alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: Tom Morrissey [mailto:tomm@woodstove.com] 

Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2014 2:15 PM

To: Wood, Gil

Subject: Data is attached

Hi GilAttached is the data you asked for yesterday. The pdf is the first dozen pages of the Polytests test 

report, and the spreadsheet is summary data from my files. If there are any discrepancies, it would be 

because I prepared my data in a rush before the November Woodstove Challenge in DC.

Our goal with this stove was to produce a relatively flat emissions line, which I think we did pretty well. 

On the 3 cordwood tests performed by the lab, emissions were lower on high than on low, but all three 

tests were below 1 gm/hr using method 5G3. We have had similar results in our lab, but these three 

tests were conducted independently. You can see them on the second tab of my spreadsheet.

The hybrid combustion design is capable of performing very well across a wide range of outputs, with 

consistently low emissions. We think we are only a couple of iterations away from a “zero emissions” 

woodstove (well, not zero, but pretty close). 

Let me know if you need anything else. You don’t need to treat this as CBI.

Tom
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                          11,266
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  145,025
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    140,923
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               309,440
<PP&E>                                         405,335
<DEPRECIATION>                                 167,641
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 874,963
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          135,336
<BONDS>                                        192,850
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         5,540
<OTHER-SE>                                     264,395
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   874,963
<SALES>                                        155,949
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               155,949
<CGS>                                           87,941
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   87,941
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                50,071
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               7,466
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 11,414
<INCOME-TAX>                                     4,216
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              7,198
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     7,198
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .26
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .26


</TABLE>
EX-4.1



 Exhibit 4.1 
 



 
 aTyr Pharma NUMBER AT SHARES INCORPORATED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE CUSIP
002120 10 3 SEE REVERSE FOR CERTAIN DEFINITIONS This certifies that is the record holder of Fully paid and nonassessable shares OF Common STOCK $0.001 par value per share, of aTyr Pharma, Inc. transferable on the books of the corporation in person
or by duly authorized attorney upon surrender of this Certificate properly endorsed. This Certificate is not valid until countersigned by the Transfer Agent and registered by the Registrar. Witness the facsimile seal of the Corporation and the
facsimile signatures of its duly authorized officers. Dated: president secretary COUNTERSIGNED AND REGISTERED: AMERICAN STOCK TRANSFER TRUST& COMPANY, LLC (NEW YORK, NY) TRANSFER AGENT AND REGISTRAR BY: AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE 







 



 
  
 The
Corporation shall furnish without charge to each stockholder who so requests a statement of the powers, designations, preferences and relative, participating, optional or other special rights of each class of stock of the Corporation or series
thereof and the qualifications, limitations or restrictions of such preferences and/or rights. Such requests shall be made to the Corporation’s Secretary at the principal office of the Corporation. KEEP THIS CERTIFICATE IN A SAFE PLACE. IF IT
IS LOST, STOLEN, OR DESTROYED THE CORPORATION WILL REQUIRE A BOND INDEMNITY AS A CONDITION TO THE ISSUANCE OF A REPLACEMENT CERTIFICATE. The following abbreviations, when used in the inscription on the face of this certificate, shall be construed as
though they were written out in full according to applicable laws or regulations: TEN COM – as tenants in common UNIF GIFT MIN ACT – Custodian TEN ENT – as tenants by the entireties (Cust) (Minor) JT TEN – as joint tenants with
right of under Uniform Gifts to Minors survivorship and not as tenants Act (State) in common COM PROP – as community property UNIF TRF MIN ACT – Custodian (until age .) (Cust). (Minor) under Uniform Transfers to Minors Act (State)
Additional abbreviations may also be used though not in the above list. FOR VALUE RECEIVED, hereby sell(s), assign(s) and transfer(s) unto PLEASE INSERT SOCIAL SECURITY OR OTHER IDENTIFYING NUMBER OF ASSIGNEE (PLEASE PRINT OR TYPEWRITE NAME AND
ADDRESS, INCLUDING zIP CODE, OF ASSIGNEE) shares of the capital stock represented by within Certificate, and do hereby irrevocably constitute and appoint attorney-in-fact to transfer the said stock on the books of the within named Corporation with
full power of the substitution in the premises. Dated X X Signature(s) Guaranteed: NOTICE: THE SIGNATURE TO THIS ASSIGNMENT MUST CORRESPOND WITH THE NAME AS WRITTEN UPON THE FACE OF THE CERTIFICATE IN EVERY PARTICULAR, WITHOUT ALTERATION OR
ENLARGEMENT OR ANY CHANGE WHATSOEVER. By THE SIGNATURE(S) SHOULD BE GUARANTEED BY AN ELIGIBLE GUARANTOR INSTITUTION, (BANKS, STOCKBROKERS, SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATIONS AND CREDIT UNIONS WITH MEMBERSHIP IN AN APPROVED SIGNATURE GUARANTEE MEDALLION
PROGRAM), PURSUANT TO S.E.C. RULE 17Ad-15. GUARANTEES BY A NOTARY PUBLIC ARE NOT ACCEPTABLE. SIGNATURE GUARANTEES MUST NOT BE DATED.
#### § 17.628 Availability of VIOMPSP scholarships.

VA will make awards under the VIOMPSP only when VA determines it is necessary to assist in alleviating shortages or anticipated shortages of personnel in visual impairment or orientation and mobility programs. VA's determination of the number of VIOMPSP scholarships to be awarded in a fiscal year, and the number that will be awarded to full-time and/or part-time students, is subject to the availability of appropriations.

(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 7501(a), 7503(c)(2))
§ 21.4501 Eligibility. ( a ) *General.* Any eligible spouse or surviving spouse shall be eligible to receive an education loan if he or she meets the criteria of this section. (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 3512(f), 3698)
( b ) *Eligibility criteria.* To qualify for an education loan— ( 1 ) The eligible spouse's or surviving spouse's delimiting period as determined by § 21.3046 (a), (b), or (d), or § 21.3047 must have expired;
( 2 ) The eligible spouse or surviving spouse must— ( i ) Have financial resources that may reasonably be expected to be expended for education needs and which are insufficient to meet the actual costs of attendance;
( ii ) Execute a promissory note payable to the Department of Veterans Affairs, as provided by § 21.4504;
( iii ) Have unused entitlement provided under 38 U.S.C. 3511;
( iv ) During the term, quarter, or semester for which the loan is granted, be enrolled on a full-time basis in pursuit of the approved program of education in which he or she was enrolled on the date his or her eligibility expired under § 21.3046 (a), (b), or (d), or § 21.3047; and
( v ) Have been enrolled in a program of education on a full-time basis— ( A ) On the date his or her period of eligibility expired under § 21.3046 (a), (b), or (d), or § 21.3047; or
( B ) On the last date of the ordinary term, semester or quarter preceding the date his or her eligibility expired under § 21.3046 (a), (b), or (d), or § 21.3047, if the delimiting date fell during a school break or summer term. (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 3512(f), 3698)
( c ) *Limitations.* The period for which a loan may be granted shall not extend beyond the earliest of the following dates: ( 1 ) Two years after the expiration of the period of eligibility as determined by § 21.3046(a), (b), or (d), or § 21.3047;
( 2 ) The date on which the eligible spouse's or surviving spouse's entitlement is exhausted; or
( 3 ) The date on which the eligible spouse or surviving spouse completes the approved program of education which he or she was pursuing on the date the delimiting period determined by § 21.3046 (a), (b), or (d), or § 21.3047 expired. (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 3512(f), 3698)
( d ) *Exclusions.* No eligible spouse or surviving spouse shall be authorized an education loan if he or she has defaulted on a previous education loan and there is a remaining unliquidated payment due VA.
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 3512(f), 3698)
[61 FR 26115, May 24, 1996, as amended at 62 FR 51785, Oct. 3, 1997]
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-1072

In Re: MARSALINA MACHUCA,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

(4:05-cr-00002-jlk-2)

Submitted: March 30, 2010 Decided: April 5, 2010

Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Marsalina Machuca, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Marsalina Machuca moved in the district court for 

reduction of sentence based on substantial assistance. The 

district court denied her motions. Machuca now petitions this 

court for a writ of mandamus seeking an order to compel the 

district court to grant her motion for sentence reduction.

Mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal. 

In re United Steelworkers, 595 F.2d 958, 960 (4th Cir. 1979). 

Thus, the relief sought by Machuca is not available by way of 

mandamus. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in 

forma pauperis, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus and 

the motion for appointment of counsel. 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.

PETITION DENIED
PUBLIC LAW 112–117—MAY 15, 2012 126 STAT. 339 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 3247: 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 158 (2012): 

Feb. 14, 15, considered and passed House. 

Apr. 26, considered and passed Senate. 

Æ 

Public Law 112–117 

112th Congress 

An Act 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 1100 Town 

and Country Commons in Chesterfield, Missouri, as the ‘‘Lance Corporal Matthew 

P. Pathenos Post Office Building’’. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. LANCE CORPORAL MATTHEW P. PATHENOS POST OFFICE 

BUILDING. 

(a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States Postal 

Service located at 1100 Town and Country Commons in Chesterfield, Missouri, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Lance Corporal Matthew P. Pathenos Post Office Building’’. 

(b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 

document, paper, or other record of the United States to the facility 

referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference 

to the ‘‘Lance Corporal Matthew P. Pathenos Post Office Building’’. 

Approved May 15, 2012. 

May 15, 2012 

[H.R. 3247] 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with PUBLIC LAWS
**
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER 

PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2021 (the “Report”) of CommonwealthCredit Partners BDC I, Inc. (the “Registrant”), as filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Robert O’Sullivan, the Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant, hereby certify, to the best ofmy knowledge, that: 

 
(1)
The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934, as amended; and 

 
(2)
The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Registrant. 

 
/s/ Robert O’SullivanName:     Robert O’SullivanDate:       March 25, 2022**
**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 Illini Corporation (the“Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2005 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I GaylonE. Martin, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

 

(1)           TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)           Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| /s/Gaylon E.  Martin                   |   |
|----------------------------------------|--------|
| Gaylon E.  Martin                      |
| President  and Chief Executive Officer |
| August 11,  2005                       |

 

----
#### Anna Shapiro et al., Respondents, *v.*Barnet Goldberg et al., Appellants.

Motion for a reargument.

L. Burkes, for motion.

A. A Joseph, opposed.

*Per Ouria/m.*

Having decided to entertain the motion for a reargument, we have considered all of the papers originally submitted, as well as those submitted upon said last-mentioned motion, and have decided to deny the motion for restitution in view of the fact that there appears to be a dispute with respect to the identity of the property which should be more properly settled in an action. That an action will still lie for the purpose of obtaining restitution, notwithstanding the provisions of the Oode authorizing a more summary method of securing such relief, is well settled. Haebler v. Myers, 132 N. Y. 363. The remedies are concurrent.

The motion is, therefore, denied, without costs and without prejudice to any action which the appellants may be advised to bring for the purpose of securing relief.

Present: Beekman, P. J., Giegerich and O’Gorman, JJ.

Motion denied, without costs.
#### Fanny C. Sweeny, Respondent, *v.*The Union Railway Company of New York, Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment entered upon a verdict and from an order denying a motion for a. new trial.

John R. Halsey, for appellant.

Eugene H. Pomeroy, for respondent.

Conlan, J.

It is conceded that the plaintiff attempted to board an open car of the defendant, and in so doing had a fall and received injuries, but it is disputed that such accident was occasioned by the defendant’s negligence. The car was stationary and it is the plaintiff’s contention that the bell rope interfered with her ingress to such an extent as to cause her to slip and fall backward and off the car, and that the injury was in consequence thereof.

There is much in the evidence that we need not consider, in view of the limit fixed by the jury to the amount of damages recoverable.

The only evidence offered by the plaintiff in addition to her own was that of physicians who attended her after the accident. *798She alone testified in her own behalf as to the circumstances of the accident. Her narrative of how the accident occurred is not in accord with the statements in that behalf of any of the witnesses produced by the defendant. This might well be the case and yet the story of the plaintiff might be the true one; happily for us, it is not our province to determine which side was. telling the truth and which not; the jury was fully advised by the court of the correct rule to be applied by them to the questions in dispute, and so satisfactory was the charge of the learned trial justice to both sides of the controversy that we find, what is perhaps unusual in cases of this character, an entire absence of objection and exception, and no requests for a charge in any other particular than as given by the court. We are to assume, therefore, that the weight given to the evidence of the plaintiff, unsupported as it is, regarding the circumstances which led up to the accident, preponderated above the evidence, of the defendant, and that being so they had the undoubted right to find in her favor upon the issues which were before them for their exclusive consideration.

Courts on appeal will not interfere with the findings of a jury when reached without prejudice or any of the other elements for which verdicts are set aside or interfered with. This case appears to be unusually free from every element of that character.

We think the trial court properly determined the questions at the close of the plaintiff’s case and of all the testimony, and that the controversy was one eminently- entitled to be submitted to the jury. We are unable to find any error committed upon the trial which calls for a reversal of the judgment and order appealed from; the same must, therefore, be affirmed, with costs.

Eitzsimoks, Ch. J., concurs.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs.
#### Johnny E. HARRISON, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.

No. 17572.

United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.

Argued Feb. 28, 1963.

Decided March 28, 1963.

Petition for Rehearing En Banc Denied July 9, 1963.

Mr. Leonard H. Marks, Washington, D. C., with whom Mr. Martin Jay Gaynes, Washington, D. C., (both appointed by this court), was on the brief, for appellant.

Mr. Barry I. Fredericks, Asst. U. S. Atty., with whom Messrs. David C. Acheson, U. S. Atty., and Frank Q. Nebeker, Asst. U. S. Atty., were on the pleadings, for appellee.

Before Edgerton, Fahy, and Dana-her, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from convictions of housebreaking and petit larceny. D.C. Code §§ 22-1801, 22-2202. The question is whether in the circumstances of this case it was reversible error by reason of the Jencks Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3500, for the District Court to fail to inspect certain notes made by the Assistant United States Attorney during an interview with a government witness.

In cross-examination appellant’s counsel, not his present counsel, showed some *221interest in seeing the prosecutor’s notes. The prosecutor said, “I made certain notes, Your Honor, but I did not read them back.” This colloquy followed:

> “The Court: But you did not make [take?], a detailed statement?

> “Mr. Murphy [the prosecutor]: No, Your Honor. I have the notes right here, if you want to examine them.

> “The Court: I do not want to examine them. Do you want to examine them, Mr. Garbis?

> “Mr. Garbis [appellant’s counsel]: No, Mr. Murphy’s word is good enough for me, Your Honor.

> “The Court: All right.”

Since appellant abandoned his previous suggestion that he would like to see the notes, and did not ask the court to examine them, the court was under no obligation to do so. United States v. Annunziato, 293 F.2d 373, 382 (2d Cir. 1961), cert. denied, 368 U.S. 919, 82 S.Ct. 240, 7 L.Ed.2d 134 (1961); United States v. Farley, 292 F.2d 789, 792 (2d Cir. 1961) , cert. denied, 369 U.S. 857, 82 S.Ct. 937, 8 L.Ed.2d 15 (1962); Ogden v. United States, 303 F.2d 724, 736 (9th Cir. 1962) . Cf. Scales v. United States, 367 U.S. 203, 258, 81 S.Ct. 1469, 6 L.Ed.2d 782 (1961); Saunders v. United States, 114 U.S.App.D.C. 345, 316 F.2d 346; Hilliard v. United States, 115 U.S.App.D.C. -, 317 F.2d 150. 18 U.S.C. § 3500(b) provides: “After a witness called by the United States has testified on direct examination, the court shall, *on motion of the defendant,*order the United States to produce any statement (as hereinafter defined) * * (Emphasis added.) We do not reach the question whether the prosecutor’s notes were a “statement” within the meaning *of 18*U.S.C. § 3500.

Counsel we appointed argue that because this case involves a key witness no motion or demand was necessary. In the circumstances above set forth we cannot agree.

Affirmed.
###### Editorial Note on Part 36

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 36 appear at 61 FR 7217, Feb. 27, 1996, and 86 FR 51275, Sept. 15, 2021.

#### § 36.4380 Reports of insured institutions.

An insured financial institution shall make such reports respecting its insurance accounts as the Secretary may from time to time require, not more frequently than semiannually.

(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 3703(c)(1))
---

EXHIBIT 32.2

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

I, Donald Balletto, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

|(1) | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Silverado Gold Mines
      Ltd. for the period ended August 31, 2011 (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 Silverado Gold Mines Ltd.                                                                  

Dated: October 21, 2011

| | /s/
      Donald Balletto                                           
| | --------------------------------------------------------------------
| | Donald Balletto                                                     
| | Chief Financial Officer and Director                                
| | (Principal Financial Officer and Principal
      Accounting Officer)
| | Silverado Gold Mines Ltd.                                           

A signed original of this written statement required by Section
906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the
signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this
written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Silverado Gold
Mines Ltd. and will be retained by Silverado Gold Mines Ltd. and furnished to
the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---
Record of Ex Parte Contacts

Docket No. FAA - 2012 - 0645 Directorate Identifier: 2011 - NM - 052 - AD **With whom outside the FAA has this AD action been discussed (i.e., Design Approval Holder, manufacturer, ATA, NBAA, RAA, AOPA, ALPA, GAMA, etc)?**  (You might need to submit a separate record to the Rules Docket. The AD Manual defines “ **Ex Parte Contacts** .”) ORGANIZATION PERSON CONTACTED DATE RESPONSE Boeing Mr. G.K. Dial

– FAA

concurs with Boeing’s compliance recommendation December 10, 2007 No response. ATA Jo e White March 7, 2011 No response. Boeing Bernard Frakes, AR Mar ch 7, 2011 Other. List below .

Other/Additional Information: 

### Bernard Frakes agreed that there are no outstanding AMOCs that would be of concern. AD 99 - 08 - 23 onl y pertains to the web - to - Y - chord attachment, so the scope of an y existing AMOCs is limited.