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 BNP Residential Properties, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2003, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, D.
Scott Wilkerson, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, 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) 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/ D. Scott Wilkerson
D. Scott Wilkerson
President and Chief Executive Officer

August 12, 2003


                                       28
<PAGE>
#### § 54.27 Hearings.

A notice of an opportunity for a hearing will be published in the Federal Register in accordance with 10 CFR 2.105 and 2.309. In the absence of a request for a hearing filed within 60 days by a person whose interest may be affected, the Commission may issue a renewed operating license or renewed combined license without a hearing upon a 30-day notice and publication in the Federal Register of its intent to do so.

[77 FR 46600, Aug. 3, 2012]
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

I, Richard Sadowsky, Acting Chief Executive Officer of Voltari Corporation (the Registrant), certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



| | 1. | The Registrants annual report on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2013 (the Annual Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | The information contained in the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                     |  |                               
|-------------------- |  | ------------------------------
|Date: April 30, 2014 |  | /s/ Richard Sadowsky          
|                     |  | Richard Sadowsky              
|                     |  | Acting Chief Executive Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Voltari Corporation and will be
retained by Voltari Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### M.E.W.N., Inc., Appellant, v Village of Roslyn Estates, Respondent, and Estelle Aaron, Proposed Intervenor-Respondent.

In an action to recover the proceeds of an escrow account, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered June 13, 1979, which (1) granted the motion of the proposed intervenor to reargue two orders of the same court, both dated May 22, 1979, which denied the proposed intervenor’s motion to intervene in the action, and granted summary judgment in *637favor of plaintiff, respectively, and (2) upon reargument, vacated the orders dated May 22, 1979 and granted the motion to intervene. Order modified, on the law, by (1) deleting therefrom the provision which, upon reargument, vacated the prior orders of the court, and (2) substituting therefor a provision adhering to the court’s original determinations. As so modified, order affirmed, without costs or disbursements, and the orders of the court dated May 22, 1979 are reinstated. Although there were certain procedural improprieties involved in the motion to reargue, not the least of which was the fact that Special Term heard additional testimony in connection therewith, these improprieties were not prejudicial to the plaintiff and consequently afford no basis for reversal. However, Special Term further erred in concluding that the agreement between the plaintiff and defendant, which the proposed intervenor now seeks to enforce, was entered into at the intervenor’s behest. The record establishes unequivocally that the proposed intervenor did not become aware of the agreement until some weeks after the plaintiff and defendant had entered into it. Nor do we find any other basis on which to conclude that the proposed intervenor was a third-party beneficiary of this agreement. There is no evidence that the plaintiff and defendant intended to confer a benefit on her (see *Port Chester Elec. Constr. Corp. v Atlas,*40 NY2d 652, 655). Consequently, the proposed intervenor is no more than an incidental beneficiary of that agreement, and has no right to enforce it (see *Port Chester Elec. Constr. Corp. v Atlas, supra).*We have considered the proposed intervenor’s alternative arguments as to why she should be permitted to intervene and find them to be without merit. Gibbons, J. P., Gulotta, Margett and Martuscello, JJ., concur.
Summary of Requirements for ADM CCS#1 

Permit Number: IL-115-6A-0002 Page A1 of 1

ATTACHMENT A: SUMMARY OF REQUIREMENTS 

CLASS VI OPERATING AND REPORTING CONDITIONS 

Facility name: Archer Daniels Midland, CCS#1 Well 

 IL-115-6A-0002 

Facility contact: Mr. Mark Burau, Plant Manager 

4666 Faries Parkway, Decatur, IL 

(217) 424-5750, mark.burau@adm.com

Well location: Decatur, Macon County, IL; 

39o52’ 37.06469” N, 88 o 53’ 36.25685” W 

Injection Well Operating Conditions: 

Operating conditions specified in the Underground Injection Control (UIC) Class I (nonhazardous) permit IEPA UIC-012-ADM remain in effect for the duration of injection. 

Class VI Injection Well Reporting Frequencies: 

ACTIVITY MINIMUM REPORTING FREQUENCY

External MIT Within 30 days of completion of test

Pressure fall-off testing In the next annual report

Note: All testing and monitoring frequencies and methodologies are included in Attachment E 

(the Post-Injection Site Care and Site Closure Plan) of this permit. 

Class VI Project Reporting Frequencies: 

ACTIVITY MINIMUM REPORTING FREQUENCY

Ground water quality monitoring Annually

Plume and pressure front tracking In the next annual report

Monitoring well MITs Within 30 days of completion of test

Financial Responsibility updates pursuant to 

H.2 and H.3(a) of this permit Within 60 days of update

Note: All testing and monitoring frequencies and methodologies are included in Attachment E 

(the Post-Injection Site Care and Site Closure Plan) of this permit.
Gischia, Scott 

From: 

Sent: 

To: 

Cc: 

Subject: 

Hello, 

Erik L. Boleman [eboleman@barr.com] 

Friday, May 12, 2006 11:57 AM 

Andrea Hayden; Brad Anderson; Gus Josephson; Kevin Pylka; Scott Gischia; Wagner, Dennis 

Beth Havlik; Chrissy Bartovich; Dave Skolasinski; Erik L. Boleman; George Pruchnofski; Joel 

Trinkle; Mike Hansel 

Conference Call on Kiln NOx Emissions on May 16 at 3:00PM 

During today's BART conference call, we discussed the status of the data regarding NOx emissions from the indurating 

furnaces. We discussed the following: 

• If possible, the various facilities should discuss their findings on NOx emissions before the information is 

submitted to MPCA; and 

• If possible, the information should be submitted to MPCA prior to our meeting on 5/18. 

Therefore, I would like to have a conference call to discuss the NOx emissions data on Tuesday May 16 at 3:00 PM. 

Would you like to participate? Does that date and time work for you? 

Here is the information that George recommended collecting: 

• General information on the furnace: 

o Description of general furnace design. May want to define the different zones and emission 

outlets/stacks, heat input sources (fuel vs. heat recoup, burner type and placement and heat input 

capacity, combustion chamber design and heat input, refractory lined vs. unlined, ability to make flux 

pellets etc. 

o Pellet types. May want to include limestone%, concentrate variability and affects on heat requirements 

for pellet production, binder types, furnace production rates for different pellet types, BTU per ton pellets 

for different pellet types, other important production related variables 

o Fuel types 

• Information specific to NOx formation 

Thanks, 

o Primary operating variables related to fuel use and NOx formation for each producUfuel type and 

available operating records to show variability or consistency. Note - as I understand the following three 

parameters are generally considered important combustion parameters- fan speed (airflow), fuel use rate 

(total BTU and BTU per ton pellets), operating temperature (where is this measured relative to good 

combustion and NOx formation?), and pellet production 

o NOx emissions test data and operating parameters and production rates during the stack tests 

o Any other information the facility thinks is important to NOx formation and emissions estimation and good 

combustion practices for MACT 

Erik Boleman 

Barr Engineering 

Toll Free: (800) 786-5830 x8209 

Office: (218) 529-8209 

Mobile: (218) 393-9116 

1
**Vermont**

**Vermont 08 Washington**
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 248 (Tuesday, December 28, 2010)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 81484]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-32458]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R06-OAR-2005-TX-0012; FRL-9243-1]


Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Texas; 
Emissions Banking and Trading of Allowances Program

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Withdrawal of direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: On November 16, 2010 (75 FR 69884), EPA published a direct 
final rule approving portions of four revisions to the Texas State 
Implementation Plan (SIP) that create and amend the Emissions Banking 
and Trading of Allowances (EBTA) Program. The EBTA Program establishes 
a cap and trade program to reduce emissions of oxides of nitrogen 
(NO<INF>X</INF>) and sulfur dioxide (SO<INF>2</INF>) from participating 
electric generating facilities in Texas. The direct final action was 
published without prior proposal because EPA anticipated no adverse 
comments. EPA stated in the direct final rule that if we received 
relevant, adverse comments by December 16, 2010, EPA would publish a 
timely withdrawal in the Federal Register. EPA subsequently received 
timely adverse comments on the direct final rule. Therefore, EPA is 
withdrawing the direct final approval. EPA will address all relevant, 
adverse comments submitted by December 16, 2010, in a subsequent final 
action based on the parallel proposal also published on November 16, 
2010 (75 FR 69909). As stated in the parallel proposal, EPA will not 
institute a second comment period on this action.

DATES: The direct final rule published on November 16, 2010 (75 FR 
69884), is withdrawn as of December 28, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Ms. Adina Wiley (6PD-R), Air Permits 
Section, Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue 
(6PD-R), Suite 1200, Dallas, TX 75202-2733. The telephone number is 
(214) 665-2115. Ms. Wiley can also be reached via electronic mail at 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#cfb8a6a3aab6e1aeaba6a1ae8faabfaee1a8a0b9"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="3e4957525b47105f5a57505f7e5b4e5f10595148">[email protected]</span></a>.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen 
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: December 15, 2010.
Al Armendariz,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region 6.

0
Accordingly, the amendments to 40 CFR 52.2270 published in the Federal 
Register on November 16, 2010 (75 FR 69884), which were to become 
effective on January 18, 2011, are withdrawn.

[FR Doc. 2010-32458 Filed 12-27-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
1

Chew, Andrew

From: Dwight Mallory [Dmallory@resoluteenergy.com]

Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 11:09 AM

To: Chew, Andrew

Subject: Re: MCU Main Flare Question

Andrew,

That is also correct. The flare doesn't have a spark igniter. It is equipped with an optical flame detector that detects the

presence of a pilot flame and alerts facility operations personnel if the pilot flame is absent.  

Dwight Mallory  

Resolute Energy Corporation  

1675 Broadway, Suite 1950  

Denver, CO 80202  

Sent from my Blackberry 9000

 

From: Chew, Andrew [mailto:Chew.Andrew@epa.gov] 

Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 10:41 AM Mountain Standard Time 

To: Dwight Mallory 

Cc: Kelly, Shaheerah <Kelly.Shaheerah@epa.gov> 

Subject: FW: MCU Main Flare Question 

 

Dwight,

I’ve been asked to get confirmation that the main flare does not use a spark igniter.  Is this correct also?  Many thanks

again.

‐ Andrew  

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 

Andrew Chew, P.E.  

T: (415) 947‐4197  |  F:  (415) 947‐3579  |  chew.andrew@epa.gov

U.S. EPA, Region 9, Air Permits Office (AIR‐3)  |  75 Hawthorne St., San Francisco, CA 94105

From: Chew, Andrew 

Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 9:13 AM 

To: Kelly, Shaheerah 

Subject: FW: MCU Main Flare Question 

Resolute says the flare uses a pilot.  Thanks.

‐ Andrew  

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 

Andrew Chew, P.E.  

T: (415) 947‐4197  |  F:  (415) 947‐3579  |  chew.andrew@epa.gov

U.S. EPA, Region 9, Air Permits Office (AIR‐3)  |  75 Hawthorne St., San Francisco, CA 94105

From: Dwight Mallory [mailto:Dmallory@resoluteenergy.com] 

Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 6:26 PM 
2

To: Chew, Andrew 

Subject: Re: MCU Main Flare Question 

Andrew,

You are correct. The flare uses a pilot.  

Dwight Mallory  

Resolute Energy Corporation  

1675 Broadway, Suite 1950  

Denver, CO 80202  

Sent from my Blackberry 9000

 

From: Chew, Andrew [mailto:Chew.Andrew@epa.gov] 

Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 05:27 PM Mountain Standard Time 

To: Dwight Mallory 

Cc: Kelly, Shaheerah <Kelly.Shaheerah@epa.gov> 

Subject: RE: MCU Main Flare Question 

 

Hi Dwight,

Please correct me if I’m wrong, but my understanding is that the Main Flare relies on a pilot flame.  Thanks!

‐ Andrew  

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 

Andrew Chew, P.E.  

T: (415) 947‐4197  |  F:  (415) 947‐3579  |  chew.andrew@epa.gov

U.S. EPA, Region 9, Air Permits Office (AIR‐3)  |  75 Hawthorne St., San Francisco, CA 94105

From: Kelly, Shaheerah 

Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 1:37 PM 

To: Chew, Andrew 

Subject: MCU Main Flare Question 

Hi Andrew,  

Can you check with Resolute on whether the MCU Main Flare uses a pilot flame or spark igniter, or a combination of

both? It would be helpful for Resolute to give us this information this month.  

Thanks.

************************************ 

Shaheerah Kelly 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9 

Permits Office, Air Division 

San Francisco, CA 94105 

Phone: 415-947-4156 

Fax: 415-947-3579 

Email: kelly.shaheerah@epa.gov
#### § 708.29 Burdens of proof.

The complainant has the burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that he made a disclosure, participated in a proceeding, or refused to participate, as described under § 708.5, and that such act was a contributing factor in one or more alleged acts of retaliation against the complainant by the contractor. Once the complainant has met this burden, the burden shifts to the contractor to prove by clear and convincing evidence that it would have taken the same action without the complainant's disclosure, participation, or refusal.
PGI 253.213 Simplified acquisition procedures (SF's 18, 30, 44, 1165, 1449, and OF's 336, 347, and 348).       (f)(i)  Use the OF 336, or a sheet of paper, as a continuation sheet for the DD Form 1155.  Continuation sheets may be printed on the reverse of the DD Form 1155.          (ii)  DD Form 1155c-1, Order for Supplies or Services (Commissary Continuation Sheet) may be used for commissary acquisitions.    **PGI 253.213-70 Completion of DD Form 1155, Order for Supplies or Services.****Parent topic:** PGI 253.2 -PRESCRIPTION OF FORMS
#### Helen Barnhouse et al., Appellants, v. Ladycliffe College et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants.

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries and loss of services, etc., plaintiffs appeal, on the ground of inadequacy, from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, entered April 24, 1969 upon a jury verdict in favor of plaintiff Helen Barn-house in the amount of $10,000 and plaintiff Ray L. Barnhouse in the amount of $2,000 against the defendants Ladycliffe College and Rudolph W. Schnittert. Judgment reversed, on the law and on the facts, and new trial granted as against defendants Ladycliffe College and Rudolph W. Schnittert, solely on the issue of damages, with costs to abide the event, unless, within 30 days after entry of the order hereon, said defendants serve and file in the office of the clerk of the trial court a written stipulation consenting to increase the verdict against them in favor of plaintiff Helen Barnhouse to the sum of $20,000, to increase the verdict against them in favor of plaintiff Ray L. Barnhouse to the sum of $3,500, and to the entry of an amended judgment accordingly, in which event, the judgment, as so increased and amended, is affirmed, without costs. Plaintiff Helen Barnhouse’s permanent injuries included degeneration of the disc between the fifth and sixth cervical vertebrae, radiculitis and post-concussion syndrome. ¡She incurred protracted pain and partial disability and had to wear cervical collars, according to her activities, over an eight-year period. In our opinion, the awards to plaintiffs were inadequate to the extent indicated. Christ, P. J., Hopkins, Brennan and Benjamin, JJ., concur. (Beldock, P. J., deceased.)
#### Sterling Commercial Corp., Appellant, v. Minnie Bradford et al., Respondents.

In an action on a promissory note, in which defendants counterclaimed to cancel a real property mortgage securing the note, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated January 15, 1969, *953which granted defendants’ motion to change the place of trial from Nassau County to Onondaga County, pursuant to CPLR 510 (subd. 1). Order affirmed, without costs. In our opinion, the demand for judgment herein by defendants is such as to “affect the title” to real property so as to render the proper venue of this action Onondaga County where the mortgaged property is situated (CPLR 507; *Nicoletto*v. *Pettit Supply Corp. of Huntington,*254 App. Div. 750; *Craig*v. *Clifton Springs Country Club,*26 A D 2d 903; *North Shore Ind. Co.*v. *Randall,*108 App. Div. 232). The fact that the demand for judgment is contained in a counterclaim rather than in the complaint does not change the result *(Nicoletto*v. *Pettit Supply Corp. of Huntington, supra; Zaczek*v. *Zaczek,*14 A D 2d 808; 2 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, N. Y. Civ. Prac., par. 507.08). We are further of the opinion that, in spite of the untimeliness of defendants’ motion, 'Special Term properly exercised its discretion by granting the motion. Beldock, P. J., Christ, Brennan, Hopkins and Martuseello, JJ., concur.
#### OPM Group Ltd., Appellant, v Alejandro Williams, D.D.S., Respondent.

[813 NYS2d 656]

*355Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Yvonne Gonzalez, J.), entered April 22, 2005, which, insofar as appealed from, granted defendant’s motion to vacate a default judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendant’s attorney represents that a week or two prior to the January 28, 2005 return date of plaintiff’s motion for a default judgment, he and plaintiffs attorney orally agreed over the phone to adjourn the return date until March 2, 2005. Plaintiffs attorney admits the phone conversation but represents that the oral agreement was for an extension of defendant’s time to answer until February 2, 2005. The motion court granted the motion for a default judgment on default on February 2; the default judgment was entered on February 4 and served with notice of entry on February 10; defendant filed his answer on March 1, and, after its rejection by plaintiff, made the instant motion to vacate on March 9. Under the circumstances, and in the absence of any argument by plaintiff that defendant lacks a meritorious defense or that the delay caused it prejudice, vacatur of the default was a proper exercise of discretion *(cf. Travelers Ins. Co. v Abelow,*14 AD3d 395 [2005] [miscalendaring court conference excusable law office failure]; *Andino v DeJesus,*15 AD3d 259 [2005] [strong policy preference for disposing of cases on the merits]). Concur—Andrias, J.P., Sullivan, Williams, Sweeny and McGuire, JJ.
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Robert Willard, Appellant, v. Daniel McMann, as Warden of Auburn State Prison, Respondent.

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: It is conceded that relator is presently released on parole, and therefore habeas corpus would not be the proper remedy. (Appeal from judgment of Cayuga County Court, dismissing writ of habeas corpus.) Present — Goldman, P. J., Marsh, Witmer, Moule and Bastow, JJ.
##### 



Certification Pursuant to Section 302  of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of B.H.I.T, Inc.;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material
fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of
the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the
period covered by this report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,
results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the
periods presented in this report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)
and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the small business issuer and have:
    5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business
issuers auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuers board of directors
(or persons performing the equivalent functions):




---



##### 



/s/ Andrew H. ScottAndrew H. ScottInterim Chief Executive Officer