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

   Certification of Chief Executive Officer pursuant to 8 U.S.C. Section 1350
      as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.

                                  CERTIFICATION

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Water Chef, Inc., a Delaware
corporation (the "Company"), on Form 10-QSB/A for the period ended June 30, 2007
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), the undersigned, the Chief Executive Officer, hereby certifies
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to my knowledge and upon a review of the Report
that:

     (1) the Report of the Company filed today pursuant to Section 13(a) of the
     Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), fully
     complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act; and

     (2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
     material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
     Company.

This certification is based upon, among other things, my responsibilities as
Chief Executive Officer, my own due diligence and representations made by
certain members of the Company's senior management.


Dated: December 19, 2007
                                           /s/ Leslie J. Kessler
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           Leslie J. Kessler
                                           Chief Executive Officer and President
PGI 211.274-2 Policy for unique item

identification.

(b)(2)(ii) Send the copy of the determination and findings required by DFARS 211.274- 2(b)(2)(i) to

DPAP/Program Development and Implementation, Deputy Director, 3060 Defense Pentagon, 3B855,

Washington, DC 20301-3060; or via email to: osd.pentagon.ousd-atl.mbx.pdi@mail.mil .

Parent topic: PGI 211.274 Item identification and valuation requirements.
2007-2445.

#### State v. Constable.

Clermont App. No. CA2006-12-107, 2007-Ohio-6570. On motion for stay and for appellate bond. Motion denied.
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 12

- 00363

- CV

RUBY LUCILLE HALL APPELLANT

V.

RDSL ENTERPRISES LLC D/B/A

JACK IN THE BOX, AND JACK IN

THE BOX, INC. APPELLEES

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

FROM THE 141ST DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

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



### MEMORANDUM OPINION 1 

### AND JUDGMENT

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

We have considered “ Appellant's Motion To Dismiss All Claims Against

Jack In The Box, Inc. ” It is the court ’ s opinion that the motion should be granted;

therefore, we dismiss the appeal a gainst Jack in the Box, Inc. only

. See Tex. R.

App. P. 42.1(a)(1), 43.2(f). This case shall hereafter be styled Ruby Lucille Hall

v. RDSL Enterprises LLC d/b/a Jack in the Box.

1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.2

Costs of the appeal shall be paid by appellant, for which let execution

issu e. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(d).

PER CURIAM

PANEL: MEIER, GARD N ER, and GABRIEL, JJ.

DELIVERED: February 14, 2013
Exhibit
32.1



CERTIFICATION

OF
PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER

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 Nxt-ID, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K/A for the period ended December 31,
2016, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Gino M. Pereira,
Chief Executive Officer of Nxt-ID, Inc., certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §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.
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|Date:
    July 7, 2017 | By: | /s/
    Gino M. Pereira          
|---------------------- | --- | ---------------------------------
|                       |     | Gino
    M. Pereira              
|                       |     | Chief
    Executive Officer      
|                       |     | (Principal
    Executive Officer)
#### NABHOLZ CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION *v.*CONTRACTORS FOR PUBLIC PROTECTION ASSOCIATION

07-843

262 S.W.3d 138

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Opinion delivered September 13, 2007

*Friday, Eldredge & Clark, LLP,*by: *Jeffrey H. Moore,*for appellant.

*Howell Trice Hope & Files,*by: *Ronald A. Hope,*for appellee.

Per Curiam.

On August 28, 2007, appellee, Contractors for Public Protection Association, filed a motion to expedite the appeal in this case. The case arises from an order of the Pulaski County Circuit Court in an action under the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act, Arkansas Code Annotated § 25-19-101 to -109 (Repl. 2002 & Supp. 2007). Appellant was ordered to produce certain documents under the Act relating to a construction project for the State of Arkansas. On April 30, 2007, the circuit court stayed its order pending this appeal. Appellee now requests that the appeal of this case and the corresponding briefing schedule be expedited.

Appellant contends that appellee has failed to show good cause to expedite the appeal. However, if the court grants the motion to expedite, appellant requests that appellee be ordered to post a bond with good and sufficient surety in an amount to be determined by this court to compensate appellant for additional attorney’s fees and costs associated with an expedited appeal.

We grant appellees motion to expedite and order that the parties file simultaneous briefs by September 24, 2007. Simultaneous reply briefs shall be submitted on or before October 1, 2007. No bond shall be required in connection with the expedited appeal.
#### Nickoletta Rozakis, as Administratrix of the Estate of George L. Rozakis, Deceased, Respondent, v. Tilo Company, Inc., et al., Appellants.

In a negligence action to recover damages for wrongful death and conscious pain' and suffering, defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated January 30, 1969, which, (1) on plaintiff’s motion, *inter a],ia*struck out defendant Sandlin’s answer for his willful failure to appear for examination b.efore trial and (2) denied a cross motion by defendants’ attorney for leave to withdraw as defendant Sandlin’s attorney. Order modified, on the law and the facts, (1) *by*striking from the provision in the first decretal paragraph thereof which prohibits defendant Sandlin “ from appearing or testifying either as a witness or as a party in the trial of the within action ” the said words “ either as a witness or ”; (2) by adding, after said word “ action ” the following; “unless he appears for examination before trial before the ■trial of this action”; and (3) by adding to said paragraph the following: “If defendant Tilo Company, Inc. intends to call defendant Sandlin as a witness it shall notify plaintiff thereof and plaintiff shall be entitled -to a reasonable opportunity to examine Sandlin prior to the trial.” As so modified, order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements to respondent. Defendant Sandlin acted willfully in refusing to appear át the examination before trial and has totally refused to co-operate, not only in defending the action as against himself, but in defending the action as against his former employer, defendant Tilo Company, Inc. However, the latter’s rights must be protected. It has asserted as an affirmative defense the contributory negligence of plaintiff and to that issue the driver Sandlin is a necessary witness. Rabin, Acting P. J., Hopkins, Benjamin, Martuseello and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur.
#### § 605.18 National security.

Activities under SC's Financial Assistance Program shall not involve classified information (i.e., Restricted Data, formerly Restricted Data, National Security Information). However, if in the opinion of the recipient or DOE such involvement becomes expected prior to the closeout of the award, the recipient or DOE shall notify the other in writing immediately. If the recipient believes any information developed or acquired may be classifiable, the recipient shall not provide the potentially classifiable information to anyone, including the DOE officials with whom the recipient normally communicates, except the Director of Classification, and shall protect such information as if it were classified until notified by DOE that a determination has been made that it does not require such handling. Correspondence which includes the specific information in question shall be sent by registered mail to U.S. Department of Energy, Attn: Director of Classification, DP-32, Washington, DC 20585. If the information is determined to be classified, the recipient may wish to discontinue the project in which case the recipient and DOE shall terminate the award by mutual agreement. If the award is to be terminated, all material deemed by DOE to be classified shall be forwarded to DOE, in a manner specified by DOE, for proper disposition. If the recipient and DOE wish to continue the award, even though classified information is involved, the recipient shall be required to obtain both personnel and facility security clearances through the Office of Safeguards and Security for Headquarters awards, or from the cognizant field office Division of Safeguards and Security for awards obtained through DOE field organizations. Costs associated with handling and protecting any such classified information shall be negotiated at the time that the determination to proceed is made.

[57 FR 40583, Sept. 3, 1992, as amended at 79 FR 76047, Dec. 19, 2014]
#### § 590.505 Answers to applications for rehearing.

No answers to applications for rehearing shall be entertained. Prior to the issuance of any final opinion and order on rehearing, however, the Assistant Secretary may afford the parties an opportunity to file briefs or answers and may order that a conference, oral presentation, or trial-type hearing be held on some or all of the issues presented by an application for rehearing.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

v ) CR. NO. 1:06CR197-MEF

)

RODERICK CHARLES MELVIN )

ORDER

Upon consideration of the motion for transcript (doc. # 33) filed by the defendant, it

is

ORDERED that the motion be and is hereby GRANTED. 

Done this 11 day of December, 2006. th

 /s/Charles S. Coody 

CHARLES S. COODY

CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cr-00197-MEF-CSC Document 35 Filed 12/11/2006 Page 1 of 1
EPA PSD 

Permit #

Current Company 

Name

(Old Company Name) County

Date of 

Initial 

Proposal Project Equipment Description

SJ 08-01 Avenal Energy Project Kings June 2009

Two GE 7FAs with HRSGs and duct burners, one 

steam turbine, one auxiliary boiler, one 

emergency standby generator engine, and one 

emergency standby fire water pump engine.

SJV PSD Permits Proposed by EPA that are Pending Final Agency Action, as of August 30, 2012
Editorial Note on Part 55
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 55 appear at 80 FR 74980, Dec. 1, 2015.

§ 55.33 Disposition of an initial application. ( a ) *Requirements for the approval of an initial application.* The Commission will approve an initial application for a license pursuant to the regulations in this part, if it finds that— ( 1 ) *Health.* The applicant's medical condition and general health will not adversely affect the performance of assigned operator job duties or cause operational errors endangering public health and safety. The Commission will base its finding upon the certification by the facility licensee as detailed in § 55.23.
( 2 ) *Written examination and operating test.* The applicant has passed the requisite written examination and operating test in accordance with §§ 55.41 and 55.45 or 55.43 and 55.45. These examinations and tests determine whether the applicant for an operator's license has learned to operate a facility competently and safely, and additionally, in the case of a senior operator, whether the applicant has learned to direct the licensed activities of licensed operators competently and safely.
( b ) *Conditional license.* If an applicant's general medical condition does not meet the minimum standards under § 55.33(a)(1) of this part, the Commission may approve the application and include conditions in the license to accommodate the medical defect. The Commission will consider the recommendations and supporting evidence of the facility licensee and of the examining physician (provided on Form NRC-396) in arriving at its decision.
[52 FR 9460, Mar. 25, 1987, as amended at 86 FR 67843, Nov. 30, 2021]
## Academy of Model Aeronautics

5161 East Memorial Drive Muncie, Indiana 47302 (765) 287-1256 – Business (765) 289-4248 – Fax (800) 435-9262 – Membership Services http://www.modelaircraft.org



# FLYING SITE SAFETY AND OPERATIONAL RULES

The Official AMA National Model Aircraft Safety Code is a basic document for ALL AMA chartered clubs. Every member should be familiar with the Safe ty Code, and new members should receive instruction about this code.

Each club should also develop a carefully structured set of rules for their club’s flying site. These rules should cover two (2)

areas: 1) Safety rules for actual flying, and 2) Operational rules which include items concerning times of operation, permits required, emergency numbers, etc.

Following is a generic sample of a set of rules designed to supplement the required current Official AMA National Model Aircraft Safety Code . This example is not intended to represent the specific needs of all flying sites. It is, rather, intended to be a guide to help each club develop rules which specifically meet the individual site situation.

C:\PDF\535-B.doc 03/2008 IM

### FLYING SITE SAFETY RULES

1. Deliberate flying behind the sa fety line is prohibited. 2. Each transmitter must display frequency identification. 3. Taxiing is not allowed in the pit area. 4. It is strongly recommended that members do not fly alone. 5. Children should not be permitted beyond the spectator area unless under the direct supervision of an adult or under flight instruction. 6. The established club frequency control pl an will be in force at all times. 7. Control line equipment shall be inspecte d before the initial flight each day. 8. Helicopter flights are allowe d in designated areas only. 9. Sailplane high start lines are to run parallel to active runway. 10. Direction of flight is determ ined by the wind direction, etc. 11. Flight operations will st op during electrical storms. 12. Models will fly only in predesignated ar eas, and will yield right-of-way to full-size aircraft.



### FLYING SITE OPERATIONAL RULES

1. NO flying before 9:00 a.m. 2. Only pilots and assistants are allowed on the safety line. 3. Mufflers are required on all models. (db limit recommended). 4. Testing of engines is to be perf ormed in specific designated areas. 5. Shelter may not be used as a pit area. 6. The AMA Safety Code will be displayed when the field is open for flying. 7. Fliers operating models must display AMA membership cards for easy identification. 8. Pilots shall make appropria te announcement when taking off, landing, or emergency situations. 9. Compliance to these safety rules is th e responsibility of each participant. 10. First aid kits are to be carried by designated members.

11. Post emergency numbers: Hospital _______________________________, Police _______________________, and Public phone location _____________________ 12. All non-participants must be behind a partia l barrier during Control Line Speed flying.

C:\PDF\535-B.doc 03/2008 IM
Editorial Note on Part 2
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 2 appear at 79 FR 75739, Dec. 19, 2014.

§ 2.1205 Summary disposition. ( a ) Unless the presiding officer or the Commission directs otherwise, motions for summary disposition may be submitted to the presiding officer by any party no later than 45 days before the commencement of hearing. The motions must be in writing and must include a written explanation of the basis of the motion. The moving party must attach a short and concise statement of material facts for which the moving party contends that there is no genuine issue to be heard. Motions for summary disposition must be served on the parties and the Secretary at the same time that they are submitted to the presiding officer.
( b ) Any other party may serve an answer supporting or opposing the motion within twenty (20) days after service of the motion.
( c ) The presiding officer shall issue a determination on each motion for summary disposition no later than fifteen (15) days before the date scheduled for commencement of hearing. In ruling on motions for summary disposition, the presiding officer shall apply the standards for summary disposition set forth in subpart G of this part.
[69 FR 2267, Jan. 14, 2004, as amended at 77 FR 46598, Aug. 3, 2012]
§ 600.304 Special award conditions. ( a ) Contracting officers may impose additional requirements as needed, over and above those provided in this subpart, if an applicant or recipient: ( 1 ) Has a history of poor performance;
( 2 ) Is not financially stable;
( 3 ) Has a management system that does not meet the standards prescribed in this subpart;
( 4 ) Has not conformed to the terms and conditions of a previous award; or
( 5 ) Is not otherwise responsible.
( b ) Before imposing additional requirements, DOE must notify the applicant or recipient in writing as to: ( 1 ) The nature of the additional requirements;
( 2 ) The reason why the additional requirements are being imposed;
( 3 ) The nature of the corrective action needed;
( 4 ) The time allowed for completing the corrective actions; and
( 5 ) The method for requesting reconsideration of the additional requirements imposed.
( c ) The contracting officer must remove any special conditions if the circumstances that prompted them have been corrected.
§ 490.705 Use of credits. ( a ) At the request of a fleet or covered person allocated a credit under this subpart, DOE shall, for the model year in which the purchase of a qualifying volume is made, treat that purchase as the acquisition of one alternative fueled vehicle the fleet or covered person is required to acquire under titles III and V of the Energy Policy Act of 1992.
( b ) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, credits allocated under this subpart may not be used to satisfy more than 50 percent of the alternative fueled vehicle requirements of a fleet or covered person under titles III and V of the Energy Policy Act of 1992.
( c ) A fleet or covered person that is a biodiesel alternative fuel provider described in section 490.303 of this part may use its credits allocated under this subpart to satisfy all of its alternative fueled vehicle requirements under section 490.302.
( d ) A fleet or covered person may not trade or bank biodiesel fuel credits.
[64 FR 27174, May 19, 1999, as amended at 66 FR 2210, Jan. 11, 2001]
#### In the Matter of Carol A. O’Hara, Appellant, v Board of Education of the Fabius-Pompey Central School District, Respondent.

Appeal unanimously dismissed, without costs, as moot. (Appeal from judgment of Onondaga Supreme Court — art 78.) Present — Simons, J. P., Hancock, Jr., Schnepp, Callahan and Moule, JJ.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Benito Valenti, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County, rendered September 24, 1979, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgment reversed, on the law, and new trial ordered. The facts have been considered and have been found to be established. At trial, both defendant and his girlfriend testified as to their, actions on the night of the robbery. On cross-examination, each was questioned concerning a joint bank account they had maintained. Defendant’s girlfriend testified that approximately one week before the robbery they had discovered that the bank had mistakenly credited $6,000 to their account, which had had a previous balance of only $60. She admitted that she had never informed the bank of its error and that when defendant was arrested she had used the passbook as collateral for his bail bond. Defendant testified that he too had never informed the bank of its error, that he had been aware of the fact that the passbook was being used as collateral for. his bail bond, and that he had signed a *statement for*the bonding company that the money in the *account was his and was*being assigned to the bonding company. This evidence was offered for the limited purpose of impeaching the credibility of the defendant and his girlfriend. Nevertheless, on summation, the prosecutor did not comment on their conduct with regard to the bank account as rendering them unworthy of belief. Instead, he referred to it as "[getting] somebody else’s six thousand dollars”. He stated: "Somebody is out six thousand dollars. The funds, the money it’s misappropriated from somebody.” These and other similar remarks by the prosecutor could only have served to prejudice the jury. Inasmuch as the evidence concerning the bank account was admitted solely for the purpose of impeaching the credibility of the defendant and his girlfriend, the prosecutor’s extensive reference to and inappropriate emphasis on this conduct was clearly improper (cf. *People v McLeod,*71 AD2d 930). Accordingly, the judgment of conviction must be reversed, and a new trial ordered. Hopkins, J. P., Mangano, O’Connor and Weinstein, JJ., concur.
#### § 433.8 Life-cycle costing.

Each Federal agency shall determine life-cycle cost-effectiveness by using the procedures set out in subpart A of part 436. A Federal agency may choose to use any of four methods, including lower life-cycle costs, positive net savings, savings-to-investment ratio that is estimated to be greater than one, and an adjusted internal rate of return that is estimated to be greater than the discount rate as listed in OMB Circular Number A-94 “Guidelines and Discount Rates for Benefit-Cost Analysis of Federal Programs.”