it evident that the final judgment of the Superior 

Court should be affirmed on the basis of and for the reasons stated in its November 

25, 2019 order. 

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior 

Court is AFFIRMED. 

 BY THE COURT: 

 /s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr. 

 Chief Justice
28.106-5 Consent of surety.       (a) 						            When any contract is modified, the contracting officer shall obtain the consent of surety if-                                                         (1) 								                An additional bond is obtained from other than the original surety;                                                            (2) 								                No additional bond is required and-                                                                           (i) 										                    The modification is for new work beyond the scope of the original contract; or                                                                              (ii) 										                    The modification does not change the contract scope but changes the contract price (upward or downward) by more than 25 percent or $50,000; or                                                                                                           (3) 								                Consent of surety is required for a novation agreement (see subpart  42.12).                                                                             (b) 						            When a contract for which performance or payment is secured by any of the types of security listed in 28.204 is modified as described in paragraph (a) of this subsection, no consent of surety is required.                                          (c) 						            Agencies shall use Standard Form 1414, Consent of Surety, for all types of contracts.    **Parent topic:** 28.106 Administration.
Exhibit 21.1  List of Subsidiaries

          

          JurisdictionKatonah Debt Advisors, L.L.C.(1)

          

          DelawareKohlberg Capital Funding LLC I

          

          DelawareTrimaran Management Advisors, LLC

          

          DelawareKCAP Senior Funding I Holdings, LLC

          

          DelawareKCAP Senior Funding I, LLC(4)

          

          DelawareKatonah Management Holdings LLC(1)

          

          DelawareKatonah X Management LLC(1)(2)

          

          DelawareKatonah 2007-I Management LLC(1)(2)

          

          DelawareCommodore Holdings, L.L.C.(1)

          

          DelawareTrimaran Advisors, L.L.C.(1)(3)

          

          Delaware
  (1)

          Represents a wholly-owned portfolio company that is not consolidated for financial reporting purposes. (2)

          A wholly-owned subsidiary of Katonah Management Holdings LLC. (3)

          A wholly-owned subsidiary of Commodore Holdings, L.L.C. (4)

          A wholly-owned subsidiary of KCAP Senior Funding I Holdings, LLC.
Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

KAREN GREEN,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 3:20cv5709-MCR-HTC

COASTAL VASCULAR AND

INTERVENTIONAL, P.L.L.C.,

Defendant.

_____________________________/

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

The Court has been informed that the parties have reached a settlement of this

matter. See ECF No. 16. Therefore, the Court hereby DISMISSES the aboveentitled action from the active docket of the Court. In the event the settlement is not

consummated, the Courtreservesthe power to reopen the case for further proceedings

upon motion filed by any party within sixty (60) days of the date of this Order and a

showing of good cause. At this time, the Clerk is directed to close the file in this case 

Case 3:20-cv-05709-MCR-HTC Document 17 Filed 04/30/21 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

for administrative purposes. Upon the expiration of sixty (60) days without activity,

the Clerk is directed to close the case in its entirety for all purposes.

DONE and ORDERED on this 30th day of April 2021.

 s/ M. Casey Rodgers 

M. CASEY RODGERS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case No. 3:20cv5709-MCR-HTC

Case 3:20-cv-05709-MCR-HTC Document 17 Filed 04/30/21 Page 2 of 2
2006-0568.

#### State v. Taylor.

Montgomery App. Nos. 20649, 20654 and 20655, 2006-Ohio-313. On review of order certifying a conflict. The court determines that a conflict exists. The parties are to brief the issue stated at page 2 of the court of appeals’ Decision and Entry filed February 28, 2006:

‘Whether a conviction for an attempted drug offense that would have been, if successfully completed, a first-degree felony, but which becomes a second degree felony by virtue of the fact that it is merely an attempt to commit an offense, is subject to the mandatory prison term provisions in R.C. 2925.11.”

Resnicic, Pfeifer and O’Donnell, JJ., dissent.

The conflict case is *State v. Pringle*(June 30,1999), Lucas App. No. L-98-1275.
#### James Manganaro, Jr., Plaintiff, v. Estwing Manufacturing Co. Inc., Respondent, and Hermos Hardware *&*Supply Co., Inc., et al., Appellants.

Order entered October 18, 1966, denying defendant-appellant’s motion to compel the defendant-respondent to accept the answer containing a cross complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts, and in the exercise of discretion, without costs or disbursements on the appeal, and the motion is granted upon the condition that appellant pay to respondent a full bill of costs to date, plus $50, such payment to be made within 10 days after service of a copy of this order with notice of entry. It appears from the record that the cross complaint being asserted against the respondent is not an afterthought, it having been originally asserted in appellant’s answer served on the plaintiff in 1963. While the appellant delayed in serving the answer and cross complaint upon the respondent until 1966, it has not been shown that there would be any prejudice to the respondent if this motion were granted. Indeed, if it were not granted the appellant would still have the right to bring suit against the respondent on the theory alleged in the cross complaint since the appellant’s cause of action does not accrue until liability has been fixed *712as against it. *(Rieger*v. *Frankstram Realties,*68 N. Y. S. 2d 243; see *Matter of Valstrey Serv. Corp.*v. *Board of Election,*2 N Y 2d 413.) Consequently, permitting the answer to ho served will avoid multiplicity o£ actions and will not be prejudicial to defendant Estwing Mfg. Co., Inc. Concur — Botein, P. J., Stevens, Steuer, Rabin and McNally, JJ.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN RE:

ORDER AMENDING RULE 206 OF 

THE PENNSYLVANIA RULES OF

CIVIL PROCEDURE BEFORE 

MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT 

JUDGES

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

NO. 417

MAGISTERIAL RULES DOCKET 

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 5

th day of January, 2018, upon the recommendation of the Minor 

Court Rules Committee, the proposal having been published for public comment at 47 

Pa.B. 4682 (August 12, 2017): 

It is Ordered pursuant to Article V, Section 10 of the Constitution of Pennsylvania 

that Rule 206 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure before Magisterial District 

Judges is amended in the attached form.

This Order shall be processed in accordance with Pa.R.J.A. No. 103(b), and shall 

be effective on January 6, 2018.

Additions to the rule are shown in bold and are underlined.

Deletions from the rule are shown in bold and brackets.
NDFL PROB 12¢
12/04

United States District Court
for the
Northern District of Florida
Petition for Warrant or Summons for Offender Under Supervision

Name of Offender: Mareus Ladryl Hathcock Case Number: 1:02CR43-004(SS)

Name of Sentencing Judicial Officer: The Honorable Maurice M. Paul
Senior United States District Judge

Date of Original Sentence: March 31, 2005,

Original Offense: Conspiracy to Distribute and Possess With Intent to Distribute More Than 50
Grams of Cocaine Base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(A)(iii),
and 846, a Class “A” Felony.

Original Sentence: 84 months imprisonment consecutive to the sentence imposed in 1:03CR27-001,
followed by five (5) years supervised release, later reduced to sixty (60) months
imprisonment pursuant to a Rule 35 Motion.

Type of Supervision: Supervised Release Date Supervision Commenced: —_ June 15, 2011

Asst. U.S. Attorney: Frank Williams Defense Attorney: Stephen Bernstein, Esq.

PETITIONING THE COURT

[ ] To issue a warrant
[X] To issue a summons

The probation officer believes that the offender has violated the following condition(s) of supervision:

Violation Number Nature of Noncompliance
1. Violation of mandatory condition, by failing to refrain from using or

possessing a controlled substance. In that, on or about July 5, 2011, the
supervised releasee provided a urine specimen that later tested positive for
the presence of cocaine and cannabis. The defendant later admitted to
using these substances prior to providing the urine sample.

U.S. Probation Officer Recommendation:

That a summons be issued for the defendant to appear before the Court to show cause why his
term of supervised release should not be revoked.



RE: Marcus Ladryl Hathcock, Dkt #1:02CR43-004(SS)
Petition for Warrant or Summons for Offender Under Supervision

Page #2
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on August 11, 2011
Glenn H. Mciies’ “~
Sr. U.S. Probation Officer
THE COURT ORDERS
No Action

The Issuance of a Warrant
The Issuance of a Summons . 4 | 2.
Other LL AA

Signaturp’of Judicial Officer

- £2, Zo

ae

Date 7

Warrant/Summons Issued: Ve zo/y ¢ Lizgle Or
Date Sf Pe
U.S. Department of Transportation Office ofthe Secretary afTrcmsportation



## AUG 2 7

## 2014

Mr. Ron Elder CEO Glenwood Regional Medical Center 503 McMillan Road West Monroe, LA 71291
Dear Mr. Elder: Assistant Secretary New JerseyAvenue, SE Washington, DC 20590

Thank you for your letter, addressed to Secretary Foxx, supporting the proposal submitted by the Monroe Regional Airport for a grant under the U.S. Department ofTransportation's Small Community Air Service Development Program. Secretary Foxx asked that I respond to you on his behalf.
The Small Community Air Service Development Program was established to help smaller communities address air service deficiencies, particularly issues related to high airfares and insufficient service. Underthe statute, the Department may make a maximum of40 grant awards each year, althoughno more than four may be to communities in the same State. To provide communities with latitude in developing solutions to their air servi.ce deficiencies, the statute provides flexibility in the types ofair service development projects that can be funded.
OnJune 

### 30, the Department issued an order setting a deadline ofJuly 

### 31 for applications. As these grant requests are pending before the Department, I cannot comment on the merits ofany particular proposal. I assure you, however, that the Department will give full and fair consideration to all proposals that have beenproperly filed.
As is our standard practice, I am placing a copy ofyour letter and this response in Docket DOT-OST-2014-0113 as a contact outside the record ofthis matter. I appreciate your interest in this program. Sincerely yonrs,



### L. Kurland Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International AffairsJuly 

### 29, 2014

The Honorable Anthony R Foxx Secretary US Department ofTransportation Washington DC 

# 4t1-. 

# Glenwood
REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER
503 McMillan Road West Monroe Louisiana 71291 (318)329-4200 www.grmc.com

Subject: MonroeRegional Airport's application for funding underthe SmallCommunity AirService DevelopmentProgram for 2014. Dear Secretary F oxx, I am writing to express my strong supportfor the applications submitted by the Monroe Regional Airport in Louisiana, for funding under the Small Community Air Service DevelopmentProgram (SCASDP). The Monroe Regional Airporthas submittedthis application to help secure low-cost, non-stopjetservice to one or more majordestinations for Northeastern Louisiana, Southern Arkansas, and Western Mississippi. As youknow, the Monroe regional Airport is an important local and regional conununity economic engine in Louisiana. Federal funding underThe Small Community Air Service DevelopmentProgram will go a long way inhelping expandjetservice to more destinations in the United States from the Monroe Regional Airport such as 

### a newroute from Monroe to Denver. Once again, I support the Monroe Regional Airport's application underthe small community air service developmentprogram. Irespectfully requestyour full and fair considerationfor this proposal. Thank you. Sincerely,**~~~** Ron Elder CEO