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 of Sionix Corporation (the “Company”) 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”), I, James R. Currier, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify to my knowledge and in my capacity as an officer of the Company, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





1.
The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and,


2.
The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of the dates and for the periods expressed in the Report.





Date: May 24, 2010


/s/ James R. CurrierJames R. CurrierChairman, Chief Executive Officer, and 
Principal Executive Officer






A certification furnished pursuant to this Item will not be deemed “filed” for purposes of section 18 of the Exchange Act (15 U.S.C. 78r), or otherwise subject to the liability of that section. Such certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the registrant specifically incorporates it by reference.
§ 455.143 Grant awards for State administrative expenses. ( a ) For the purpose of defraying State expenses in the administration of technical assistance programs in accordance with subpart E and energy conservation measures in accordance with subpart F or energy conservation measures non-Federally funded pursuant to § 455.121, DOE may make grant awards to a State: ( 1 ) Immediately following public notice of the amounts allocated to a State for the grant program cycle, and upon approval of the application for administrative costs, in an amount not exceeding $50,000;
( 2 ) Concurrent with grant awards for approved applications for technical assistance or energy conservation measures for institutions in that State and upon approval of an application for administrative costs, in an amount not exceeding the difference between the amount granted pursuant to paragraph (a)(1) of this section and 5 percent of the Federal share of the total amount of grants awarded within the State for technical assistance programs and energy conservation measures in the applicable grant program cycle; or
( 3 ) Upon receipt by DOE of documentation from the State demonstrating that sufficient non-Federal funding has been obligated or legally committed to schools and hospitals for energy conservation measures pursuant to § 455.121(a) and § 455.123(b)(2), and upon approval of an application for administrative costs, in an amount not exceeding the difference between the amount granted pursuant to paragraph (a)(1) of this section and 5 percent of the aggregate Federal and non-Federal funds obligated or legally committed to eligible recipients in the State to provide technical assistance, program assistance, and marketing programs and implement energy conservation measures consistent with this part, for the fiscal year concerned.
( b ) Grants for such purposes may be made for up to 100 percent of the projected administrative expenses, not to exceed the State's allocation or the $50,000 or 5 percent limit, as approved by DOE.
( c ) The total of all grants for State administrative costs, technical assistance programs, and energy conservation measures (or for State administrative costs, technical assistance, program assistance, and marketing, if the State elects and is eligible to apply for such grants) in that State shall not exceed the total amount allocated for that State for any grant program cycle.
( d ) In the event that a State cannot or decides not to use the amount available to it for an administrative grant under this section for administrative purposes, these funds may, at the discretion of the State, be used for technical assistance and energy conservation grants to eligible institutions within that State in accordance with this part.
2407.102 Policy.       The Senior Procurement Executive is responsible for establishing and maintaining internal procedures that meet the criteria contained in FAR subpart 7.1 for acquisition planning and acquisition plan content.    **Parent topic:** Subpart 2407.1 - Acquisition Plans
EXHIBIT 35.1

SERVICERS CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

Re: Assessment of compliance for services provided pursuant to the Master Sale and Servicing Agreement, dated February 27, 2007, the Series Supplement,
dated January 8, 2013, the US$ Note Trust Deed, dated January 9, 2013, and other transaction documents relating to SMART ABS Series 2013-1US Trust (collectively, the Agreements).

The undersigned hereby certifies that:



| | 1. | I, Karleen Munns, am a Director of Macquarie Leasing Pty Limited (the Servicer).
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | A review of the Servicers activities during the period from April 1, 2013 through March 31, 2014 (the Reporting Period), and of its performance under each of the Agreements has been
made under my supervision.
| | -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 3. | To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under each of the Agreements in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.
| | -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                              |  | 
|----------------------------- |  | 
|Date: 25 June 2014            |  | 
|                              | 
|/s/ Karleen Munns             |  | 
|Karleen Munns
Director        |  | 
|                              | 
|Macquarie Leasing Pty Limited |  |
###### Editorial Note on Part 26

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 26 appear at 87 FR 71455, Nov. 22, 2022.

#### § 26.7 Interpretations.

Except as specifically authorized by the Commission in writing, no interpretation of the meaning of the regulations in this part by any officer or employee of the Commission other than a written interpretation by the General Counsel will be recognized to be binding on the Commission.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                    3-MOS                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-31-2000             DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                    SEP-30-2000             DEC-31-2000
<CASH>                               696527                 0
<SECURITIES>                              0                 0
<RECEIVABLES>                             0                 0
<ALLOWANCES>                              0                 0
<INVENTORY>                               0                 0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                          0                 0
<PP&E>                             13747792                 0
<DEPRECIATION>                      8489090                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                      6014954                 0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                     0                 0
<BONDS>                                   0                 0
<COMMON>                                  0                 0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                     0                 0
<PREFERRED>                               0                 0
<OTHER-SE>                                0                 0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>        6014954                 0
<SALES>                             2184154                 0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                    2189610                 0
<CGS>                                     0                 0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                             0                 0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                          0                 0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                          0                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        0                 0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                      670979                 0
<INCOME-TAX>                              0                 0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                  670979                 0
<DISCONTINUED>                            0                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                           0                 0
<CHANGES>                                 0                 0
<NET-INCOME>                         670979                 0
<EPS-BASIC>                             0                 0
<EPS-DILUTED>                             0                 0


</TABLE>
§ 217.70 General provisions. ( a ) The Department of Energy may take specific official actions for any reason necessary or appropriate to the enforcement or the administration of the Defense Production Act and other applicable statutes, this part, or an official action. Such actions include Administrative Subpoenas, Demands for Information, and Inspection Authorizations.
( b ) Any person who places or receives a rated order or an allocation order must comply with the provisions of this part.
( c ) Willful violation of the provisions of title I or section 705 of the Defense Production Act and other applicable statutes, this part, or an official action of the Department of Energy is a criminal act, punishable as provided in the Defense Production Act and other applicable statutes, and as set forth in § 217.74 of this part.
§ 708.11 Filing a complaint. ( a ) If an employee was employed by a contractor whose contract is overseen by a contracting officer located in DOE Headquarters when the alleged retaliation occurred, the employee must file the written complaint with the EC Director.
( b ) If an employee was employed by a contractor at a DOE field facility or site when the alleged retaliation occurred, the employee must file the written complaint with the Head of Field Element at the DOE field element with jurisdiction over the contract.
2007 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

3-7-2007

Secretary Labor v. Comm Trust Co

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Precedential

Docket No. 05-2785

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2007 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"Secretary Labor v. Comm Trust Co" (2007). 2007 Decisions. Paper 1394.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007/1394
 PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEAL

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

 

Nos. 05-2785/4828

 

ELAINE L. CHAO, SECRETARY OF LABOR,

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

 v.

COMMUNITY TRUST COMPANY,

 Appellant.

___________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

District Court No. 05-mc-00018

District Judge: Hon. Mary A. McLaughlin

____________________

Argued on March 9, 2006

Before: ALDISERT, and ROTH*, Circuit Judges

 RODRIGUEZ**, District Judge

(Opinion filed January 19, 2007)

ORDER AMENDING OPINION

_________________

*Judge Roth assumed senior status on May 31, 2006.

**The Honorable Joseph H. Rodriguez, Senior United States District Judge for the

District of New Jersey, sitting by designation.
ROTH, Circuit Judge:

IT IS ORDERED that the published Opinion in the above case filed January 19,

2007, be amended as follows:

On page 22, L.19, delete the following: “Koresko, however, did not consider

Shaw vis-à-vis the GLBA because the subjects of the subpoena in that case were not

financial institutions. For that reason, Koresko and Penn-Mott were not able to invoke

the GLBA as a defense. Therefore, Koresko is distinguishable on this point.” and

replace with the following: “ Koresko, however, did not consider Shaw vis-à-vis the

GLBA. Therefore, Koresko is distinguishable.

By the Court,

 /s/ Jane R. Roth 

 Circuit Judge

Dated: March 7, 2007

lwc/cc: Lowell R. Gates, Esq.

Albert N. Peterlin, Esq.

Ellen L. Beard, Esq.

Robyn Swanson, Esq.
H. Res. 294

In the House of Representatives, U.S., 

July 25, 2005.

Whereas on March 3, 1699, France established the French 

colony of Louisiana, and this event was commemorated in 

1999 as FrancoFeˆte 99 and the Congre`s Mondial 

Acadien-Louisiane 1999; 

Whereas on December 9, 2003, a royal proclamation was 

signed in Canada in which Queen Elizabeth II acknowledged for the first time the wrongs committed in the 

name of the English Crown during the Acadian deportation of 1755; 

Whereas this royal proclamation sets July 28th of every year, 

beginning in 2005, as ‘‘A Day of Commemoration of the 

Great Upheaval’’; 

Whereas the 10,000 men, women, and children exiled from 

Nova Scotia two and a half centuries ago are the ancestors of many of south Louisiana’s French-Acadian or 

Cajun people; 

Whereas in 1803, President Thomas Jefferson purchased the 

Louisiana territory from France, and the French Napoleonic Civil Code was adopted as the basis of Louisiana’s 

civil law system which continues to the present; 

Whereas in 1968, the Louisiana Legislature created the 

Council for the Development of French in Louisiana 
2

•HRES 294 EH 

(CODOFIL) and mandated that the agency promote 

French for economic, educational, and touristic purposes; 

Whereas since its creation, CODOFIL has recruited teachers 

from the international community to come to Louisiana 

to teach French in Louisiana schools; 

Whereas there are 30 French immersion schools in Louisiana, and Louisiana leads the Nation in bilingual education; 

Whereas Louisiana is officially bilingual pursuant to section 

51 of title 1, Louisiana Revised Statutes, which states 

‘‘Any act or contract made or executed in the French language is as legal and binding upon the parties as if it 

had been made or executed in the English language’’; 

Whereas in 2004, the Louisiana Legislature declared Acadian 

Heritage Week to be the third week in September and 

urged schools in Louisiana to teach children about their 

Acadian history, culture, and heritage; and 

Whereas in 2005, the world will memorialize the 250th anniversary of the Acadian deportation and observe a day of 

remembrance of the suffering of the Acadian people as a 

result of their deportation by the British Crown (as memorialized in Queen Elizabeth II’s Royal Proclamation 

dated December 9, 2003): Now, therefore, be it 

Resolved, That the House of Representatives—

(1) supports the goals of Acadian Heritage Week; 

and 

(2) supports the goals of ‘‘A Day of Commemoration of the Great Upheaval’’, as established by Queen 

Elizabeth II’s Royal Proclamation, signed on December 
3

•HRES 294 EH 

9, 2003, in which the sufferings of the Acadian people 

were acknowledged. 

Attest:

Clerk.
IN IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

GONZALO MURILLO, JR., )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:06v765-ID

 ) (WO)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

)

Defendant. )

ORDER

On October 23, 2006, Gonzalo Murillo, Jr., filed a notice of appeal which is

construed as containing a motion for certificate of appealability and motion for leave to

proceed on appeal in forma pauperis. (Doc. No. 6.)

28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) provides that “[a]n appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis

if the trial court certifies in writing that it is not taken in good faith.” In making this

determination as to good faith, the court must use an objective standard, such as whether

the appeal is “frivolous,” Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962), or “has

no substantive merit.” United States v. Bottoson, 644 F.2d 1174, 1176 (5 Cir. Unit B. th

May 15, 1981) (per curiam). Moreover, a certificate of appealability may issue only if

the applicant “has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). 

Applying these standards, the court is of the opinion, for the reasons stated in the

recommendation of the magistrate judge (Doc. No. 2), that Murillo's appeal is without a

legal or factual basis and, accordingly, is frivolous and not taken in good faith. See

Case 2:06-cv-00765-ID-CSC Document 8 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 1 of 2
2

Rudolph v. Allen, 666 F.2d 519, 520 (11 Cir. 1982) (per curiam). Furthermore, the th

court finds that Murillo has failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of a

constitutional right. 

Accordingly, it is CONSIDERED and ORDERED that Murillo's motion to

proceed on appeal in forma pauperis and motion for certificate of appealability be and the

same are hereby DENIED and that the appeal in this cause is hereby certified, pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), as not taken in good faith.

DONE this 25 day of October, 2006. th

/s/ Ira DeMent 

 SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-00765-ID-CSC Document 8 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 2 of 2
#### § 12.203 Documentation of fees and expenses.

The application shall be accompanied by full documentation of the fees and expenses, including the cost of any study, analysis, engineering report, test, project, or similar matter for which an award is sought. A separate itemized statement shall be submitted for each professional firm or individual whose services are covered by the application, showing the hours spent in connection with the proceeding by each individual, a description of the specific services performed, the rates at which each fee has been computed, any expenses for which reimbursement is sought, the total amount claimed, and the total amount paid or payable by the applicant or by any other person or entity for the services provided. The adjudicative officer may require the applicant to provide vouchers, receipts, logs, or other substantiation for any fees or expenses claimed, pursuant to § 12.306 of this part.
The Leaching EnvironmentaI Assessment Framework (LEAF) is an integrated 

fmmework for evaluating leaching behavior of materials using a tiered approach that 

considers pH, liquid to solid ratio, and waste form across a range of field conditions. 

The LEAF leaching test methods are being adapting for inclusion into S W-846, a 

compendium of EPA methods to evaluate the physical and chemical properties of wastes 

and secondary materials. For the latest copy of the LEAF test methods, please refer to: 

http ://www.vanderbilt.edu/leachinp;/downloads.html 

Provided along with the test methods are excel templates for data entry, analysis, and 

viewing. The five methods being adapted for inclusion into SW-846 include: 

 liquid-solid partitioning as a function of eluate pH using a parallel batch 

extraction test, 

 liquid-solid partitioning as a function of liquid-solid ratio using a parallel batch 

test, 

 liquid-solid partitioning as a function of liquid-solid ratio using an up-flow 

column test, 

 mass transfer in monolithic or compacted granular materials using a semidynamic tank leach test, and 

 concise test for determining consistency in leaching behavior. 

To facilitate more routine use of these methods, the U.S. EPA has taken a number of 

steps. First, electronic spreadsheets for each method have been developed for data entry, 

analysis, and viewing to provide consistency in data management and reporting. Second, 

a background information document h been prepared to document the scientific theory, 

quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) measures, application and interpretation of the 

results, and field versus laboratory leach data comparison for a range of materials 

including CCRs. Third, validation of the methods is being conducted working with 9 U.S. 

laboratories using "reference materials" prior to adopting the methods into S W-846. 

Reference materials are being collected to represent differences in waste form, matrices, 

and will be obtained for the validation study looking at differences in waste matrices and 

form using both equilibrium-based and mass transfer-based leaching tests.
###### Editorial Note on Part 72

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 72 appear at 80 FR 74981, Dec. 1, 2015, and at 81 FR 86910, Dec. 2, 2016.

#### § 72.148 Procurement document control.

The licensee, applicant for a license, certificate holder, and applicant for a CoC shall establish measures to assure that applicable regulatory requirements, design bases, and other requirements which are necessary to assure adequate quality are included or referenced in the documents for procurement of material, equipment, and services, whether purchased by the licensee, certificate holder, or by their contractors and subcontractors. To the extent necessary, the licensee, applicant for a license, certificate holder, and applicant for a CoC, shall require contractors or subcontractors to provide a quality assurance program consistent with the applicable provisions of this subpart.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, SOUTHERN DIVISION

RUSSELL E. GARNER, )

)

Plaintiff, )

) CIVIL ACTION NO.

v. ) 1:06cv781-MHT

) 

PROGRESSIVE DIRECT )

INSURANCE COMPANY, )

)

Defendant. )

 RULE 26(F) ORDER

The parties are reminded of the obligation, imposed

by Rule 26(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to

confer and to develop a proposed discovery plan.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Rule 26(f) report

containing the discovery plan shall be filed as soon as

practicable but not later than October 16, 2006.

The longstanding practice in this district is that

dispositive motions shall be filed no later than 90 days

prior to the pretrial date. If the parties seek to vary

from that schedule, they should present, in the plan,

specific case-related reasons for the requested variance.

Case 1:06-cv-00781-MHT-TFM Document 5 Filed 09/26/2006 Page 1 of 3
2

In their Rule 26(f) report, however, the parties should

assume that the 90-day requirement will apply.

This case will be set for trial before the

undersigned judge during one of that judge's regularly

scheduled civil trial terms, within 7 to 10 months of

this order if a term is available and, if not available,

then as soon as possible thereafter. The pretrial date

is normally set within four to six weeks of a scheduled

trial term. The dates of each judge's civil trial terms

are available on the court's website located at

<http://almd.uscourts.gov> in the civil case information

section.

The court may or may not hold a scheduling conference

before issuing a scheduling order. If the court holds a

scheduling conference, counsel may participate in the

scheduling conference by conference call.

The scheduling order entered by the court will follow

the form of the Uniform Scheduling Order adopted by the

Case 1:06-cv-00781-MHT-TFM Document 5 Filed 09/26/2006 Page 2 of 3
judges of this court. The Uniform Scheduling Order is

also available on the court's website.

The report of the parties should comply with Form 35

of the Appendix of Forms to the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure.

DONE, this the 26th day of September, 2006.

 /s/ Myron H. Thompson 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00781-MHT-TFM Document 5 Filed 09/26/2006 Page 3 of 3