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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of SkyTerra Communications,
Inc. (the Company) for the period ended June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Alexander H. Good, Chief Executive Officer and President of the Company, 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 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 results of
operations of the Company.



|                                                       
|-------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Alexander H. Good                                  
|Alexander H. Good Chief Executive Officer and President

August 9, 2007
#### § 51.1242 Count per pound.

*Count per pound* means the number of peanuts in a pound. When determining the count per pound, one single kernel peanut shall be counted as one-half peanut.
#### Sally Merendino et al., Appellants, v. City of New York et al., Respondents.

— Appeal from order entered July 8, 1966, dismissed, with $30

costs and disbursements to the respondents, since the order is not appealable. In reality the application was one for reargument. But even if it were considered as an application for renewal, which would be appealable, the order would nevertheless be affirmed. Concur—Stevens, J. P., Capozzoli, Tilzer, Rabin, and Bastow, JJ.
#### § 51.2295 Half kernel.

*Half kernel* means the separated half of a kernel with not more than one-eighth broken off.
Case 3:20-cr-00041-MCR Document 29 Filed 04/15/21 Page 1 of 5
Case 3:20-cr-00041-MCR Document 29 Filed 04/15/21 Page 2 of 5
Case 3:20-cr-00041-MCR Document 29 Filed 04/15/21 Page 3 of 5
Case 3:20-cr-00041-MCR Document 29 Filed 04/15/21 Page 4 of 5
Case 3:20-cr-00041-MCR Document 29 Filed 04/15/21 Page 5 of 5
#### § 29.6101 Rule 15.

In grade specifications the tolerance of crude shall apply to the entire leaf surface of the lot.
#### Sharon Verwayne Clark et al., Appellants, v Thomas McGregor, Defendant, and Troy N. Verwayne et al., Respondents.

[817 NYS2d 500]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Knipel, J.), dated December 7, 2004, which granted the motion of the defendant Troy N. Verwayne and the separate motion of the defendants Birenda Bhadur and Shivendra Bhadur for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

The respondents established their entitlement to summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them. In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to the comparative negligence of the respondents Troy N. Verwayne or Birenda Bhadur, the drivers of two of the *511vehicles involved in the accident, or as to the vicarious liability of the respondent Shivendra Bhadur, the owner of one of the vehicles. Accordingly, the respondents were entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them (see *Wallace v Kuhn,*23 AD3d 1042 [2005]; *Barile v Carroll,*280 AD2d 988 [2001]; *see also Persaud v Darbeau,*13 AD3d 347 [2004]; *Ishak v Guzman,*12 AD3d 409 [2004]; *see generally Alvarez v Prospect Hosp.,*68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]; *cf. Cox v Nunez,*23 AD3d 427 [2005]; *Walker v Dartmouth Plan Leasing Corp.,*180 AD2d 952 [1992]). Prudenti, P.J., Florio, Goldstein and Lunn, JJ., concur.
### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N

NO. 03-12-00043- CR

Shaw n Si ddi que Abb asi, App ellant

v. The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM TH E DISTRI CT COURT O F TRAVIS CO UNTY, 147 TH JUDICI AL DISTRICT NO. D-1 -DC- 11- 9040 90, H ONO RAB LE CLIF F ORD B ROW N, JUDGE P RESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Shawn Siddique Abbasi seeks to appea l from a judgme n t o f co n viction for the second- deg ree felony of attempted sexual assault. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 15.01 (West 2011). The district court imposed sentenc e on Dec ember 9, 2011, and there was no timely motion for new trial; thus the deadline f

or per fec ting a

ppeal wa s J anuar

y 9, 2012. See Tex. R. App. P . 26.2(a) (1). Abbasi filed his notice of appea l on J anuar y 18, 2012. He did not reque st a n extension of time f

or filing the notice of appea l. See Tex. R. App. P

. 26.3. Nor is there any indication that he properly mailed his notice of appeal to the district cle rk within the time presc ribed by Rule 26.2(a) (1). See Tex. R. App. P . 9.2(b)( 1)(C), 26.2( a)( 1).Under the circ umstances, we lack jurisdiction to dispose of this purp o rt ed appea l

in any manner other than by dismiss ing it for want of jurisdiction. Olivo v. State , 918 S.W .2d 519, 1 522-23 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (conc luding that when belate d n o t ice of appea l is filed without timely motion for extension of time appellate court must dismiss purported appea l for lack of jurisdictio n ); see Slaton v. State , 981 S.W .2d 208, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (holding that amendments to rules of appellate proce dure did not aff ect Olivo ’s rationale requiring timely notice of appe al to vest appe llate cour t with jurisdiction). The a ppeal is dismissed for wa nt of jurisdiction.

__________________________________________ J eff Rose, J ustice Be fore Chief J ustice Jones, J ustices Pemberton a nd Rose Dismissed for Want of J urisdiction Filed: Mar ch 21, 2012 Do Not Publish

Any re medy Abbasi may have would be soug ht befor e the Texas Court of Criminal 1 Appea ls. See Tex. Code Crim. P roc. A nn. art. 11.07 (West Supp. 2011). 2
#### Rachel Ehrenfeld, Appellant, v Khalid Salim Bin Mahfouz, Respondent.

Submitted June 18, 2007;

decided June 28, 2007

Certification of question by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, pursuant to section 500.27 of the Rules of Practice of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.27), accepted and the issues presented are to be considered after briefing and argument.

Concur: Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Pigott and Jones. Taking no part: Judge Smith.
Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

TIMOTHY SIMMONS,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No.: 3:20cv5730/LAC/EMT

CORIZON HEALTH SERVICES, et al.,

Defendants.

_________________________________/

ORDER

The chief magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation on

February 4, 2022 (ECF No. 14). The court furnished Plaintiff a copy of the Report

and Recommendation and afforded him an opportunity to file objections pursuant

to Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1). No objections have been filed.

Having considered the Report and Recommendation, I have determined it

should be adopted.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

1. The chief magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No.

14) is adopted and incorporated by reference in this order.

Case 3:20-cv-05730-LC-EMT Document 15 Filed 03/07/22 Page 1 of 2
Page of 2

2. Plaintiff’s claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for failure

to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), 1915A(b)(1).

3. The clerk of court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with

this order and close the case.

DONE AND ORDERED this 7th

 day of March, 2022.

 s/L.A. Collier 

LACEY A. COLLIER

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case No.: 3:20cv5730/LAC/EMT

Case 3:20-cv-05730-LC-EMT Document 15 Filed 03/07/22 Page 2 of 2
#### WERNER, Appellant, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, Respondent (action No. 1).

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

June 8, 1906.)

Action by Richard Werner against the city of New York.

No opinion. Judgment of the Municipal Court affirmed, with costs.
#### Naiztat Iron Works, Inc., Appellant, v Seaport Manor Corp. et al., Respondents.

In a contract action in which plaintiff recovered a judgment, entered December 8, 1976, in the total sum of $16,717.65, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated December *6776, 1979, which granted defendants’ motion to compel it to execute and deliver a satisfaction of judgment to defendants. Order reversed, on the law, with $50 costs and disbursements, and defendants’ motion denied. Absent consideration, an oral agreement to discharge a judgment by acceptance of a sum less than the face value of the judgment is unenforceable under section 15-501 of the General Obligations Law. Acceptance of the smaller payment pursuant to said agreement, will neither satisfy the judgment nor be grounds for compelling the judgment creditor to execute and deliver a satisfaction piece (see *Amity Plumbing & Heating Supply Corp. v Island Park Plumbing & Heating Corp.,*51 AD2d 988; *Matter of King Metal Prods. v Workmen’s Compensation Bd.,*20 AD2d 565). Damiani, J. P., Gulotta, Martuscello and O’Connor, JJ., concur.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

October 2, 2009 

s0929 

Order 

 

October 2, 2009 

139668 

_________________________________________ 

In re HALEY JADE GARCIA, Minor. 

_________________________________________ 

DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, 

Petitioner-Appellee, 

v SC: 139668 

 COA: 290999 

Oakland CC Family Division: 

08-744921-NA 

CARLOS GARCIA, 

Respondent-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the September 1, 2009 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
#### § 51.1302 U.S. No. 1.

“U.S. No. 1” consists of pears of one variety which are mature, but not over-ripe, carefully hand-picked, clean, fairly well formed, free from decay, internal breakdown, scald, freezing injury, worm holes, black end, and from damage caused by hard end, bruises, broken skins, russeting, limbrubs, hail, scars, cork spot, drought spot, sunburn, sprayburn, stings or other insect injury, disease, or mechanical or other means. (See §§ 51.1306 and 51.1309.)
**EXHIBIT 31.1****CERTIFICATIONS**I, Ronald W. Hovsepian, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Novell, Inc; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules13a-15(f) and 15(d)-15(f)) for the registrant and have: a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;  b) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal controlover financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonableassurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financialstatements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accountingprinciples;  c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation;and  d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions): a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize, and report financial information;and  b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who havea significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.Date: September 7, 2007     /s/ RONALD W. HOVSEPIAN Ronald W. Hovsepian    President and Chief Executive Officer
§ 35.11 Minimum requirements. No person shall ship, or offer for shipment, and no carrier shall transport, or receive for transportation, any shipment of any variety of vinifera species table grapes unless such grapes meet the following quality and container marking requirements applicable to the variety and destination specified: ( a ) Any such variety for export to destinations in Japan, Europe (defined to mean the following countries: Albania, Austria, Belgium, Bosnia, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, England, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Herzegovina, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Macedonia, Montenegro, Netherlands, Northern Ireland, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Scotland, Serbia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Wales), or Greenland shall meet each applicable minimum requirement of the U.S. Fancy Table grape grade as specified in the U.S. Standards for Grades of Table Grapes (European or Vinifera Type) (§§ 51.880-51.912 of this title). The Black Corinth variety shall be exempt from bunch and berry size requirements.
( b ) Any such variety for export to any foreign destination, other than destinations in Japan, Europe, Greenland, Canada, or Mexico, shall meet each applicable minimum requirement of the U.S. No. 1 Table grape grade as specified in the U.S. Standards for Grades of Table Grapes (European or Vinifera Type) (§§ 51.880-51.912 of this title), except that an additional 2 percent tolerance for sealed berry cracks on the Ribier variety is allowed. The Black Corinth variety shall be exempt from bunch and berry size requirements.
( c ) Each package of any such variety, other than those in packages of 5 pounds or less in master containers, to any destination other than in Canada or Mexico shall be plainly and conspicuously marked with the name and address of the grower or packer, the variety, and the applicable inspection lot stamp number, except that when the packages are unitized, the requirement as to inspection lot stamp marking shall be deemed as met if the exposed box ends on one end of the unit are so marked.
[41 FR 32877, Aug. 6, 1976, as amended at 61 FR 54082, Oct. 17, 1996; 76 FR 14277, Mar. 16, 2011]
32.909 Contractor inquiries.       (a) 						            Direct questions involving-                                                         (1) 								                Delinquent payments to the designated billing office or designated payment office; and                                                            (2) 								                Disagreements in payment amount or timing to the contracting officer for resolution. The contracting officer must coordinate within appropriate contracting channels and seek the advice of other offices as necessary to resolve dis-agreements.                                                                             (b) 						            Small business concerns may contact the agency’s local small business specialist or representative from the Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization to obtain additional assistance related to payment issues, late payment interest penalties, and information on the Prompt Payment Act.    **Parent topic:** Subpart 32.9 - Prompt Payment
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14

- 20031 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
MIGUEL SECUNDINO

- DIEGO, also known as Jose Secundino

- Diego, also known as Juan Morales

- Costilla, also known as Miguel Diego Secundino, also known as Miguel Secundino Diego, also known as Diego Miguel Secundino , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:13

- CR

- 500

- 1

Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Miguel Secundino

Diego has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Secundino

- Diego h a s not filed a response and has been released from custody

. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED March 16, 2015 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 14-20031 Document: 00512969479 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/16/2015No. 14

- 20031
portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GR ANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED in part as frivolous, s ee 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2, and in part as moot. See United States v. Rosenbaum

- Alanis , 483 F.3d 381, 382

- 83 (5th Cir. 2007).

2 Case: 14-20031 Document: 00512969479 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/16/2015
# L_2014095DE.01007002.xml

| 29.3.2014 | DE | Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union | L 95/70 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.3.2014

DE

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union

L 95/70

---

Berichtigung der Durchführungsverordnung (EU) Nr. 1337/2013 der Kommission vom 13. Dezember 2013 mit Durchführungsbestimmungen zur Verordnung (EU) Nr. 1169/2011 des Europäischen Parlaments und des Rates hinsichtlich der Angabe des Ursprungslandes bzw. Herkunftsortes von frischem, gekühltem oder gefrorenem Schweine-, Schaf-, Ziegen- und Geflügelfleisch

(
  Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 335 vom 14. Dezember 2013
  )

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 335 vom 14. Dezember 2013

Auf Seite 20, in Artikel 3 Absatz 2 Buchstabe a:

anstatt:

„die Verbindung zwischen dem etikettierten Fleisch und dem Tier oder der Gruppe von Tieren, von denen das Fleisch stammt, erhalten bleibt, wobei auf der Stufe des Schlachtens der jeweilige Schlachthof dafür die Verantwortung trägt;“

muss es heißen:

„die Verbindung zwischen dem Fleisch und dem Tier oder der Gruppe von Tieren, von denen das Fleisch stammt, erhalten bleibt, wobei auf der Stufe des Schlachtens der jeweilige Schlachthof dafür die Verantwortung trägt;“

Auf Seite 21, in Artikel 5 Absatz 2:

anstatt:

„Anstelle der Angaben in Absatz 1 Buchstaben a und b kann auch die Angabe „Ursprung: (Name des Mitgliedstaats oder Drittlands)“ stehen, wenn der Lebensmittelunternehmer der zuständigen Behörde gegenüber hinreichend nachweist, dass das in Artikel 1 genannte Fleisch von Tieren stammt, die in einem einzigen Mitgliedstaat geboren, aufgezogen und geschlachtet wurden.“

muss es heißen:

„Anstelle der Angaben in Absatz 1 Buchstaben a und b kann auch die Angabe „Ursprung: (Name des Mitgliedstaats oder Drittlands)“ stehen, wenn der Lebensmittelunternehmer der zuständigen Behörde gegenüber hinreichend nachweist, dass das in Artikel 1 genannte Fleisch von Tieren stammt, die in einem einzigen Mitgliedstaat oder Drittland geboren, aufgezogen und geschlachtet wurden.“

---
§ 43.104 Master table of single and double sampling plans. ( a ) In the master table, a sampling plan is selected by first determining the sample size or sizes and AQL to be used. Then find the applicable acceptance (Ac) and rejection (Re) numbers at the intersection of the sample size(s) row and AQL column. These numbers together with the sample size or sizes constitute a sampling plan.
( b ) Single sampling plans having a sample size of 66 or greater and an acceptance number of 1 are not included in the Master Table. These plans are listed in the tables which supplement the Master Table and accompany the OC curves as indexes to the comparable double sampling plans. The use of these single sampling plans do not facilitate the practice of using two or more AQL's simultaneously with the same sample size.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2531 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2531

 To extend the temporary suspension of duty with respect to Fosetyl-Al.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 5, 2006

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To extend the temporary suspension of duty with respect to Fosetyl-Al.

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

SECTION 1. FOSETYL-AL.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.01.73 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to Fosetyl-Al) is amended by 
striking ``12/31/2006'' and inserting ``12/31/2009''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
# L_2013346EN.01008901.xml

| 20.12.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 346/89 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.12.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 346/89

---

Corrigendum to Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1363/2013 of 12 December 2013 amending Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the provision of food information to consumers as regards the definition of ‘engineered nanomaterials’

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 343 of 19 December 2013
  )

The publication of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1363/2013 is to be considered null and void.

---
#### § 407.5 Creditors.

An interest of a person in an insured crop existing by virtue of a lien, mortgage, garnishment, levy, execution, bankruptcy, involuntary transfer or other similar interest shall not entitle the holder of the interest to any benefit under the contract.