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 Tofutti Brands Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending  October 2, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, David Mintz, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 result of operations of the Company.





/s/ David Mintz*


David Mintz


Chief Executive Officer


Date:  November 16, 2010




*           The originally executed copy of this Certification will be maintained at the Company’s offices and will be made available for inspection upon request.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2178 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2178

 To amend the Clean Air Act to require that, after 5 years, all diesel 
fuel sold to consumers in the United States for motor vehicles contain 
       not less than 2 percent bio-fuel, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 3, 2007

  Mr. Walberg (for himself and Mr. Gingrey) introduced the following 
    bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Clean Air Act to require that, after 5 years, all diesel 
fuel sold to consumers in the United States for motor vehicles contain 
       not less than 2 percent bio-fuel, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as ``The Energy Independence through Bio-
diesel Act''.

SEC. 2. 2 PERCENT BIO-FUEL REQUIREMENT.

    Section 211(o) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7545(o)) is amended 
by adding the following new paragraph at the end thereof:
            ``(13) 2 percent bio-fuel requirement.--Not later than 1 
        year after the enactment of this paragraph, the Administrator 
        shall promulgate regulations under this section requiring that, 
        after the date 5 years after the enactment of this paragraph, 
        all diesel motor vehicle fuel sold or dispensed to consumers in 
        the contiguous United States, on an annual average basis, 
        contain not less than 2 percent biodiesel (as defined in 
        section 312(f)(1) of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (42 U.S.C. 
        13220(f)(1)).''.
                                 <all>
```
Filed 2/16/22 P. v. Cole CA4/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication

or or dered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

RALPH COLE,

Defendant and Appellant. D0 79263

(Super. Ct. No. JCF27233 )

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Imperial County,

William D. Lehman, Judge. Affirmed.

John L. Staley, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for

Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

In 2011, Ralph Cole pleaded no contest to possession of marijuana in a

custodial facility (Pen. Code, § 4573.6). He was sentenced to three years in

prison, to be served consecutively to his existing prison terms.2

In 2021, Co le filed a motion to vacate his conviction in light of

Proposition 64, which changed the laws regarding possession of marijuana.

The trial court denied the motion. 1

Cole filed a timely notice of appeal.

Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979)

25 Cal.3d 436 ( Wende ), indicating counsel has not been able to identify any

arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Counsel asks the court to review the

record for error as mandated by Wende . We offered Cole the opportunity to

file his own brief on appeal, but he has not responded.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The probation report states that Cole possessed 8.7 grams and 44.3

grams of marijuana while in a state prison.

DISCUSSION

As we have noted, appellate counsel has filed a Wende brief and asks

the court to review the record for error. To assist the court in its review, and

in compliance with Anders v

. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 ( Anders ), counsel

has identified a possible issue that w as considered in evaluating the potential

merits of this appeal: Whether the trial court erred in denying Cole ’ s motion

to vacate his conviction for possessing marijuana in state prison.

We have reviewed the entire record as mandated by Wende and Anders

.

We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal.

Competent counsel has represented Cole on this appeal.

1 People v. Raybon (2021) 11 Cal. 5th 1056 held Proposition 64 did not

repeal Penal Code section 4573.6.3 DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:

O'ROURKE, J.

DO, J.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PASSION MOORE,

Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. CITY OF SANTA BARBARA; et al.,

Defendants-Appellees. No. 15-55316 D.C. No. 2:13-cv-07354-BRO-RZ

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal fromthe United States District Court for the Central District of California Beverly Reid O’Connell, District Judge, Presiding

Subm itted June 8, 2018 * * Before: FISHER and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges, and SHEA, District Judge. * * * Passion Moore appeals from the district court’s order denying her m otion for 

# FILED
JUN 15 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

* * Pursuant to the parties’ request, this case was subm itted for decision on the briefs without oral argum ent. SeeFed. R. App. P. 34(f).

* * * The Honorable Edward F. Shea, Senior United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Washington, sitting by designation. 1reconsideration. 1 We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. When a district

court denies a m otion brought under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), we review for an abuse of discretion. Smith v. Pac. Props. & Dev. Corp. , 358 F.3d 1097, 1100 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm
. In denying Ms. Moore’s m otion to alter or am end the judgm e nt, the district court judge wrote a thorough and well-reasoned decision that addressed all the issues raised to date. Prior to sum m ary judgm ent, all of Ms. Moore’s argum ents relating to an improperly enhanced bail were lim ited to supporting her racialanimus claim s. Ms. Moore did not assert an Eighth Am endm ent excessive-bail claim before the district court on sum m ary judgm ent, and she therefore waived that issue. See Intercontinental Travel Mktg., Inc. v. F.D.I.C. , 45 F.3d 1278, 1286 (9th Cir. 1994) (“Raising an issue for the first tim e in a m otion to reconsider is not considered adequate preservation of the issue at a sum m ary judgm ent stage.”). As such, the district court properly declined to consider the m erits of Ms. Moore’s untim ely excessive-bail argum ents.

1 Ms. Moore filed a m otion to alter or am end the judgm ent, citing Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 59(e). The district court correctly construed Ms. Moore’s m otion as a Rule 60(b) m otion because she had not filed it within 28 days of judgm ent. SeeFed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) (requiring a m otion to alter or am end a judgm e nt to be filed within 28 days after entry of judgm ent). Accordingly, we do not review the underlying judgm ent. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4); Fiester v. Turner , 783 F.2d 1474, 1475 (9th Cir. 1986) (holding that an untim ely m otion does not suspend tim e to appeal). 2The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Ms. Moore’s

m otion because she failed to dem onstrate any basis for relief. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b); Fuller v. MG Jewelry , 950 F.2d 1437, 1442 (9th Cir. 1991) (setting forth grounds for relief under Rule 60). Appellees’ request for judicial notice, filed October 7, 2015 (Docket Entry No. 21), is D ENIED
. AFFIRMED.

3
From: Muldoon, Albert (OST)

To: "Melodee Colber-Kean (mayor@joplinmo.org)"; "Steve Stockam (sstockam@joplinmo.org)"; "Mark Rohr

(mrohr@joplinmo.org)"

Cc: American Airlines, Brett Hooyerink (Brett.Hooyerink@aa.com); Devany, Dennis (OST) (Dennis.DeVany@dot.gov)

Subject: Essential Air Service at Joplin, MO - Request for Comments - Due November 16, 2012

Date: Friday, October 19, 2012 11:08:00 AM

Attachments: DFW-JLN_EASsubmit.pdf

All:

I would like to update you on the Essential Air Service (EAS) situation at Joplin, Missouri,

and give you an opportunity to submit comments on the record before we submit a

recommendation to the Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International Affairs. In

anticipation of the current contract’s expiration on February 28, 2013, the Department issued

Order 2012-9-15 (September 12, 2012) soliciting proposals from carriers to provide EAS at

Joplin, MO, for a new contract period beginning March 1, 2013. In response to that Order,

we received only one proposal, from American Airlines (American).

I have attached a copy of the proposal to this email. The proposal can also be accessed

online through the Federal Dockets Management System at www.regulations.gov by entering

“DOT-OST-2006-23932” in the search box. For your convenience, I will briefly summarize

the proposal below.

American proposes to maintain its existing service level at Joplin for an additional two years,

through February 28, 2015, by providing two daily (14 weekly) nonstop round trips to

Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport. Service would be provided by American’s

subsidiary, American Eagle, using 50-seat CRJ-200 or EMB-145 regional jets. Please note

that American has requested that the Department and Joplin waive the right to hold-in

American should it wish to end service, and instead agree to a 120-day notice to terminate

service with no hold-in provision. American would require an annual subsidy of $342,560 to

provide this service.

The schedules and fares that the carrier has proposed are illustrative only, and they may make

changes to reflect changing conditions. The Department expects subsidized carriers to

maintain well-timed and well-spaced flights in order to ensure full compensation.

We request that you review the proposal and submit any comments you may have as soon as

possible, but no later than November 16, 2012. We will carefully consider your comments

before we submit a recommendation to the Assistant Secretary for a decision.

Please send your comments via email to EAS@dot.gov or by fax to (202) 366-7638. If you

have any questions, please feel free to contact A.J. Muldoon of my staff at

albert.muldoon@dot.gov or (202) 366-1058.

Sincerely,

Dennis J. DeVany

Chief, Essential Air Service Division, X-53

Office of Aviation Analysis
Addendum to Change in Control agrmt. covering Newcor employment w/ James Connor


 Exhibit 10.6 
  
 ADDENDUM TO CHANGE IN CONTROL AGREEMENT 
  
 IT IS MUTUALLY UNDERSTOOD AND AGREED BY THE UNDERSIGNED that that certain letter agreement (the “Change in
Control Agreement”) regarding a Change in Control of Newcor, Inc. (“Newcor”) entered into on the 9th
day of August, 2000 by and between Newcor, a corporation incorporated under the laws of Delaware with a principal place of business at 4850 Coolidge, Suite 100, Royal Oak, Michigan, 48073, and James J. Connor (“Connor”), of 462 Cumberland
Trail, Milford, Michigan, 48381, shall be amended as follows as of this      day of             . 
  
 WHEREAS, on February 25, 2002 (the “Commencement Date”),
Newcor and its subsidiaries, as debtors and debtors in possession (collectively, the “Debtors”), commenced cases under chapter 11 of title 11 of the United States Code (the “Bankruptcy Code”); and 
  
 WHEREAS, on March 11, 2002, pursuant to section 1102 of the Bankruptcy
Code, the United States Trustee for the District of Delaware appointed a statutory committee of unsecured creditors (the “Creditors’ Committee”); and 
  
 WHEREAS, the Debtors and Creditors’ Committee negotiated the terms of the First Amended Joint Plan of
Reorganization Under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code, As Modified, dated December 30, 2002 (the “Plan”), which was confirmed by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware on December 31, 2002; and 
  
 WHEREAS, in connection with the Plan negotiations, Connor has agreed
to enter into this Addendum to modify certain terms of the Change in Control Agreement. 
  
 NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the Plan, Newcor and Connor agree as follows: 
  

	1.	Connor hereby waives, releases and discharges any and all causes of action arising under the Change in Control Agreement against Newcor prior to, and including the effective date of
the Plan. 

  

	2.	Connor hereby agrees that neither the implementation of the Plan nor any of the transactions related thereto, shall constitute a change of control as such term is defined in
paragraph 5(a) of the Change in Control Agreement. 

  

	3.	Paragraph 3 of the Change in Control Agreement hereby is deleted in its entirety and shall be of no further force and effect, and all stock options that Connor may have received at
any time through and including the Effective Date (as defined in the Plan) are hereby terminated and cancelled and of no further force or effect, and Connor shall not have any rights or claims in respect thereof. 

  

	4.	Unless otherwise amended by this Addendum, the Change in Control Agreement is in full force and effect. 

  
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties have executed this Addendum the day and year first above written. 
  

	 NEWCOR, INC
	 	 	 	 	 	 EMPLOYEE

					
	 By:
	 	 /s/ David A. Segal

	 	 	 	 	 	 /s/ James J. Connor


	 	 	 David A. Segal
 Co-Chief Executive Officer
	 	 	 	 	 	 James J. Connor
### Appliances & Commercial Equipment Standards: Residential Furnaces and Boilers TSD Analysis



## U.& ant of r Energy Efficiency 

# rid Renewable Energy Page 1 of 2

EEFE i ;ri t?


## 4"ho r F. rr,m

Appiiarlc: f^!s Yii:tnle About Standards Laws & Regulations EPAC :T 2005 Test Procedures Peer Review Information Resources Notices c Rules Schedule Setting Public W orkshops Hearings State Petitions Useful Links Commercial Equipment Residential products Battery Chargers External P.),A,.r Supplies Ceiling Fars &.. Ceiling Fan Light Kits Central Air- Conditirners & Heat Pu+TIPS Clothes Dryerf, Clothes tirtrashers Cooking P od'.ct5
DehtJrri idif'iergs uisll,vashars Furnaces & Boilers Fluorescent Lar p Ballasts Flugt-esewrrt ;° ?ncandr-Si.ant Lamps Plurribirfo 

## Produc

t 

## s Foal I-14.3tC.t'+ Refrigerators & Fr-eaaers P.i,oro Air r-rnditknars 

## L1 Search Help F More Search Options EEI',F Information r enter 

## Residential Furnaces and Boilers Technical Support Document Analytical Tools Life Cycle Cost Spreadsheets • Life Cycle Cost Results for Gas Boilers (E^tc4l__ 1..?_ _B.) • Life Cycle Cost Results for Mobile Home Furnaces (Exce,I.1.6 MB) • Life Cycle Cost Results for Non-Weatherized Gas Furnaces (Excel_2.9_MB) • Life Cycle Cost Results for Oil Burners (Excel_.1.9 _ MB) • Life Cycle Cost Results for Oil Furnaces (lxcel_ 1.fi MB) • Life Cycle Cost Results for Weatherized Gas Furnaces (Ece'I 1.8._MB) Subgroup Analysis for Non-Weatherized Gas Furnaces • Life Cycle Cost Results for Non-Weatherized Gas Furnace (Low income subgroup) (Excel _2_.:5 MB) • Life Cycle Cost Results for Non-Weatherized Gas Furnaces (Senior subgroup) (Exce'J_2,5_MB) LCC Regional Spreadsheets ( 5000 HDD & 6000 HDD) • Life Cycle Cost Results for Non-Weatherized Gas Furnaces (North HDD 5000) (Excel 2.7 MB) • Life Cycle Cost Results for Non-Weatherized Gas Furnaces (South HDD 5000) (Exce 2.b MB) • Life Cycle Cost Results for Non-Weatherized Gas Furnaces (North HDD 6000) (ExceI__2.5 JIB) • Life Cycle Cost Results for Non-Weatherized Gas Furnaces (South HDD 6000) (Excel 2.81113) NIA Spreadsheets • NIA Main (Excel-3 MB) • NIA Main with Rebound (Excel_3•__1 '',l!r!B) • NIA Regional (HDD 5000) (Excel 1.9 MB) • NIA Regional with Rebound (HDD 5000) (_Exc__el,1_9 MB) • NIA Regional (HDD 6000) (.Excel 1,_9 MB) • NIA Regional with Rebound (HDD 6000) (Exce_1L9 MB) Other Analytical Tools

itt"•//xx,xxrxx, aara anarml anvMnilrlinne/ar^nlianr a ctanrlcirri c /racirlantia1/fh fr Analxrcic htmi `)/1 /')nn2

### Appliances & Commercial Equipment Standards: Residential Furnaces and Boilers TSD Analysis Page 2 of 2

small: Duct, H^qh Velocit^^ All, [--nrtUiti ner'5 Torchiere.= 'q•at:Er He. tees 

### • Engineering Spreadsheet (Excel 458 KB) • Employment Results (Excel 11 1 KB) • Utility and Environmental Results (Excel 535KB) • GRIM Spreadsheet (Excel 3.1 ME3) • Furnace Model Database (Access 3,5' MB)

Pont ble Version}

Webnaster I Se_r_urity_& F'ry_a: y I Building Te?rhnoloanes Pr{inra n Home I EER 1-tome U.S. Department of Energy Content Last Updated : 11/19/2007

nttn-//n7nin, aara anarrr , nnx,/hiii1€1 nno/nnni nnna otnnrlorrlo /rar, 1antio1 I-l-. fr onnicroio L,rml fl/i /onna
#### WILLIAMS V. THE STATE.

(Decided June 6, 1911.)

Appeal from St. Clair Circuit Court.

Heard before Hon. John W. Inzer.

No counsel marked for appellant.

R. C. Beickell, Attorney General, for the State.

Walker, P. J.

No error in the record. Affirmed.
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 Tofutti Brands Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-QSB for the period ending April 2, 2005 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, David Mintz, 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) 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/David Mintz*
--------------
David Mintz
Chief Executive Officer
May 17, 2005


* The originally executed copy of this Certification will be maintained at the
Company's offices and will be made available for inspection upon request.
#### § 17.244 Definitions.

For purposes of §§ 17.243 through 17.248:

*Benefit* means a benefit provided by VA to a resident that has monetary value in addition to a resident's stipend, which may include but not be limited to health insurance, life insurance, worker's compensation, disability insurance, Federal Insurance Contributions Act taxes, and retirement contributions.

*Covered facility* means any facility identified in § 17.245.

*Educational activities* mean all activities in which residents participate to meet educational goals or curriculum requirements of a residency program, to include but not be limited to: clinical duties; research; attendance in didactic sessions; attendance at facility committee meetings; scholarly activities that are part of an accredited training program; and approved educational details.

*Resident* means physician trainees engaged in post-graduate specialty or subspecialty training programs that are either accredited by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education or in the application process for such accreditation. A resident may include an individual in their first post-graduate year (PGY-1) of training (often referred to as an intern), and an individual who has completed training in their primary specialty and continues training in a subspecialty graduate medical education program (generally referred to a fellow).

*Stipend* means the annual salary paid by VA for a resident.

*VA health care facility* means any VA-owned or VA-operated location where VA physicians provide care to veterans, to include but not be limited to a VA medical center, independent outpatient clinic, domiciliary, nursing home (community living center), residential treatment program, and community-based clinic.
Explanation of Calculations 

No. 1 Power Boiler 

 MMBTUs from fuels burned each month, downtime value each month is used to 

calculate operating hours for each month, and the SO2 emissions calculated from the 

site specific SO2 emissions curve (y = 0.4005x – 0.2645)* are used. 

*Note on site-specific SO2 emissions curve: y = the pounds of sulfur emitted per ton of 

dry fuel fed to the boiler, and x = the pounds of sulfur input per ton of bark fed to the 

boiler. 

Specifically for monthly average lb/hr SO2 = the SO2 calculated from the site-specific 

curve X 2000 lb/ton / operating hours. 

Specifically for the monthly average lb/MMBTU SO2 = lb/hr calculated X operating hours 

X MMBTUs from fuel usage each month. 

Specifically for the monthly average lb/hr NOx = lb/MMBTU value (measured during 

most recent stack tests for each year emissions inventory) X MMBTUs from fuel usage 

each month / operating hours. 

Specifically for the monthly average lb/MMBTU NOx = is the most recent stack test 

value for each reporting year. 

No. 2 Power Boiler 

CEMS data is used in SO2 and NOx calculations. Stack test value used for PM 

calculations. 

Specifically for monthly average lb/hr SO2 and NOx = CEMS data in tons X 2000 lb/ton / 

operating hours. 

Specifically for lb/MMBTU SO2 and NOx = lb/hr emissions X operating hours / MMBTUs 

from fuel usage each month. 

Specifically for PM monthly average lb/hr = emissions inventory reported annual tons X 

2000 lb/ton / operating hours. 

Specifically for PM monthly average lb/MMBTU = lb/hr rate X operating hours / 

MMBTUs from fuel usage each month. 

ASHDOWN-Q1-004031
#### § 50.301 Applicability.

The provisions of this subpart are applicable to programs or projects for health services which are supported in whole or in part by Federal financial assistance, whether by grant or contract, appropriated to the Department of Health and Human Services and administered by the Public Health Service.
[Cite as McNeal v. Morris, 122 Ohio St.3d 349, 2009-Ohio-3717.] 

MCNEAL, APPELLANT, v. MORRIS ET AL., APPELLEES;

CITY OF BLUE ASH, APPELLANT. 

[Cite as McNeal v. Morris, 122 Ohio St.3d 349, 2009-Ohio-3717.] 

Court of appeals’ judgment reversed on the authority of Sullivan v. Anderson 

Twp., and cause remanded. 

(No. 2008-1154 — Submitted May 19, 2009 — Decided August 4, 2009.) 

APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Hamilton County, No. C-061061. 

__________________ 

{¶ 1} The judgment of the court of appeals is reversed on the authority of 

Sullivan v. Anderson Twp., 122 Ohio St.3d 83, 2009-Ohio-1971, 909 N.E.2d 88, 

and the cause is remanded for consideration of appellants’ assignment of error. 

MOYER, C.J., and LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’CONNOR, O’DONNELL, and 

CUPP, JJ., concur. 

PFEIFER and LANZINGER, JJ., dissent. 

__________________ 

 Subashi, Wildermuth & Dinkler and Nicholas E. Subashi, for appellants. 

______________________