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

                                  CERTIFICATION
                           Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350
                 (Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Zebra Resources, Inc. (the
"Company") for the year ended August 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Dan Gravelle, as Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.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 18, 2009             By: /s/ Dan Gravelle
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Dan Gravelle
                                        Chief Executive Officer
52.204-17  Ownership or Control of Offeror.       As prescribed in 4.1804(b), use the following provision:          Ownership or Control of Offeror (Aug 2020)                                       (a)                    						             Definitions. As used in this provision–                *Commercial and Government Entity (CAGE) code* means–(1)                             An identifier assigned to entities located in the United States or its outlying areas by the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) Commercial and Government Entity (CAGE) Branch to identify a commercial or government entity by unique location; or                                                                     (2)                             An identifier assigned by a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) or by the NATO Support and Procurement Agency (NSPA) to entities located outside the United States and its outlying areas that the DLA Commercial and Government Entity (CAGE) Branch records and maintains in the CAGE master file. This type of code is known as a NATO CAGE (NCAGE) code.                         *Highest-level owner* means the entity that owns or controls an immediate owner of the offeror, or that owns or controls one or more entities that control an immediate owner of the offeror. No entity owns or exercises control of the highest level owner.                         *Immediate owner* means an entity, other than the offeror, that has direct control of the offeror. Indicators of control include, but are not limited to, one or more of the following: ownership or interlocking management, identity of interests among family members, shared facilities and equipment, and the common use of employees.                                                                                                   (b)                    						             The Offeror represents that it □ has or □ does not have an immediate owner. If the Offeror has more than one immediate owner (such as a joint venture), then the Offeror shall respond to paragraph (c) and if applicable, paragraph (d) of this provision for each participant in the joint venture.                                          (c)                    						             If the Offeror indicates "has" in paragraph (b) of this provision, enter the following information:                Immediate owner CAGE code: ____________                Immediate owner legal name: ____________                (Do not use a "doing business as" name)                Is the immediate owner owned or controlled by another entity?: □ Yes or □ No.                                          (d)                    						             If the Offeror indicates "yes" in paragraph (c) of this provision, indicating that the immediate owner is owned or controlled by another entity, then enter the following information:                Highest-level owner CAGE code: ____________                Highest-level owner legal name: ____________                (Do not use a "doing business as" name)                                 (End of provision)    **Parent topic:** 52.204 [Reserved]
#### § 51.714 Metric conversion table.

| Inches | Millimeters (mm) |
| --- | --- |
| 1/4 equals | 6.4 |
| 5/16 equals | 7.9 |
| 3/8 equals | 9.5 |
| 1/2 equals | 12.7 |
| 5/8 equals | 15.9 |
| 3/4 equals | 19.1 |
| 7/8 equals | 22.2 |
| 1 equals | 25.4 |
| 11/4 equals | 31.8 |
| 23/16 equals | 55.6 |
| 24/16 equals | 57.2 |
| 27/16 equals | 61.9 |
| 28/16 equals | 63.5 |
| 29/16 equals | 65.1 |
| 211/16 equals | 68.3 |
| 212/16 equals | 69.9 |
| 215/16 equals | 74.6 |
| 31/16 equals | 77.8 |
| 33/16 equals | 81.0 |
| 35/16 equals | 84.1 |
| 37/16 equals | 87.3 |
| 39/16 equals | 90.5 |
| 313/16 equals | 96.8 |
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

April 28, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 135371 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 135371 

 COA: 277287 
 Wayne CC: 02-005335 

ARTHUR B. CHERRY,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 23, 2007 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D). 

d0421 

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. 

April 28, 2008 

 Clerk
206.000 Scope of part.       For information on the various approaches that may be used to competitively fulfill DoD requirements, see PGI                 206.000             .    **Parent topic:** Part 206 - COMPETITION REQUIREMENTS
NOTE : This order is nonprecedential. 

# United States Court of Appeals **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________
ALTERNATIVE PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGIES HOLDINGS CORP., ALTERNATIVE PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Plaintiffs

- Appellants

v.

PATRICK GRIMES,

Defendant

- Appellee

______________________
2022

- 2165

______________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada in No. 3:20

- cv

- 00040

- MMD

- CLB

, Judge Miranda M. Du.

______________________ O R D E R

The appellant having failed to file the brief required by Federal Circuit Rule 31(a) within the time permitted by th e rules, it is Case: 22-2165 Document: 14 Page: 1 Filed: 12/14/2022A LTERNATIVE P ETROLEUM T ECHNOLOGIES H OLDINGS C ORP

. V

. G RIMES 2

ORDERED that the notice of appeal be, and the same hereby is, DISMISSED, for failure to prosecute in accordance with the rules.

FOR THE COURT

December 14, 2022 Date /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner Peter R. Marksteiner Clerk of Court

ISSUED AS A MANDATE: December 14, 2022 Case: 22-2165 Document: 14 Page: 2 Filed: 12/14/2022
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

RANDY A. HART,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 5:20cv255-TKW-MJF

MARK INCH, et al.,

Defendants.

______________________________/

ORDER

This case is before the Court based on the magistrate judge’s Report and 

Recommendation (Doc. 3). No objections were filed. Upon due consideration of 

the Report and Recommendation and the case file, I agree with the magistrate 

judge’s determination that this case should be dismissed pursuant to the “three 

strikes” statute, 28 U.S.C. §1915(g). Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that:

1. The Report and Recommendation is adopted and incorporated by 

reference in this Order.

2. This case is DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(g), and the 

Clerk shall close the file.

Case 5:20-cv-00255-TKW-MJF Document 4 Filed 11/02/20 Page 1 of 2
2

DONE and ORDERED this 2nd day of November, 2020.

T. Kent Wetherell, II 

T. KENT WETHERELL, II

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 5:20-cv-00255-TKW-MJF Document 4 Filed 11/02/20 Page 2 of 2
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission

(CPSC) reports that emergency room-treated injuries

related to popular lightweight scooters have increased

sixteen-fold from May to September 2000. CPSC

data show that there were more than 8,000 scooterrelated injuries treated in hospital emergency rooms in

September alone. There have been 40,500 emergency

room-treated injuries reported for 2000, and 5 deaths

have occurred so far in 2000-2001. About 85 percent of

the injuries are to children under 15 years of age. 

CPSC recommends that riders, especially children,

wear proper safety gear including a helmet and knee

and elbow pads to help prevent injuries. CPSC

estimates that more than 60 percent of injuries could

be prevented or reduced in severity if protective gear

had been worn. 

The scooters, which first went on the market in the

United States last year, are new versions of the footpropelled scooters first popular in the 1950s. They

are made of lightweight metal such as aluminum and

have small low-friction wheels similar to those on inline skates. They usually cost between $50 and $120

and typically weigh less than 10 pounds. They can be

folded for easy portability. 

Most injuries resulted when riders fell from the

scooter. Fractures and dislocations accounted for

about one-quarter of the injuries. Most of the fractures

and dislocations were to arms and hands.

The best investment against injury is protective gear

which can cost less than $30.

CPSC recommends the following safety guidelines: 

• Wear a helmet that meets CPSC's bike helmet

standard, along with knee and elbow pads.

• Make sure both handle bars and the steering

column are securely locked in place before riding.

• Routinely check all nuts and bolts to be sure they

are secure.

• Ride the scooters on smooth, paved surfaces

without any motor vehicle traffic. Avoid streets, or

surfaces with water, sand, gravel or dirt.

• Do not ride the scooter at night.

Consumer Product Safety Alert

FROM THE U.S. CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20207

Scooter Sales Skyrocket, Injuries Soar

CPSC Recommends Riders Wear Safety Gear
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

RICHARD WALKER,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D19-1606

[December 3, 2020]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, 

Broward County; Edward H. Merrigan, Jr., Judge; L.T. Case No. 17-

008334CF10A.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Ian Seldin, Assistant Public 

Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Luke R. Napodano, 

Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

LEVINE, C.J., MAY and ARTAU, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
#### § 61.6 Denial of further services.

Any person, partnership, or corporation that shall have undertaken to utilize the services of licensed cottonseed samplers under these regulations who shall not make available for official sampling and analysis each lot of cottonseed purchased or sold on grade and received by such person or partnership or corporation, may be denied further services under the act and these regulations: *Provided,* That in cases of persons, partnerships, or corporations operating two or more cottonseed crushing units under separate local managements, such penalty shall apply only to the offending unit, unless it shall be shown that the actions of such unit were at the direction or with the knowledge, approval, or acquiescence of the general management.

[22 FR 10948, Dec. 28, 1957, as amended at 58 FR 42413, Aug. 9, 1993]
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-13-00476-CR

Michael Joseph Percy, Jr.

v.

The State of Texas

§

§

§

§

§

From the 432nd District Court

of Tarrant County (1162121D)

November 7, 2013

Per Curiam

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that 

the appeal should be dismissed. It is ordered that the appeal is dismissed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

PER CURIAM
Document No. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

VS CASE NO. 3:98CR78 LAC

MELVIN WILSON

REFERRAL AND ORDER

Referred to Judge Lacey Collier on MAY 5, 2008 

Motion/Pleadings: LETTER TO CLERK REQUESTING THAT PAGE TWO OF DEFT’S 

 PREVIOUSLY FILED MOTION TO ALTER (Doc #268 filed on 4/14/08) BE CORRECTED

BY SUBSTITUTING THE ATTACHED CORRECTED PAGE TWO 

Filed by DEFENDANT PRO SE on5/5/08 Doc.# 275

RESPONSES:

on Doc.#

on Doc.#

Stipulated Joint Pldg.

Unopposed Consented

WILLIAM M. McCOOL, CLERK OF COURT

s/Mary Maloy

LC (1 OR 2) Deputy Clerk: Mary Maloy

ORDER

Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is ORDERED this 19th day of

May, 2008, that:

(a) The relief requested is GRANTED.

(b) 

 s/L.A. Collier

LACEY A. COLLIER

Senior United States District Judge

Entered On Docket: By: 

Rules 58 & 79(a) FRCP or 32(d)(1) & 55 FRCRP

Copies sent to:

Case 3:98-cr-00078-LC-MD Document 281 Filed 05/19/08 Page 1 of 1
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

JACOB WESLEY SCOTT,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 4:04-cv-00009-MP-AK

GLENDA COOK, et al.,

Defendants.

___________________________/

O R D E R 

This matter is before the Court on Doc. 54, Report and Recommendations of the

Magistrate Judge, recommending that Defendants' motion to dismiss, Doc. 51, be granted, and

Plaintiff's amended complaint, Doc. 16, be dismissed for failure to state a cause of action for

which relief may be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). The report was signed by the

Magistrate on Friday, October 14, 2005. A copy of the report was mailed to the Plaintiff, but

was returned to the Court as non-deliverable since Plaintiff is no longer in custody. The Plaintiff

has not provided any forwarding address information. 

Therefore, having considered the Report and Recommendation, as well as Plaintiff's

failure to keep the Court informed of his current address, I have determined that the Report and

Recommendation should be ADOPTED.

Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

1. The Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is adopted and

incorporated herein.

2. Defendants' motion to dismiss, Doc. 51, is granted. 

Case 4:04-cv-00009-MP-AK Document 56 Filed 11/15/05 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Case No: 4:04-cv-00009-MP-AK

3. Plaintiff's amended complaint, Doc. 16, is dismissed for failure to state a cause of

action for which relief may be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)

DONE AND ORDERED this 15th day of November, 2005

 s/Maurice M. Paul 

 Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge

Case 4:04-cv-00009-MP-AK Document 56 Filed 11/15/05 Page 2 of 2
52.227 [Reserved]

52.227-1 Authorization and Consent.

52.227-2 Notice and Assistance Regarding Patent and Copyright Infringement.

52.227-3 Patent Indemnity.

52.227-4 Patent Indemnity-Construction Contracts.

52.227-5 Waiver of Indemnity.

52.227-6 Royalty Information.

52.227-7 Patents-Notice of Government Licensee.

52.227-8 [Reserved]

52.227-9 Refund of Royalties.

52.227-10 Filing of Patent Applications-Classified Subject Matter.

52.227-11 Patent Rights-Ownership by the Contractor.

52.227-12 [Reserved]

52.227-13 Patent Rights-Ownership by the Government.

52.227-14 Rights in Data-General.

52.227-15 Representation of Limited Rights Data and Restricted Computer Software.

52.227-16 Additional Data Requirements.

52.227-17 Rights in Data-Special Works.

52.227-18 Rights in Data-Existing Works.

52.227-19 Commercial Computer Software License.

52.227-20 Rights in Data-SBIR Program.

52.227-21 Technical Data Declaration, Revision, and Withholding of Payment-Major

Systems.

52.227-22 Major System-Minimum Rights.

52.227-23 Rights to Proposal Data (Technical).

Parent topic: Subpart 52.2 - Text of Provisions and Clauses
#### §§ 761.56-761.100 [Reserved]
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

VERONICA ZUNIGA RODRIGUEZ,

Petitioner,

v. Case No.: 4:20cv210-MW/HTC

WARDEN FCI TALLAHASSEE,

Respondent.

___________________________/ 

ORDER ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This Court has considered, without hearing, the Magistrate Judge's Report 

and Recommendation. ECF No. 19. Upon consideration, no objections having been 

filed by the parties,

IT IS ORDERED:

The report and recommendation, ECF No. 19, is accepted and adopted as 

this Court’s opinion. Respondent’s motion to dismiss, ECF No. 17, is GRANTED. 

The Clerk shall enter judgment stating, “Petitioner’s amended petition is

DISMISSED for failure to exhaust administrative remedies and as barred by 
2

collateral estoppel.” The Clerk shall close the file.

SO ORDERED on May 11, 2021.

s/Mark E. Walker 

Chief United States District Judge
(December 20, 1979)

#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Leon Lewis, Appellant.

— Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, rendered on January 4, 1978, unanimously affirmed. Application by appellant’s counsel to withdraw as counsel is granted. (See *Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Saunders,*52 AD2d 833.) We have reviewed this record and agree with appellant’s assigned counsel that there are no meritorious points which could be raised on this appeal. Concur — Murphy, P. J., Kupferman, Fein, Sullivan and Ross, Appellant.
## UNITED STATES ENVIRO NMENTAL PROTECTION A GENCY

OFFICE OF RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT WESTERN ECOLOGY DIVI SION 200 S.W. 35TH STREET , CORVALLIS, OR 9733 3



### September xx , 2014

«Address_1» «Address_2» «City_»

, «State_» «Zip»

«GreetingLine»

I n early October, we sent a letter to your address that asked for a member of your household to complete a survey about issues related to protecting salmon and steelhead fish populations in the Willamette basin. To the best of our knowledge, if has not yet been returned.

We are writing to you again because of the importance that your household’s completed survey has for helping our project to get accurate results. It is only by hearing from nearly everyone in t he sample that we can be sure that the results truly represent the opinions of Oregon residents who live and work in different parts of the state and have different backgrounds and views. Therefore, we hope that you or somebody in your household who is 18 years or older will fill out and return the survey soon.

As mentioned before, the questions should take about 20

– 30 minutes to complete. Your responses are voluntary and will be kept confidential. Your answers will never be associated with your name o r mailing address. If you have any questions about this survey, please contact Michael Papenfus, the study director, by telephone at 1

- 800

- 754

- xxxx or by email at xxxxxxx@epa.gov

. He will be happy to help with any q uestions or concerns you may have.

We hope that you enjoy the survey.



### Sincerely

,

Dr. Michael Papenfus United States Environmental Protection Agency
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

AGRICULTURAL SERVICES AND

INVESTMENTS, INC., f/k/a F&W

AGRISERVICES, INC.,

Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant,

vs. 5:02-CV-080-SPM

BAGGETT BROTHERS FARM, INC.,

et al.,

Defendants/Counter-Claimaints.

_____________________________/

ORDER AWARDING ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon the “Plaintiff’s Motion for the

Award of Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses and Certificate of Conference With

Counsel” (doc. 139) filed July 5, 2005. In the motion, Plaintiff states that defense

counsel “did not have a problem” with the time or amount requested in the

affidavit (doc. 139-2). Plaintiff requests the $100.535.75 included in the affidavit

as well as $6,378.72 set forth in the bill of costs filed April 27, 2004 (doc. 117),

for a total of $106,914.47. 

Having undertaken a cursory review of the rates charged and number of

hours expended, the Court finds the total to be reasonable. Defendants

Case 5:02-cv-00080-SPM-AK Document 156 Filed 01/18/06 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

previously filed an “Objection to Taking Deposition in Aid of Execution and in the

Alternative Defendants’ Motion for Stay of Execution” (doc. 142), which was

denied by this Court on September 1, 2005 (doc. 144). The Court ruled that if

they wished to stay the case pending appeal, Defendants were free to submit an

application to post bond in the amount of $492,842.44, which represents 110% of

the judgment amount of $448,038.58. To date no such application has been

filed. Currently, there are no disputed issues which would preclude entry of

judgment in this amount. Accordingly, it is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for attorney fees (doc. 139) is hereby granted. 

2. The clerk shall enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff against all

defendants, jointly and severally, in the total amount of

$106,914.47, which represents $100,535.75 for attorney fees from

September 1, 2001 through July 5, 2005, as shown in document

139-2, and $6,378.72 for the bill of costs (doc. 117). 

DONE AND ORDERED this eighteenth day of January, 2006.

 s/ Stephan P. Mickle 

Stephan P. Mickle

United States District Judge

/pao

Case 5:02-cv-00080-SPM-AK Document 156 Filed 01/18/06 Page 2 of 2
52.214-12 Preparation of Bids.

As prescribed in 14.201-6(f), insert the following provision:

Preparation of Bids (Apr 1984)

(a) Bidders are expected to examine the drawings, specifications, Schedule, and all instructions.

Failure to do so will be at the bidder’s risk.

(b) Each bidder shall furnish the information required by the solicitation. The bidder shall sign the

bid and print or type its name on the Schedule and each continuation sheet on which it makes an

entry. Erasures or other changes must be initialed by the person signing the bid. Bids signed by an

agent shall be accompanied by evidence of that agent’s authority, unless that evidence has been

previously furnished to the issuing office.

(c) For each item offered, bidders shall (1) show the unit price, including, unless otherwise specified,

packaging, packing, and preservation and (2) enter the extended price for the quantity of each item

offered in the "Amount" column of the Schedule. In case of discrepancy between a unit price and an

extended price, the unit price will be presumed to be correct, subject, however, to correction to the

same extent and in the same manner as any other mistake.

(d) Bids for supplies or services other than those specified will not be considered unless authorized

by the solicitation.

(e) Bidders must state a definite time for delivery of supplies or for performance of services, unless

otherwise specified in the solicitation.

(f) Time, if stated as a number of days, will include Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays.

(End of provision)

Parent topic: 52.214 [Reserved]