alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 32




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 Annual Report Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of Amerityre Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended June 30, 2012, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Timothy L. Ryan, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:





(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 result of operations of the Company.








/s/ Timothy L. Ryan


Timothy L. Ryan


Chief Executive Officer


(Principal Executive and Financial Officer)





September 28, 2012
§ 1.363 What are the consequences of failing to establish or maintain records or make them available to FDA as required by this subpart? ( a ) The failure to establish or maintain records as required by section 414(b) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and this regulation or the refusal to permit access to or verification or copying of any such required record is a prohibited act under section 301 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.
( b ) The failure of a nontransporter immediate previous source or a nontransporter immediate subsequent recipient who enters an agreement under § 1.352(e) to establish, maintain, or establish and maintain, records required under § 1.352(a), (b), (c), or (d), or the refusal to permit access to or verification or copying of any such required record, is a prohibited act under section 301 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.
( c ) The failure of any person to make records or other information available to FDA as required by section 414 or 704(a) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and this regulation is a prohibited act under section 301 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.
[80 FR 56144, Sept. 17, 2015
#### People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ernest Denson, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.

Gen. No. 52,909. (Abstract of Decision.)

First District, Third Division.

June 5, 1969.

Gerald W. Getty, Public Defender of Cook County, of Chicago (Herbert Becker, Norman W. Fishman and James J. Doherty, Assistant Public Defenders, of counsel), for appellant;

Edward V. Hanrahan, State’s Attorney of Cook County, of Chicago (Elmer C. Kissane, Joel M. Flaum and James B. Haddad, Assistant State’s Attorneys, of counsel), for appellee.

Opinion by

MR. JUSTICE DEMPSEY.

Not to be published in full.
Office for Domestic Preparedness 

Washington, D.C. 20531 

 

ODP Information Bulletin 

No. 131 August 30, 2004 

TO All State Administrative Agency Heads 

 All State Administrative Agency Points of Contact 

 All State Homeland Security Directors 

FROM: C. Suzanne Mencer 

 Director 

SUBJECT: Homeland Security Preparedness Technical Assistance Program: 

 Enhancing Grants Management Capacities of State Administrative Agencies 

In partnership with the National Criminal Justice Association (NCJA), the Office for Domestic 

Preparedness (ODP) is pleased to announce a new Homeland Security Preparedness Technical 

Assistance Program (HSPTAP) service entitled, “Enhancing Grants Management Capacities of 

State Administrative Agencies.” (PREV-102, RESP-211, and RECV-303 in the HSPTAP 

Catalog.) In an effort to complement and reinforce the recommendations of the June 2004 Task 

Force on State and Local Homeland Security Funding (hereafter referred to as the Task Force 

Report), this technical assistance (TA) service seeks to further improve the ability of State 

Administrative Agencies (SAAs) to manage and account for grant funds awarded by ODP. 

The initial phase of the Grants Management TA service consists of integrated research efforts 

that will accurately develop compilations of best grants management practices and critical grants 

management needs/problems. The benefit to you, as the State or local jurisdiction, is that these 

research efforts will serve as the foundation for the development of a tailored, on-site assistance 

program to ensure that identified best practices are implemented and critical needs/problems are 

addressed in your State regarding the administration of ODP’s grants. 

In order to launch the research phase of this initiative, a short survey has been developed that 

seeks to gather information directly from SAAs. Your feedback through the survey is critical to 

the success of this TA service so that ODP and NCJA can rapidly implement a responsive TA 

strategy to meet your needs and the needs of other SAAs. ODP and NCJA are sensitive to how 

burdensome surveys can be and we thank you in advance for your assistance. The survey can be 

filled out and submitted online at: 

(http://survey.irm-systems.com/survey/survey.nsf/PublicSurvey?Open&id=829) 

This TA service is a critical addition to the HSPTAP Catalog and ODP is very excited to work 

collaboratively with you to enhance grants management practices. This and all TA services are 

available to eligible recipients at no charge. For further information on this and other HSPTAP
 

 

services, please visit the HSPTAP Catalog at: (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/odp/ta_catalog.htm), 

contact the ODP Preparedness Officer assigned to your State, or contact the Centralized 

Scheduling and Information Desk at (800) 368-6498 / askcsd@ojp.usdoj.gov
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                         118,490
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,245,255
<ALLOWANCES>                                    57,556
<INVENTORY>                                     34,883
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,563,315
<PP&E>                                          86,970
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,781,446
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,496,654
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          400,000
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        17,874
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,539,865
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,781,446
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               985,715
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  488,633
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               882,638
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              79,938
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (456,967)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (456,967)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (456,967)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.07)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.07)
        

</TABLE>
§ 522.1225 Ketoprofen. ( a ) *Specifications.* Each milliliter of solution contains 100 milligrams (mg) ketoprofen.
( b ) *Sponsors.* See sponsors in § 510.600(c) of this chapter. ( 1 ) No. 054771 for use as in paragraphs (d)(1) and (d)(2) of this section.
( 2 ) No. 061133 for use as in paragraph (d)(1) of this section.
( c ) *Related tolerances.* See § 556.345 of this chapter.
( d ) *Conditions of use* — ( 1 ) *Horses* — ( i ) *Amount.* Administer by intravenous injection 1.0 mg per pound (/lb) of body weight once daily for up to 5 days.
( ii ) *Indications for use.* For alleviation of inflammation and pain associated with musculoskeletal disorders in horses.
( iii ) *Limitations.* Do not use in horses intended for human consumption. Federal law restricts this drug to use by or on the order of a licensed veterinarian.
( 2 ) *Cattle* — ( i ) *Amount.* Administer by subcutaneous injection 3 mg per kilogram (1.36 mg/lb) of body weight once daily for up to 3 days.
( ii ) *Indications for use.* For the control of pyrexia associated with bovine respiratory disease (BRD) in beef heifers, beef steers, beef calves 2 months of age and older, beef bulls, replacement dairy heifers, and dairy bulls.
( iii ) *Limitations.* Not for use in reproducing animals over 1 year of age. Cattle must not be slaughtered for human consumption within 48 hours following last treatment with this drug product. Not for use in female dairy cattle 1 year of age or older, including dry dairy cows; use in these cattle may cause drug residues in milk and/or in calves born to these cows or heifers. Not for use in beef calves less than 2 months of age, dairy calves, and veal calves. A withdrawal period has not been established for this product in pre-ruminating calves. Federal law restricts this drug to use by or on the order of a licensed veterinarian.
[86 FR 61685, Nov. 8, 2021]
November 24 , 2015

Mr. Jon Rocha

Prescott Realty, Inc.

5360 West Inscription Canyon Drive

Prescott, AZ 863005

Dear Mr. Rocha :

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your petition for an exemption. It

explains why we can not process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can n ot Process Your Request

We received your July 3, 2015

, exemption request filed in Docket No. FAA− 2015

− 3787 , but

we are unable to process your request any further as a result of a discrepancy in your petition

. The name of the petitioner is inconsistent in your petition. For us to consider the request any

further, you must clarify the name of the petitioner and resu bmit a revise d petition to your

docket

.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must submit the requested information

within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your petition for exemption

at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further.

If you have any questions

, you may call the 333 Information Line at (202) 267

- 2999.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brittany Newton

Program Analyst, Airmen and

Airspace Rules Divisio n
§ 358.110 Wart remover active ingredients. The product consists of any of the following active ingredients within the specified concentration and in the dosage form established for each ingredient. ( a ) Salicylic acid 12 to 40 percent in a plaster vehicle.
( b ) Salicylic acid 5 to 17 percent in a collodion-like vehicle.
( c ) Salicylic acid 15 percent in a karaya gum, glycol plaster vehicle.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                          15,020
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                          0
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                        875,647
<ALLOWANCE>                                     11,246
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,444,340
<DEPOSITS>                                           0
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                            565,164
<LONG-TERM>                                    714,836
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        73,564
<OTHER-SE>                                      90,776
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               1,444,340
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 89,758
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                    0
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                89,758
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              24,780
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           64,978
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                   15,146
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                180,042
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (28,662)
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                     (28,662)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (16,567)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.64)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.64)
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                   10.39
<LOANS-NON>                                          0
<LOANS-PAST>                                     1,868
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 6,787
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                   14,832
<RECOVERIES>                                     4,145
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                               11,246
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                            11,246
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit
32.1





Certification
of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial 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 Quarterly Report of Hancock Fabrics, Inc. (the “Hancock”) on
Form 10-Q for the period ended August 1, 2009 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), both, Jane F. Aggers,
President and Chief Executive Officer of Hancock and Robert W. Driskell,
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Hancock, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that to the best of their 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
Corporation.




Date:  August
27, 2009





/s/ Jane F. AggersJane
      F. AggersPresident
      and Chief Executive Officer/s/ Robert W. DriskellRobert
      W. DriskellExecutive
      Vice President andChief
      Financial Officer
Editorial Note on Part 184
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 184 appear at 66 FR 56035, Nov. 6, 2001; 66 FR 66742, Dec. 27, 2001; 68 FR 15355, Mar. 31, 2003; 69 FR 13717, Mar. 24, 2004; 70 FR 40880, July 15, 2005; 70 FR 67651, Nov. 8, 2005; and 81 FR 49897, July 29, 2016.

§ 184.1635 Potassium iodate. ( a ) Potassium iodate (KIO3, CAS Reg. No. 7758-05-6) does not occur naturally but can be prepared by reacting iodine with potassium hydroxide.
( b ) The ingredient meets the specifications of the “Food Chemicals Codex,” 3d Ed. (1981), pp. 245-246, which is incorporated by reference. Copies may be obtained from the National Academy Press, 2101 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20418, or may be examined at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: *http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html .*
( c ) The ingredient is used as a dough strengthener as defined in § 170.3(o)(6) of this chapter.
( d ) The ingredient is used in the manufacture of bread in accordance with § 184.1(b)(2) of this chapter in an amount not to exceed 0.0075 percent based on the weight of the flour.
( e ) Prior sanctions for this ingredient different from the uses established in this section do not exist or have been waived.
[43 FR 11699, Mar. 21, 1978, as amended at 49 FR 5613, Feb. 14, 1984]
**EXHIBIT 32.1****CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER**     Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002     I, Keith A. Meister, Chief Executive Officer (PrincipalExecutive Officer) of American Property Investors, Inc., theGeneral Partner of American Real Estate Partners, L.P. (the“Registrant”), certify that to the best of myknowledge, based upon a review of the American Real EstatePartners, L.P., quarterly report on Form 10-Q for theperiod ended September 30, 2005 of the Registrant (the“Report”):     (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934, as amended; and     (2) The information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Registrant. /s/    Keith    A. Meister
#### Freeman Estate

*Wendell R. Good,*for accountant.

October 22, 1951.

Waite, P. J.,

— This matter is before the court at the request of the administratrix d. b. n. c. t. a., requesting an interpretation of paragraph 3 of the will of decedent:

> *“Third:*I give, devise and bequeath to my beloved niece, *Harriett L. Peterson,*my silverware, the same to be hers absolutely.

> “All the rest, residue and remainder of my estate, both real, personal, or mixed, of whatsoever nature and kind, and wheresoever situate at the time of my decease, I divide into five (5) equal parts and give, devise and bequeath the same as follows:

> ““(a) One part to my beloved sister, Florence Eighmy, of Painesville, Ohio, the same to be hers absolutely.

> “ (b) One part to my beloved sister, Hattie L. Blick, of Minneapolis, Minnesota, the same to be hers absolutely.

> “(c) One part to my beloved brother, John Albert Peterson, of Erie, Pennsylvania, the same to be his absolutely.

> *426“(d) One part to the Chestnut Street Presbyterian Church, the same to be its absolutely.”

Under the will of decedent, the residuary estate was divided into “five” equal parts, however, testatrix named only four beneficiaries, as listed above.

In the interpretation of a will, the court reads the entire will and considers and interprets the same from the four corners thereof. As we read the intention of testatrix here, it was her desire that the living brothers and sisters should first benefit and thereafter the church mentioned in subparagraph (d) of the third paragraph of the will. A careful reading of the will clearly shows that testatrix has provided for all her other heirs as possible objects of her bounty. For instance, paragraph 4 mentions a sister, Florence Eighmy, and her two children, Walter Eighmy and Clifford Eighmy; and paragraph 5 of the will recites a daughter of one of the beneficiaries, Marianne Blick, and again in paragraph 6 there is mentioned Harriet L. Peterson, a daughter of John Albert Peterson, one of the beneficiaries. All of the above parties, including those in paragraph 3 of the will are the only possible interested parties in the estate. We must conclude and find that when the testatrix directed that her estate should be divided into “five” equal parts, and thereafter naming the beneficiaries thereof, it was her intention that her estate be divided into four equal parts and be distributed to the four named beneficiaries in paragraph 3 of the will, and that she inadvertently used the number “five” when the intention of testatrix was four. It is a primary rule of construction that a will should be so construed as to avoid intestacy if that be possible. Apparently testatrix inadvertently used the number “five” instead of four in disposing of her residuary éstate. We therefore conclude that the residue of the estate should be divided into four equal *427parts and equally distributed to the four residuary legatees, and direct that distribution be made in accordance herewith.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be

published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-40322

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

WILLIE PROBY, JR.,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

(3:96-CR-9-1)

September 16, 1998

Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, STEWART and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Willie Proby, Jr., appeals from his conviction for possession with intent to

distribute cocaine base. Before entering a guilty plea Proby moved to suppress the

evidence secured by the officers’ warrantless search of his person and hotel room.

The trial court conducted a suppression hearing, including the testimony of Proby

and the police officers, and found that Proby had consented to the search by

gesturing for the officers to enter. The court denied Proby’s motion to suppress.1 United States v. Cooper , 43 F.3d 140 (5 th Cir. 1995).

2 United States v. Gonzales , 79 F.3d 413 (5 th Cir. 1996).

3 Anderson v. City of Bessemer City , 470 U.S. 564 (1985).

2 Proby contends that the district court cle a rly erred in finding that he had

consented voluntarily, in finding that the search was within the scope of any such

consent, and in failing to determine whether the initial con frontation was

legiti mate. We review the district court’s ruling on a motion to suppress after a

suppression hearing for clear error, 1 view ing the evidence in the light most

favorable to the prevailing party, except where such is inconsistent with the direct

trial court’s findings or is clearly erroneous in light of the entire record as a whole. 2

Our review of the entire record discloses no clear error in the findings of the

trial court. 3 Further, under the circumstances of this case, we perceive no merit in

Proby’s contention that the district court erred in failing to specifically determine

whether the initial confrontation was legitimate.

The decision appealed is AFFIRMED.