alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32.1 CERTIFICATION OF
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO TITLE 18,
UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, Anthony A. Lombardo, President, Chief Executive
Officer and Director of E-Z-EM, Inc. (the Company), certify, pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that: 1.
  the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for
  the quarter ended December 3, 2005 (the Report) fully complies with the
  requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
  (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and2.
  the information contained in the Report fairly
  presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
  operations of the Company.  Date:
  January 12,
2006
  
  /s/ Anthony
A.
  LombardoAnthony A.
  Lombardo, President,Chief
Executive
  Officer, Director -43-
- Home
- About Us
- Leadership
- Key Topics
- Remarks and Releases
- Reports
- Events
- Careers in IOs
- Contact Us

HomeBureau of International Organization Affairs...Engage with International Organizations

# 									Engage with International Organizations							

Bureau of International Organization Affairs

## Model UN

Model United Nations is an educational program that places students into the shoes of UN Ambassadors and other diplomatic figures. The activity engages them in simulations of the United Nations, debating issues past, present, and future.

For more than a decade, IO has partnered with the United Nations Association of the USA to host the Department’s signature annual Model UN Conference bringing hundreds of youth to the historic Harry S. Truman building for a day of debates and negotiations. The Bureau also engages in Model UN activities across the country by providing expert speakers to participate in conferences, simulations, and training exercises in partnership with academic and other organizations.

## Participate with the Model UN App

The U.S. Department of State’s Bureau of International Organization Affairs partnered with the United Nations Association of the USA to create the Model United Nations App. This app helps educators and instructors create their own Model UN exercises for students through lesson plans on topics like climate change, poverty eradication, globalization, and even features a tongue-in-cheek simulation on the Zombie Apocalypse to engage youth in the important work that multilateral organizations do.

The iPhone app is free and available for download at the Apple store for iPhone. The mobile site can be accessed by all other mobile devices.

## Other Resources

        - United Nations Model UN Headquarters
        - U.S. Youth Observer to the United Nations
        - UN Junior Professional Officer Program
        - Careers at the UN and International Organizations

Tags

Bureau of International Organization AffairsUN and Related OrganizationsUnited Nations

Back to Top
§ 550.701 Penalties and Findings of Violation. ( a ) The penalties available under section 206 of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701-1706) (IEEPA), as adjusted annually pursuant to the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990 (Pub. L. 101-410, as amended, 28 U.S.C. 2461 note) or, in the case of criminal violations, as adjusted pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3571, are applicable to violations of the provisions of this part.
( b ) OFAC has the authority, pursuant to IEEPA, to issue Pre-Penalty Notices, Penalty Notices, and Findings of Violation; impose monetary penalties; engage in settlement discussions and enter into settlements; refer matters to the United States Department of Justice for administrative collection; and, in appropriate circumstances, refer matters to appropriate law enforcement agencies for criminal investigation and/or prosecution. For more information, see appendix A to part 501 of this chapter, which provides a general framework for the enforcement of all economic sanctions programs administered by OFAC, including enforcement-related definitions, types of responses to apparent violations, general factors affecting administrative actions, civil penalties for failure to comply with a requirement to furnish information or keep records, and other general civil penalties information.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE
SHEET AT SEPTEMBER 30, 1996 (UNAUDITED) AND THE STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE
QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1996 (UNAUDITED) AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS INCLUDED AS PART OF ITS
QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q FOR THE PERIOD SEPTEMBER 30, 1996
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                         258,190
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   85,714
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               343,904
<PP&E>                                       1,606,686
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,071,673
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 878,917
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     878,917
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   878,917
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               189,278
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   89,036
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   200,806
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 23.1



                          Independent Auditors' Consent



The Board of Directors
Alfacell Corporation:


We consent to  incorporation  by reference in the  registration  statement  (No.
33-81308) on Form S-8 of Alfacell  Corporation  of our report dated  October 10,
1997, relating to the balance sheets of Alfacell Corporation as of July 31, 1997
and  1996,  and the  related  statements  of  operations,  stockholders'  equity
(deficiency),  and cash  flows  for each of the years in the  three-year  period
ended July 31, 1997 and the period from August 24, 1981 (date of  inception)  to
July 31, 1997,  which report  appears in the July 31, 1997 annual report on Form
10-K of Alfacell Corporation.

Our report dated October 10, 1997 as it relates to the financial  statements for
the period from August 24, 1981 (date of  inception)  to July 31, 1997, is based
on the report of other  auditors  as to the  amounts  included  therein  for the
period from August 24, 1981 (date of inception) to July 31, 1992.



                                                   /S/KPMG PEAT MARWICK LLP
                                                   KPMG Peat Marwick LLP

Short Hills, New Jersey
October 28, 1997
#### Matter of the Appraisal Under the Transfer Tax Act of the Property of Mary A. Edson, Deceased.

(Surrogate’s Court, New York County,

July, 1898.)

Transfer tax — A legacy is not taxable to the legatee where the beneficial interest is in another.

Where the Court of Appeals has decided that a legacy to a person, since deceased, is impressed with a secret trust, under which her brother took the beneficial interest, the legacy cannot be taxed, un- ' der the Transfer Tax Act, against the estate of the' legatee.

Appeal from the report of-an appraiser under the Transfer Tax Act.

Evarts, Choate *&*Beaman, for appellants.

Elliot Danforth and Edgar J. Levy, for respondents.

Fitzgerald, S.

.Appeal in tax proceeding; The will of this decedent gave to one of the persons named in the will a portion of the estate. The appraiser reported it as taxable, and an order was entered accordingly. In a suit brought for that purpose, it has been decided' by the Court of Appeals that the beneficial interest in said property’passed to a brother of decedent; in other words, that, the legacy was impressed with a secret trust in his favor. The comptroller relies upon the decision in the Fayerweather case (Amherst College v. Ritch, 151 N. Y. 342) to sustain the order appealed from. It is true that the opinion in that case employs language to give color to this claim, but the remarks are clearly *obiter.*FTothing can be more certain than that the person wlm gets, the property pays the tax. The. point decided in the Eayerweather case was that the entry of an order in a transfer tax proceeding fixing a tax against the legatee individually is no bar to an action to establish that he really took the legacy as trustee. The Matter of Westurn, 152 N. Y. 93, seems to me to be in direct conflict with the claims -of the state. In that case, there was a contest over the will of the decedent, pending which the appraisal was had. The court says (Andrews, J., uniting the opinion of the court): *“*The litigation'over the probate of the will of the decedent was finally *357terminated by the decision of this court, in favor of the contestants. It was not until the final determination of the controversy, by the judgment of this court, that it could be known whether the property of the decedent passed under his will or as in case of intestacy, and until this fact was ascertained, it was impracticable to proceed to fix the transfer tax * * * since the ascertainment of the persons entitled to the property of a decedent must precede the imposition of any tax. • This has been the uniform construction given by this court to the Transfer Tax Acts.” See, also, Matter of Ullmann, 137 N. Y. 403.

Appeal sustained.
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D19-1545

_____________________________

AMY BETH CUCCO,

Petitioner,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Respondent.

_____________________________

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus—Original Jurisdiction.

September 11, 2019

PER CURIAM.

DISMISSED. See Baker v. State, 878 So. 2d 1236 (Fla. 2004).

B.L. THOMAS, ROWE, and OSTERHAUS, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Amy Beth Cucco, pro se, Petitioner.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.
Editorial Note on Part 413
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 413 appear at 76 FR 50537, August 22, 2014.

§ 413.98 Purchase discounts and allowances, and refunds of expenses. ( a ) *Principle.* Discounts and allowances received on purchases of goods or services are reductions of the costs to which they relate. Similarly, refunds of previous expense payments are reductions of the related expense.
( b ) *Definitions* — ( 1 ) *Discounts.* Discounts, in general, are reductions granted for the settlement of debts.
( 2 ) *Allowances.* Allowances are deductions granted for damage, delay, shortage, imperfection, or other causes, excluding discounts and returns.
( 3 ) *Refunds.* Refunds are amounts paid back or a credit allowed on account of an overcollection.
( c ) *Normal accounting treatment—Reduction of costs.* All discounts, allowances, and refunds of expenses are reductions in the cost of goods or services purchased and are not income. If they are received in the same accounting period in which the purchases were made or expenses were incurred, they will reduce the purchases or expenses of that period. However, if they are received in a later accounting period, they will reduce the comparable purchases or expenses in the period in which they are received.
( d ) *Application.* ( 1 ) Purchase discounts have been classified as cash, trade, or quantity discounts. Cash discounts are reductions granted for the settlement of debts before they are due. Trade discounts are reductions from list prices granted to a class of customers before consideration of credit terms. Quantity discounts are reductions from list prices granted because of the size of individual or aggregate purchase transactions. Whatever the classification of purchase discounts, like treatment in reducing allowable costs is required. In the past, purchase discounts were considered as financial management income. However, modern accounting theory holds that income is not derived from a purchase but rather from a sale or an exchange and that purchase discounts are reductions in the cost of whatever was purchased. The true cost of the goods or services is the net amount actually paid for them. Treating purchase discounts as income would result in an overstatement of costs to the extent of the discount.
( 2 ) As with discounts, allowances, and rebates received from purchases of goods or services, refunds of previous expense payments are clearly reductions in costs and must be reflected in the determination of allowable costs. This treatment is equitable and is in accord with that generally followed by other governmental programs and third-party payment organizations paying on the basis of cost.
### Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA

- 

### 2016

- 3704 Directorate Identifier: 

### 2016

- NM

- 005

- AD

If you make changes to the values in the table below, you must ensure the totals update accordingly. If

they do not, click (or Tab) into a nd then out of the changed cell

.

Estimated Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection,

replacement)

Do not include on

condition costs here Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine,

propeller, appliance)

Work

- hours

(include

access, testing,

and close

- up) Labor

c ost

(@$8 5 /h

our) Parts Cost Total Costs

(labor +

parts) Number of

U.S.

Registered

Products Total Cost

for U.S. Fleet



### Inspection 1 .0 $ 85.00 $0 $ 85.00 

### 29 $ 2,465.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0 .00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00



### The known number of products in compliance:

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $ 2,465



### Costs covered under warranty ( if known ) $

On

- Condition Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection,

replacement) Work

- hours

(include access,

testing, and close

up) Labor cost

(@$ 85/hour) Parts Cost Cost per Product



### Repair &

Replacement 8.0 $ 680.00 $177 $ 857.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00



### Special considerations for Econom ic Analysis ( Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table

that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs) 

### :

### Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “signif icant regulatory action”?

YES * NO

* Explanation:

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant?

YES * NO

* Explanation:

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? E xplain for

either a Yes or No answer.

YES NO

Explanat ion:

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for

aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation?

YES * NO



### * Explanation 

### :
```
**EXHIBIT 32.1

                             CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                                 18 U.S.C.ss.1350,
                              AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                   SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In  connection  with the  Quarterly  Report  of  Cognigen  Networks,  Inc.  (the
"Company")  on Form  10-QSB/A  for the period ended March 31, 2004 as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
Thomas S. Smith, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company,  certify,
pursuant  to 18  U.S.C.ss.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; 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/  Thomas S. Smith
                                    --------------------
                                    Thomas S. Smith
                                    President and Chief Executive Officer
Dated: May 21, 2004
```
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-7805

ANTHONY DOVE, Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
LENOIR COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEP ARTMENT; CHRISTOPHER HILL, Detective; BRANSON VICKORY, District Attorney for District Eight; IMELDA PATE, Assistant District Attorney for District Eight-A; KINSTON FREE PRESS, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at New Bern. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-02-33-4-H) Submitted: April 1, 2003 Decided: April 17, 2003 Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Anthony Dove, Appellant Pro Se. Mark Allen Davis, WOMBLE, CARLYLE, SANDRIDGE & RICE, Raleigh, North Carolina; David J. Adinolfi, II, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina; Julia Furr Youngman, ELLIS & WINTERS, L.L.P., Raleigh, North Carolina; John Adam Bussian, III, THE BUSSIAN LAW FIRM, P.L.L.C., Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.2 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Anthony Dove appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Dove v. Lenoir County Sheriff’s Dep’t , No. CA-02-33-4-H (E.D .N.C. Oct. 15, 2002). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 337 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 337

                  To repeal the Truth in Savings Act.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 4, 1995

  Mr. Orton introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
              Committee on Banking and Financial Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
                  To repeal the Truth in Savings Act.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. REPEAL OF TRUTH IN SAVINGS ACT.

    (a) In General.--Subtitle F of title II of the Federal Deposit 
Insurance Corporation Improvement Act of 1991 is hereby repealed.
    (b) Technical and Conforming Amendment.--The table of contents of 
the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvement Act of 1991 is 
amended by striking the item relating to subtitle F of title II of such 
Act and all that follows through the item relating to section 274.

SEC. 2. WAIVER OF LIABILITY FOR ANY PRIOR VIOLATION.

    Notwithstanding any provision of the Truth in Savings Act, no 
person shall be liable for any violation of such Act, or any regulation 
prescribed under such Act, which occurred before the date of the 
enactment of this Act.

                                 <all>
```
SERVED: May 5, 2014 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

IN THE MATTER OF 

DENNIS MCGLYNN 

FAA DOCKET NO. [TO BE ASSIGNED] 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

FDMS NO. FAA 2013-0615 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

On May 2, 2014, the Federal Aviation Administration ("Complainant") requested 

that its Complaint be withdrawn. 

14 C.F.R. § 13.215 states: "At any time before or during a hearing, an agency 

attorney may withdraw a complaint or party may withdraw a request for a hearing 

without the consent ofthe administrative law judge. If an agency attorney 

withdraws the complaint or a party withdraws the request for a hearing and the 

answer, the administrative law judge shall dismiss the proceedings under this 

subpart with prejudice." 

WHEREFORE, the within filed Request to Withdraw Complaint having been 

read and considered, it is ORDERED as follows: 

1. Complainant's Request to Withdraw Complaint be and is hereby granted; 

and 

2. This proceeding be and is hereby dismissed with prejudice. 

Richard C. Goodwin 

U.S. Administrative Law Judge 

Attachment - Service List 
-I 

SERVICE LIST- BY U.S. MAIL 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-· Suite 2W10001 

ONE COPY 

Christopher Merrill, Complainant's Counsel 

Attorney, Office ofthe Regional Counsel, A WP-7.3 

Western-Pacific Region 

Federal Aviation Administration 

P. 0. Box 92007 

Los Angeles, CA 90009-2007 

TEL: 310-725-7105 

FAX: 310-725-6816 

Dennis J. McGlynn, Respondent 

· 659 Dorothy Way 

Auburn, CA 95603-3862 

·The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative Law Judge 

Office ofHearings, M-20 · 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-5121 Staff Assistant 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

FDMS No. FAA-2013-0615 

(Civil Penalty A~tion) 

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal 

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2Wl000, Washington, 

DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430. 

2