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 Repligen Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned officers of the Company hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the undersigneds
knowledge, 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.
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                       |  |  |  |     |  |                                             
|---------------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | --------------------------------------------
|Date: February 9, 2011 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ Walter C. Herlihy                       
|                       |  |  |  |     |  | Walter C. Herlihy                           
|                       |  |  |  |     |  | Chief Executive Officer and President       
|                       |  |  |  |     |  | (Principal executive officer)               
|                       |  |  | 
|Date: February 9, 2011 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ William J. Kelly                        
|                       |  |  |  |     |  | William J. Kelly                            
|                       |  |  |  |     |  | Chief Financial Officer                     
|                       |  |  |  |     |  | (Principal financial and accounting officer)
§ 23.405 Housing. ( a ) *Generally.* A recipient shall not, on the basis of sex, apply different rules or regulations, impose different fees or requirements, or offer different services or benefits related to housing, except as provided in this section (including housing provided only to married students).
( b ) *Housing provided by recipient.* ( 1 ) A recipient may provide separate housing on the basis of sex.
( 2 ) Housing provided by a recipient to students of one sex, when compared to that provided to students of the other sex, shall be as a whole: ( i ) Proportionate in quantity to the number of students of that sex applying for such housing; and
( ii ) Comparable in quality and cost to the student.
( c ) *Other housing.* ( 1 ) A recipient shall not, on the basis of sex, administer different policies or practices concerning occupancy by its students of housing other than that provided by such recipient.
( 2 ) ( i ) A recipient which, through solicitation, listing, approval of housing, or otherwise, assists any agency, organization, or person in making housing available to any of its students, shall take such reasonable action as may be necessary to assure itself that such housing as is provided to students of one sex, when compared to that provided to students of the other sex, is as a whole: ( A ) Proportionate in quantity; and
( B ) Comparable in quality and cost to the student.
( ii ) A recipient may render such assistance to any agency, organization, or person that provides all or part of such housing to students of only one sex.
exhibittentwo.htm







 


March 16 2015


 


FoamOnly Recycling Corp.


107A 81 golden Drive


Coquitlam BC


V3K 6R2


 


Notice of Intent:


 


This notice is to show intent of engagement between FoamOnly and New Fuel Systems Inc.


 


FoamOnly agrees to sell our inventory of densified EPS(expanded polystyrene) to New Fuels Systems Inc. for the purpose of producing styrene monomer through the New Fuel pyrolysis system. Material will be sold at fair market value. FoamOnly produces currently 3 MT daily with a projection of growth to 18 MT daily by 2016. This relationship will secure a local market for our EPS procured from a stewardship program we are currently engaged in. MMBC, the steward of the material requires domestic market be serviced in priority. The New Fuel Systems pyrolysis process converts the EPS material to a format where domestic markets become available.


 


This agreement also includes our non-targeted material such as LDPE HDPE and PP plastics we receive totaling approximately 1 MT daily.


 


                /s/ Mark Obedzinski


 


President


 


FoamOnly Recycling Corporation
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

April 24, 2019

No. 04-18-00942-CR

Ray Martin RUIZ,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 216th Judicial District Court, Gillespie County, Texas

Trial Court No. 6537

Honorable N. Keith Williams, Judge Presiding

ORDER

The Appellant’s Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief is hereby GRANTED. Time 

is extended to May 16, 2019.

_________________________________

Irene Rios, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 24th day of April, 2019.

___________________________________

KEITH E. HOTTLE,

Clerk of Court
#### Isaac JOHNSON, Applicant, v. Bradley J. ROBERT, Warden, Centralia Correctional Center, Respondent.

No. 05-4525.

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 9, 2005.

Decided Dec. 15, 2005.*

Isaac Johnson, Centralia, IL, pro se.

Deborah L. Ahlstrand (argued), Office of the Attorney General Civil Appeals Division, Chicago, IL, for Respondent.

Before BAUER, EASTERBROOK, and ROVNER, Circuit Judges.

*

 This opinion is being issued in typescript. A printed copy will follow.

PER CURIAM.

Isaac Johnson seeks permission to initiate another collateral attack on his conviction and 80-year sentence for murder. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3). Although his application is not entirely clear, he relies in substantial part on *Apprendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), and implies that he would invoke *Blakely v. Washington,*542 U.S. 296, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004), which elaborates on how *Apprendi*applies to sentencing in state prosecutions. *Apprendi*was decided several years ago, and *Blakely*was issued on June 24, 2004. Johnson’s application under § 2244(b)(3) was not filed until December 7, 2005, more than a year later.

Because 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1) establishes a one-year period of limitations, Johnson’s application is too late. The year usually runs from the date on which the conviction became final, which for Johnson was long before the Supreme Court decided *Apprendi.*A proviso in § 2244(d)(1)(C) restarts the clock on “the date on which the constitutional right asserted was initially recognized by the Supreme Court, if the right has been newly recognized by the Supreme Court and made retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review”. Whether we use *Apprendi*or *Blakely*as the benchmark, “the date on which the constitutional right asserted was initially recognized by the Supreme Court” is more than a year before Johnson filed this application. The Supreme Court held in *Dodd v. United States,*—— U.S.-, 125 S.Ct. 2478, 162 L.Ed.2d 343 (2005), that a provision in 28 U.S.C. § 2255 materially identical to § 2244(d)(1)(C) runs from the date the right was initially recognized, even if the Court does not declare that right to be retroactive until later. *Dodd*is equally *993applicable to § 2244(d)(1)(C), so there is no point in authorizing Johnson to file another collateral attack. Because he waited too long, it is unnecessary to decide whether his claim would be a substantial one on the merits.

Johnson adverts to a number of other potential contentions, such as the possibility that his trial lawyer furnished ineffective assistance, but these likewise would be untimely. Johnson should have pursued them in his initial federal collateral attack.

The application is denied.
# Official Journal L 100I/2023

| | ISSN 1977-0677 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 100I |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 6613 April 2023 |

ISSN 1977-0677

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 100I

English edition

Legislation

Volume 6613 April 2023

---

| Contents | | II   Non-legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | REGULATIONS |
| | * | Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/755 of 13 April 2023 implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine | 1 |
| | | DECISIONS |
| | * | Council Decision (CFSP) 2023/756 of 13 April 2023 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine | 4 |

Contents

II   Non-legislative acts

page

REGULATIONS

*

Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/755 of 13 April 2023 implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine

1

DECISIONS

*

Council Decision (CFSP) 2023/756 of 13 April 2023 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine

4

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
Community Development Foundation 398East Main Street,CDF Center P.O. Box A Tupelo,MS 38802-1210
April 23. 2012

Mr. Dennis DeVany 

### Chief. EAS & 

### Domestic Analysis Division Office ofAviation. Department ofTransportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. Washington, DC 20590 RE: Tupelo Regional Airport (TUP) Docket DOT-OST-2009-0305 Mr. DeVany: 

### ·**)~PA.RTMENT** 

## OF

.·1

### ANSPORTATION

-<::::i\ET OPERATIONS ZUtZH1\Y-2 A!Q:ijl

This letter is in**s~pport** of Silver Airways service option 1into Atlanta Airport. The Community Development Foundation has been involved in Tupelo for over 60 years. Since the merger of NorthWest cmd Delta.• we have witnessed the deterioration of air service and we are concerned for the well-being ofour organization and clients without a suitable replacement for Delta. It is imperative that our area have a reliable airline at reasonable prices ifwe are to continue to use our local airport, and attract new businesses in our community. On behalfof our 1228 member companies. we urge you to support option 1 provided by Silver Airways for replacement of our current service at the Tupelo Airport. Sincerely, CO MUNITY DEVELOPMENT FOUNDATION 1
. avid P. Rumbarg r President/CEO

662.842.4521 Phone 800.523.3463Toll-free 662.841.0693 Fax infci@cdfms.org www.cdfms.org
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
FROM FINANCIAL STATEMENTS CONTAINED IN THE MOST RECENT QUARTERLY
REPORT ON FORM 10-Q OF RESEARCH FRONTIERS INCORPORATED FOR THE
QUARTER ENDED JUNE 30, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY
BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                       3,618,515
<SECURITIES>                                 4,586,328
<RECEIVABLES>                                   72,923
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             8,424,706
<PP&E>                                         218,093
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               8,666,554
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          213,520
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    10,960,963
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 8,666,554
<SALES>                                         50,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               359,780
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,725,109
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,365,329)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,365,329)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.13)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.13)
        

</TABLE>
Opinion issued June 28 , 201 2
.

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

NO. 01
- 11
- 00673
- CV

ARTHUR COLEMAN D/B/A ARTHUR W. COLEMAN, D DS &

ASSOCIATES , Appellant

V. HARRIS COUNTY, ON BE HALF OF ITSELF AND T HE HARRIS COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCAT ION, THE PORT OF HOU STON AUTHORITY OF HARRIS COUNTY, THE HARRIS C OUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT, TH E HARRIS COUNTY HOSP ITAL DISTRICT; CITY OF HOUSTON; HOU STON INDEPENDENT SCH OOL DISTRICT; AND HOUSTON COMMUNIT Y COLLEGE SYSTEM , Appellee s

On Appeal from the 234th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2009
- 05471

MEMORANDUM OPINION2

Appellant , Arthur Coleman d/b/a Arthur W. Coleman, DDS & Associates , has failed to timely file a brief. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.6( a ) ( governing time to file
brief ) , 38.8(a) ( governing failure of appellant to file brief). After being notified that this appeal was subject to dismissal, appellant did not adequately respond. See
T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.3(b) (allowing involuntary dismissal of case).
We dismiss t he appeal for want of prosecution for failure to timely file a brief. We dismiss any pending motions as moot.
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Jennings and Keyes

.
# C_2013141EN.01001901.xml

| 18.5.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 141/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.5.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 141/19

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 11 March 2013 — North Drilling v Council

(Case T-552/12 R)

(Interim relief - Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures against Iran - Freezing of funds and economic resources - Application for interim measures - Lack of urgency - Weighing up of interests)

2013/C 141/33

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: North Drilling Co. (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: J. Viñals Camallonga, L. Barriola Urruticoechea and J. Iriarte Ángel, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bishop and A. De Elera, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for a stay in the enforcement, first, of Council Decision 2012/635/CFSP of 15 October 2012 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2012 L 282, p. 58), in so far as the applicant’s name was entered in Annex II to Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP (OJ 2010 L 195, p. 39), and, secondly, of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 945/2012 of 15 October 2012 implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2012 L 282, p. 16), in so far as that regulation concerns the applicant.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The application for interim measures is rejected. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application for interim measures is rejected.

| 2. | The costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The costs are reserved.

---
#### ESTATE OF Robert W. LISLE, Deceased; Estate of Donna M. Lisle, Deceased, Petitioners-Appellants, Thomas W. Lisle, Independent Co-Executor; Amy L. Albrecht, Independent Co-Executor, Appellants, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent-Appellee.

Nos. 01-60639 to 01-60642.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Nov. 22, 2005.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 7, 2006.

Schenck, Jones Day, Dallas, TX, Royal Bernard -Martin, Jr., Steven Spencer Brown, Martin, Brown & Sullivan, Chicago, IL, for all Appellants.

Joan I. Oppenheimer, Kenneth L. Greene, Steven W. Parks, Tax Div., App. Section, Eileen J. O’Connor, Asst. Atty. Gen., U.S. Dept, of Justice, Charles Casaz-za, Clerk, U.S. Tax Court, N. John Williams, Jr., IRS, Washington, DC, for Appellee.'

Before HIGGINBOTHAM and DeMOSS,* Circuit Judges.

*

 By quorum.

PER CURIAM:

Upon reconsideration by the panel of its mandate issued in this case,1 under these unusual circumstances, in the interest of fairness, and to prevent possible injustice, we recall the mandate, as requested by appellants.2

Our mandate left open only the claim of tax deficiency to allow only a recalculation of tax in light of our opinion. Nothing in the events today persuading this court to recall its mandate requires reexamination of our decision to reverse the imposition of fraud penalties. We are persuaded that in fairness whether there is a deficiency owed ought to be reexamined in the same manner as ordered by our colleagues of the Eleventh Circuit in their most recent opinion in *Ballard v.*Commissioner;3 and we REMAND the case to the Tax Court with orders to:

> (1) Strike the “collaborative report” that formed the basis of the Tax Court’s ultimate decision; (2) reinstate Judge *440Couvillion’s original report; (3) refer this case to a regular Tax Court judge who had no involvement in the preparation of the aforementioned “collaborative report” and who shall give “due regard” to the credibility determinations of Judge Couvillion, presuming that his fact findings are correct unless manifestly unreasonable!, in dealing with the remaining issues of tax deficiency]; and (4) Adhere strictly hereafter .to the amended Tax Court Rule in finalizing Tax Court opinions.4

Appellants’ motion is GRANTED, the mandate is MODIFIED as herein ordered, and the case is REMANDED in part for proceedings consistent with this opinion and the mandate as recalled and modified.

1

.341 F.3d 364 (5th Cir.2003).

2

. *See United States v. Tolliver,*116 F.3d 120, 123 (5th Cir. 1997).

3

. 429 F.3d 1026 (11th Cir.2005).

4

*.Id.*at 1031.
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 Research Frontiers
Incorporated (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
September 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Robert L. Saxe,
Chairman of the Board and Chief Technology Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1.   The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
     13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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/ Robert L. Saxe
    Robert L. Saxe
    Chairman of the Board and Chief Technology Officer
Date: November 5, 2009
#### Matter of the examination of John E. W. Thompson. Theodore P. Rogers, Appellant. v. John E. W. Thompson, Respondent.

— Appeal from an order of the General Term of the City Court of the City of New York, adjudging the judgment debtor herein guilty of contempt.

White *&*Otheman, for Appellant; E. F. Stern* for Respondent.

Order affirmed, with costs. No opinion.
§ 61.16 Matching funds for capital grants. ( a ) VA cannot award a capital grant for more than 65 percent of the total allowable costs of the project. The grantee must provide funding (“matching funding”) for the remaining 35 percent of the total cost, using non-federal funds. VA requires that applicants provide documentation of all costs related to the project including those that are not allowable under the Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards under 2 CFR part 200. Allowable costs means those related to the portion (percentage) of the property that would be used to provide supportive housing and services under this part.
( b ) Capital grants may include application costs, including site surveys, architectural, and engineering fees, but may not include relocation costs or developer's fees.
( c ) *Documentation of matching funds.* The matching funds described in paragraph (a) of this section must be documented as follows; no other format will be accepted as evidence of a firm commitment of matching funds: ( 1 ) Donations must be on the donor's letterhead, signed and dated.
( 2 ) The applicant's own cash must be committed on the applicant's letterhead, signed, and dated.
( 3 ) No conditions may be placed on the matching funds other than the organization's receipt of the capital grant.
( 4 ) Funds must be committed to the same activity as the capital grant application (*i.e.*, acquisition, renovation, new construction, or a van), and must not relate to operating costs or services.
( 5 ) The value of matching funds must be for a cost that is included in the calculation of the total project cost, thereby decreasing the total expenditures of the grantee.
( d ) *Van applications.* The requirements of this section also apply to applications for a capital grant for a van under § 61.18.
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501, 2011)
[78 FR 12604, Feb. 25, 2013, as amended at 80 FR 43323, July 22, 2015]
INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT



To the Stockholders of
Am Build, Inc.
Toronto, Ontario Canada


        We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Registration
Statement of Am Build, Inc. on Form 10-SB/A of our report dated
October 23, 2003 of Am Build, Inc. for the years ended August 31, 2003
and August 31, 2002 and for the periods from date of inception (June
25, 2002) to August 31, 2002 and August 31, 2003, and to the reference
to us under the heading "Experts."





/s/ Rotenberg & Co., LLP


Rotenberg & Co., LLP
Rochester, New York
November 18, 2003
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

April 28, 2009 

0420 

Order 

 

April 28, 2009 

138162 

FRANK J. LOMBARDO, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 138162 

 COA: 289492 

Macomb CC: 2008-005324-CK 

KOUSAY ASKAR a/k/a CASEY ASKAR 

and PITA FRANCHISE CORP., 

Defendants-Appellants. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 29, 2008 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should now be reviewed by this Court.