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

Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350 as Adopted

Pursuant to § 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, in
connection with the filing of the Form 10-Q of STERIS Corporation (the Company) for the quarter ended September 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of the
undersigned officers of the Company certifies, that, to such officers 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 as of the dates and for the
periods expressed in the Report.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/S/    WALTER M. ROSEBROUGH,
JR.Name:

Walter M. Rosebrough, Jr.Title:

President and Chief Executive Officer/S/    MICHAEL J. TOKICHName:

Michael J. TokichTitle:

Vice President and Corporate Controller


Dated: November 8, 2007
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 149 (Wednesday, August 5, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 39069]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-18636]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 13446-000]


McGinnis, Inc.; Notice of Preliminary Permit Application Accepted 
for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Competing 
Applications

July 29, 2009.

    On April 29, 2009, McGinnis, Inc. filed an application for a 
preliminary permit, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act, 
proposing to study the feasibility of the Meldahl Hydrokinetic Project, 
to be located on the Ohio River, in Clermont County, Ohio and Bracken 
County, Kentucky.
    The sole purpose of a preliminary permit, if issued, is to grant 
the permit holder priority to file a license application during the 
permit term. A preliminary permit does not authorize the permit holder 
to perform any land disturbing activities or otherwise enter upon lands 
or waters owned by others without the owners' express permission.
    The proposed Meldahl Hydrokinetic Project consists of: (1) 10 
proposed 35 kilowatt turbine-generator units having a total installed 
capacity of 0.35 megawatts; (2) a 2,000-feet-long, 13.2 kilovolt 
transmission line; and (3) appurtenant facilities. The proposed 
Winfield Hydrokinetic Project would have an average annual generation 
of 1.533 gigawatt-hours.
    Applicant Contact: Bruce D. McGinnis, Sr., CEO, McGinnis, Inc., 502 
Second Street Ext., South Point, OH 45680; phone: (740) 377-4391.
    FERC Contact: Kim Carter, 202-502-6486.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing 
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file 
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice. 
Comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing 
applications may be filed electronically via the Internet. See 18 CFR 
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site 
under the ``e-Filing'' link. If unable to be filed electronically, 
documents may be paper-filed. To paper-file, an original and eight 
copies should be mailed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. For 
more information on how to submit these types of filings please go to 
the Commission's Web site located at http://www.ferc.gov/filing-comments.asp.
    More information about this project, including a copy of the 
application, can be viewed or printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of 
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp. 
Enter the docket number (P-13446) in the docket number field to access 
the document. For assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-3372.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-18636 Filed 8-4-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
§ 1.673(b)-1 Income payable to charitable beneficiaries before amendment by Tax Reform Act of 1969). ( a ) Pursuant to section 673(b) a grantor is not treated as an owner of any portion of a trust under section 673, even though he has a reversionary interest which will take effect within 10 years, to the extent that, under the terms of the trust, the income of the portion is irrevocably payable for a period of at least 2 years (commencing with the date of the transfer) to a designated beneficiary of the type described in section 170(b)(1)(A).
( b ) Income must be irrevocably payable to a designated beneficiary for at least 2 years commencing with the date of the transfer before the benefit of section 673(b) will apply. Thus, section 673(b) will not apply if income of a trust is irrevocably payable to University A for 1 year and then to University B for the next year; or if income of a trust may be allocated among two or more charitable beneficiaries in the discretion of the trustee or any other person. On the other hand, section 673(b) will apply if half the income of a trust is irrevocably payable to University A and the other half is irrevocably payable to University B for two years.
( c ) Section 673(b) applies to the period of 2 years or longer during which income is paid to a designated beneficiary of the type described in section 170(b)(1)(A) (i), (ii), or (iii), even though the trust term is to extend beyond that period. However, the other provisions of section 673 apply to the part of the trust term, if any, that extends beyond that period. This paragraph may be illustrated by the following example: Example. G transfers property in trust with the ordinary income payable to University C (which qualifies under section 170(b)(1)(A)(ii)) for 3 years, and then to his son, B, for 5 years. At the expiration of the term the trust reverts to G. G is not taxed under section 673 of the trust income payable to University C for the first 3 years because of the application of section 673(b). However, he is taxed on income for the next 5 years because he has a reversionary interest which will take effect within 10 years commencing with the date of the transfer. On the other hand, if the income were payable to University C for 3 years and then to R for 7 years so that the trust corpus would not be returned to G within 10 years, G would not be taxable under section 673 on income payable to University C and to B during any part of the term.
( d ) This section does not apply to transfers in trust made after April 22, 1969.
[T.D. 6500, 25 FR 11814, Nov. 26, 1960, as amended by T.D. 6605, 27 FR 8097, Aug. 15, 1962; T.D. 7357, 40 FR 23743, June 2, 1975]
S. J. Res. 92

One Hundred Third Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE FIRST SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,

the fifth day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-three

Joint Resolution

To designate the month of October 1993 as ‘‘National Down Syndrome

Awareness Month’’.

Whereas advancements in education, research, and public awareness are continuing to improve the quality of life for people

with Down syndrome;

Whereas approximately 5,000 children are born with Down syndrome annually in the United States;

Whereas as ignorance, prejudices, myths, and stereotypes regarding

Down syndrome can be overcome only through increased awareness and education;

Whereas through the efforts of concerned physicians, teachers, parent groups, and the National Down Syndrome Society, programs

are being established to educate the parents of individuals with

Down syndrome, to include people with Down syndrome in all

school programs, to provide vocational training for individuals

with Down syndrome in preparation for entering the work force,

and to prepare young adults with Down syndrome for independent

living in the community;

Whereas the television medium has greatly augmented such efforts

by casting actors with Down syndrome and by offering programming that demonstrates to hundreds of thousands of viewers

in a positive and educational manner the everyday, personal,

and family effects of living with Down syndrome;

Whereas advancements in research are improving health care and

offering a brighter outlook for individuals born with Down syndrome; and

Whereas the many people with Down syndrome who attend regular

schools, play on Little League teams, work in corporations and

businesses both large and small, and volunteer in the community

demonstrate daily the success that people with Down syndrome

are able to achieve: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the

United States of America in Congress assembled, That the month

18:48 Oct 14, 1993 VerDate 01-JUL-93 Jkt 059200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6655 Sfmt 6501 E:\BILLS\SJ92.ENR bend06
S. J. Res. 92—2

of October 1993 is designated as ‘‘National Down Syndrome Awareness Month’’. The President is authorized and requested to issue

a proclamation calling upon the people of the United States to

observe this month with the appropriate ceremonies and activities.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.

18:48 Oct 14, 1993 VerDate 01-JUL-93 Jkt 059200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6655 Sfmt 6501 E:\BILLS\SJ92.ENR bend06
212-896-5160

To:

From: Subject: ARTHURJ. VIVIANI 33-16157TH STREET FLUSHING, N.Y. 11354 718-762-3412 Email: aviviani@cbs-collins.com 08:19:17a.m. 11-05-2014

November5, 2014 (VIA FAX ONLY TO 202-493-2251) Docket Operation M-30 U.S. Dept. Trans. 1200 NewJersey Ave., SE Room 

### W 12-140 West Building Ground Floor Washington 

### D.C., 20590-0001 Arthur

### J. Viviani Docket Number FAA-2014-0510 Implementation ofCatex Porcedures. I am a member ofQueens Quiet Skies and filethis comment after October20 but before _November 

### 10, 2014, since I had to review the FAA's position on the above Subject since that position was delayed in being published on the internet. I oppose the use ofthe Net Noise Reduction Methodto measure reductions in noise per flight since it results in shifting noise among different residential areas. Moreover, it is based on day/night noise levels, a method not intended for measuring noise per each flight. In addition, itwill increase noise for numerous residents from concentrated flights while decreasing itfor others. I do not want othersto feel thetorture we have feltforthe past 2 years. As tothe remaining 3 questions (3, 4 and 5) in your implementation plan, 

### 1accept the position ofQueens Quiet Skies, previously filed with the FAA, as though fully stated here. 111
§ 1.826-5 Attribution of tax. ( a ) *In general.* Section 826(e) provides that a reciprocal making the election allowed by section 826(a) shall be credited with so much of the tax paid by the attorney-in-fact as is attributable to the income received by the attorney-in-fact from the reciprocal in such taxable year.
( b ) *Computation.* For purposes of section 826(e) and paragraph (a) of this section, the amount of tax attributable to income received by the attorney-in-fact from the reciprocal in the taxable year shall be computed in the following manner: ( 1 ) First, compute the taxable income (if any) from each source of gross income set forth in paragraph (b)(2) of § 1.826-3 by deducting from each such amount the expenses allocable thereto under § 1.826-4;
( 2 ) Second, compute the normal tax on each amount of taxable income computed in subparagraph (1) of this paragraph at the rate provided by section 11(b) of the Code;
( 3 ) Third, deduct from each amount determined in subparagraph (1) of this paragraph an amount which bears the same proportion to the surtax exemption provided by section 11(c) of the Code as each amount computed under subparagraph (1) of this paragraph bears to the total of the amounts computed under subparagraph (1) of this paragraph;
( 4 ) Fourth, compute the surtax on each remainder computed in subparagraph (3) of this paragraph at the rate provided by section 11(c) of the Code;
( 5 ) Fifth, add the normal tax computed under subparagraph (2) of this paragraph to the surtax computed under subparagraph (4) of this paragraph for each amount computed under subparagraph (1) of this paragraph;
( 6 ) Sixth, deduct from each amount of tax computed under subparagraph (5) of this paragraph any tax credits (other than those arising from payments made with respect to the tax liability for the taxable year or other taxable years) allocable (in the same manner as provided for expenses under § 1.826-4) to such amount;
( 7 ) Seventh, compute that amount which bears the same proportion to the tax actually paid with respect to the taxable year as each individual amount computed under subparagraph (6) of this paragraph bears to the total of the amounts computed under subparagraph (6) of this paragraph. The amount so determined with respect to each amount computed under subparagraph (6) of this paragraph is the tax paid which is attributable to the amount computed under subparagraph (1) of this paragraph. To the extent the amounts determined under subparagraph (1) of this paragraph are attributable to amounts received from the reciprocal for the taxable year, the tax attributable to such amounts (as determined under subparagraph (7) of this paragraph) shall be the amount of tax attributable to income received by the attorney-in-fact from the reciprocal during the taxable year.
( c ) *Taxes of attorney-in-fact unaffected.* Nothing in section 826 or the regulations thereunder shall increase or decrease the taxes imposed on the income of the attorney-in-fact.
[T.D. 6681, 28 FR 11126, Oct. 17, 1963]
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 25, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 02-41748

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

PLUTARCO OLVERA VERDIN,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. B-02-CR-389-1

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

Before DeMOSS, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

 Plutarco Olvera Verdin appeals the sentence imposed following

his guilty plea conviction of being found in the United States

after deportation/removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. 

Verdin contends that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)

are unconstitutional. He argues that the prior conviction that

resulted in his increased sentence is an element of a separate

offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) that should have been alleged in

his indictment. Verdin maintains that he pleaded guilty to an
No. 02-41748

-2-

indictment which charged only simple reentry under 8 U.S.C.

§ 1326(a). He argues that his sentence exceeds the maximum term

of imprisonment release which may be imposed for that offense. 

In Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235

(1998), the Supreme Court held that the enhanced penalties in

8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are sentencing provisions, not elements of

separate offenses. The Court further held that the sentencing

provisions do not violate the Due Process Clause. Id. at 239-47. 

Verdin acknowledges that his arguments are foreclosed by

Almendarez-Torres, but asserts that the decision has been cast

into doubt by Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000). 

He seeks to preserve his arguments for further review. 

Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres. See Apprendi,

530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979, 984

(5th Cir. 2000). This court must follow Almendarez-Torres

“unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule

it.” Dabeit, 231 F.3d at 984 (internal quotation marks and

citation omitted). The judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.

The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of

filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks

that an appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED. 

AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 147 (Monday, August 3, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 38423]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-18398]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary

[Docket ID: DoD-2008-OS-0109]


Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

ACTION: Notice.

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

    The Department of Defense has submitted to OMB for clearance, the 
following proposal for collection of information under the provisions 
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).

DATES: Consideration will be given to all comments received by 
September 2, 2009.
    Title, Form, and OMB Number: Request for Examination; USMEPCOM Form 
680-3A-E; OMB Control Number 0704-TBD.
    Type of Request: New.
    Number of Respondents: 850,000.
    Responses per Respondent: 1.
    Annual Responses: 850,000.
    Average Burden per Response: 10 minutes.
    Annual Burden Hours: 141,950.
    Needs and Uses: This information collection requirement is 
necessary to gather the required data for determining eligibility to 
join the Armed Forces and for establishing personal records on those 
enlisting. USMEPCOM Form 680-3A-E serves as a processing checklist and 
security verification of applicants for military service completing 
qualification requirements. Information collected on USMEPCOM Form 680-
3A-E is transferred electronically into DD Form 1966 and helps decrease 
administration time required to complete the applicant's record.
    Frequency: On occasion.
    Respondent's Obligation: Required to obtain or retain benefits.
    OMB Desk Officer: Ms. Jasmeet Seehra.
    Written comments and recommendations on the proposed information 
collection should be sent to Ms. Seehra at the Office of Management and 
Budget, Desk Officer for DoD, Room 10236, New Executive Office 
Building, Washington, DC 20503.
    You may also submit comments, identified by docket number and 
title, by the following method:
    <bullet> Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency 
name, docket number and title for this Federal Register document. The 
general policy for comments and other submissions from members of the 
public is to make these submissions available for public viewing on the 
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov as they are received without 
change, including any personal identifiers or contact information.
    DoD Clearance Officer: Ms. Patricia Toppings.
    Written requests for copies of the information collection proposal 
should be sent to Ms. Toppings at WHS/ESD/Information Management 
Division, 1777 North Kent Street, RPN, Suite 11000, Arlington, VA 
22209-2133.

    Dated: May 22, 2009.
Patricia L. Toppings,
OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. E9-18398 Filed 7-31-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17

- 40144 Summary Calendar

JEREMY JAMES HENDRICKS , Plaintiff

- Appellant

v. MATT BINGHAM; PETER KEIM , Defendant s
- Appellee s

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 6:16

- CV

- 942

Before BARKSDALE, PRADO, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Jeremy James Hendricks, Texas prisoner # 01491333 and proceeding pro

se , challenges the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action (claiming a due

process violation) as barred by Heck v. Humphrey , 512 U.S. 477 (1994) , and , in the alternative, by the doctrine s of qualified and absolute immunity

. Hendricks does not present any bases challenging the court’s ruling his du e
process claim is barred under Heck . His failure to point to any error in the

* 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 Fifth Circuit 

### FILED December 19, 2017 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 17-40144 Document: 00514277715 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/19/2017No. 17

- 40144

2 court’s reasoning puts him in the same position as if he had not appealed the judgment. E.g. , Brinkmann v. Dallas C ty. Deputy Sheriff Abner , 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). This court liberally construes briefs filed by pro se litigants, but even pro se parties must reasonably comply with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28(a)(8). E.g. , Yohey v. Collins , 985 F.2d 222 , 224

– 25 (5th Cir. 1993). In the alternative, i n his reply brief, in addressing appellees’ contentions regarding qualified and absolut e immun ity, Hendricks fails to brief any bases challenging the court’s alternative conclusion that the district attorney and assistant district attorney , involved in Hendricks’ prosecution for sexual assault of a child , were entitled to such immunity

. Acc ordingly , he has abandoned th is issue

. Brinkmann , 813 F.2d at 748. AFFIRMED. Case: 17-40144 Document: 00514277715 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/19/2017