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-OXLEYACT OF 2002**

 

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report ofThe Navigators Group, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the datehereof (the “Report”), I, Stanley A. Galanski, Chief Executive Officer of theCompany, 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 complieswith the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934; and

(2)            The information contained inthe Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial conditionand results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| /s/ Stanley A. Galanski |   |
|-------------------------|--------|
|                    |
| Stanley A. Galanski     |
| Chief Executive Officer |
| August 14, 2003         |

 

Asigned original of this written statement required by Section 906 has beenprovided to The Navigators Group, Inc. and will be retained by The NavigatorsGroup, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or itsstaff upon request.

 

----
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6124

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus THOMAS LEE MOODY, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District Judge. (CR-99-66; CA-03-379-2) Submitted: June 9, 2004 Decided: June 30, 2004 Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William Lyons Taliaferro, Jr., RABINOWITZ, RAFAL, SWARTZ, TALIAFERRO & GILBERT, P.C., Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellant. Janet S. Reincke, Assistant United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Thomas Lee Moody, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Moody has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.

DISMISSED
#### Benno Falk, Appellant, *v.*The R. R. Appleton Co., Respondent.

Appeal from a judgment in favor of the defendant dismissing the plaintiff’s complaint, with costs.

Benjamin & Loeser (Wayland E. Benjamin, of counsel), for appellant.

Chittenden & Fiero, for respondent.

*808*Per Curiam.*

The proof offered of the written assignment was competent, bnt even without that proof there was sufficient evidence in the case of the assignment without regard to the written instrument, and it was for the alleged failure of this proof that the complaint was dismissed. This was error, Which requires that the judgment be reversed.

Present: Eitzsimons, Oh. J., Oonlan and O’Dwyeb, JJ.

Judgment reversed, and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide event.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2283 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2283

  To prohibit anticompetitive provisions in gasoline dealer franchise 
       agreements that dictate the wholesale source of gasoline.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 10, 2007

 Ms. Slaughter (for herself, Mr. Larson of Connecticut, Mr. Ackerman, 
Mr. Hinchey, Mr. Grijalva, Mr. DeFazio, Mr. Cleaver, Mr. Space, and Mr. 
    Shays) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To prohibit anticompetitive provisions in gasoline dealer franchise 
       agreements that dictate the wholesale source of gasoline.

    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 ``Eliminate Gas Price Discrimination 
Act''.

SEC. 2. GASOLINE FRANCHISE CONDITIONS.

    (a) Amendment.--Title I of the Petroleum Marketing Practices Act 
(15 U.S.C. 2801-2806) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
section:

                       ``limitation on conditions

    ``Sec. 107.  No franchise may include as a condition a limitation 
on the source from which a franchisee may obtain motor fuel, except 
that the franchisee may be required to obtain only motor fuels with 
respect to which the franchisor, or the refiner that supplies the 
franchisor, owns or controls a trademark.''.
    (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of contents of the Petroleum 
Marketing Practices Act is amended by adding after the item relating to 
section 106 the following new item:

``Sec. 107. Limitation on conditions.''.
                                 <all>
```
#### § 18b.27 Extension of time or postponement.

Requests for extension of time should be served on all parties and should set forth the reasons for the application. Applications may be granted upon a showing of good cause by the applicant. From the designation of a presiding officer until the issuance of a decision such requests should be addressed to the presiding officer. Answers to such requests are permitted, if made promptly.

[35 FR 10760, July 2, 1970, as amended at 51 FR 10386, Mar. 26, 1986]
###### Editorial Note on Part 3

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 3 appear at 61 FR 7216, Feb. 27, 1996; 62 FR 35970, July 3, 1997; 62 FR 47532, Sept. 9, 1997; and 67 FR 46868, July 17, 2002.

#### §§ 3.1004-3.1006 [Reserved]
###### Editorial Note on Part 1

#### Editorial Notes:

1. In Patent and Trademark Office publications and usage the part number is omitted from the numbers of §§ 1.1 to 1.352 and the numbers to the right of the decimal point correspond with the respective rule numbers.

2. For nomenclature changes to part 1, see 68 FR 14335, Mar. 25, 2003; 87 FR 68904, Nov. 17, 2022.

#### § 1.472 Changes in person, name, or address of applicants and inventors.

All requests for a change in person, name or address of applicants and inventor be sent to the United States Receiving Office until the time of issuance of the international search report. Thereafter requests for such changes should be submitted to the International Bureau.

[43 FR 20466, May 11, 1978. Redesignated at 52 FR 20047, May 28, 1987]

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 2 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 6 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 7 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 1 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 3 pertaining to both patents and trademarks is placed in the grouping pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 4 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 5 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.
#### Elie Andrew GRAVES, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.

No. 17375.

United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.

Argued March 27, 1963.

Decided April 18, 1963.

Mr. Robert A. Levetown, Asst. U. S. Atty., argued appellee’s motion for remand. With him on the motion were Messrs. David C. Acheson, U. S. Atty., and Frank Q. Nebeker, Asst. U. S. Atty.

Mr. Llewellyn C. Thomas, Washington, D. C. (appointed by this court), for appellant.

Before Edgerton, Fahy and Burger, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

The appeal is from a conviction of appellant of robbery, defined in 22 D.C. Code § 2901. At trial counsel for the defense requested the court to instruct the jury on the lesser included offense of larceny, which the court declined to do. In this court the United States Attorney commendably agrees that the failure so to instruct was error and moves for remand to the District Court with directions to hold a new trial, citing the intervening decision of this court in Young v. United States, 114 U.S.App.D.C. 42, 309 F.2d 662 (1963), and referring also to our intervening decision in Hunt v. United States, 115 U.S.App.D.C.-, 316 F.2d 652 (1963). Able counsel for appellant appointed by this court suggests that the remand should be for trial only of larceny; but we do not adopt this suggestion because in our view the evidence was sufficient to raise a jury issue as to robbery.

The motion of the United States is granted, the judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the District Court for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

It is so ordered.

BURGER, Circuit Judge

(dissenting).

Careful examination of the record satisfies me that there was no evidence in*266troduced on larceny which would permit, let alone require, an instruction on that lesser included oífense. I agree with the District Judge’s view of the evidence, that the jury was compelled either to find appellant guilty of robbery or to acquit him. Unless the evidence in a new trial varies from the record now before us the situation will be the same, as I see it. It should be noted that when counsel for the defense requested the larceny instruction and the District Judge asked what evidence in the case required the instruction, defense counsel did not point to any such evidence and did not object to the instruction as ultimately given.

The jury verdict of guilty on the robbery count is amply supported by the evidence. I would deny the government’s motion to remand and affirm the judgment of the District Court.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, 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.

 December 23, 2015

s1216

Order 

Clerk

December 23, 2015

150741

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 150741

COA: 323336

Saginaw CC: 2000-018443-FH

DEDRICK LAMAR THOMAS, Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 7, 2014 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                             FEB-29-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                  NOV-30-1996
<CASH>                                            173,380
<SECURITIES>                                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      13,242
<ALLOWANCES>                                            0
<INVENTORY>                                       128,970
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  323,821
<PP&E>                                             15,163
<DEPRECIATION>                                          0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    455,308
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              49,748
<BONDS>                                           324,784
<COMMON>                                          361,298
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                   0
<PREFERRED>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                       (280,522)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      455,308
<SALES>                                            25,133
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   25,133
<CGS>                                              (9,022)   
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      (9,022)   
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  491,280
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 17,910
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (477,716)
<INCOME-TAX>                                            0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (477,716)
<DISCONTINUED>                                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                         0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (477,716)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                       (.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       (.05)
<CHANGES>                                               0
        

</TABLE>
T he H on orabl e R ay m on d J. D eari e, S eni or Judg e, U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ct * C ourtf orthe E a s t e rn D i s tr i c tof N e w Y ork, s i tt i ng byde s i gna t i on. NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T B AR B AR A A . S T UA R T R OB I NS ON ,

P la in tif f - A p p e llan t, v . GREE N RI VER C OM M UN I TY COLL EGE, D e f

e n d an t - A p p e lle e . N o. 10- 36005 D. C . No . 2 : 1 0 - c v - 0 0 1 1 2 - MAT

ORDER

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe W e s t e rn D i s tr i c tof W a s hi ngt on M aryA . T he i l e r , M a gi s tr a t e Judge , P r e s i di ng A r gue d and S ubm i tt e d N ove m be r6, 2012

S e a tt l e , W a s hi ngt on B ef ore: W . F L E T C H E R and F IS H E R , C i rc ui tJudg es , and D E A R IE , D i stri ct Judg e. * T he part i es ’ st i pu l at ed m ot i on t o v ol un t ar i l y di sm i ss thi s c as e, fi l ed N o v em b er 3 0 , 2 0 1 2 , i s G R A N TED . T he pa rt i e s s ha l l be arthe i row n c os t s a nd f e e s o n ap p e a l. A c o p yo f th is o r d e rs h a ll c o n s titu te th e m an d a te o f th is C o u rt. 

# FI LED DE C 20 2012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
---

EXHIBIT 32.2

Certification Pursuant to18 U.S.C. Section 1350,As Adopted Pursuant
toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Silverado Gold Mines
Ltd. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending May 31, 2006, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Garry L. Anselmo, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify to the best
of my knowledge, 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) of the Securities and 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/ Garry L. AnselmoGarry
L. AnselmoPrincipal Accounting Officer

July 14, 2006

24

---
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2515 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

  2d Session
                                H. R. 2515

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

               April 1 (legislative day, March 13), 2008

   Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and 
                           Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To authorize appropriations for the Bureau of Reclamation to carry out 
  the Lower Colorado River Multi-Species Conservation Program in the 
   States of Arizona, California, and Nevada, 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 ``Lower Colorado River Multi-Species 
Conservation Program Act''.

SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

    In this Act:
            (1) Lower colorado river multi-species conservation 
        program.--The term ``Lower Colorado River Multi-Species 
        Conservation Program'' or ``LCR MSCP'' means the cooperative 
        effort on the Lower Colorado River between Federal and non-
        Federal entities in Arizona, California, and Nevada approved by 
        the Secretary of the Interior on April 2, 2005.
            (2) Lower colorado river.--The term ``Lower Colorado 
        River'' means the Colorado River from Lake Mead to the 
        Southerly International Boundary with Mexico, including its 
        historic floodplain and its mainstem reservoirs to their full 
        pool elevations.
            (3) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
        of the Interior.
            (4) States.--The term ``States'' means each of the States 
        of Arizona, California, and Nevada.

SEC. 3. IMPLEMENTATION AND WATER ACCOUNTING.

    (a) In General.--The Secretary is authorized to participate in the 
Lower Colorado River Multi-Species Conservation Program.
    (b) Water Accounting.--The Secretary is authorized to enter into an 
agreement with the States providing for the use of water from the Lower 
Colorado River for habitat creation and maintenance.

SEC. 4. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

    (a) In General.--There is authorized to be appropriated to the 
Secretary such sums as may be necessary to participate in the Lower 
Colorado River Multi-Species Conservation Program, to remain available 
until expended.
    (b) Nonreimbursable and Nonreturnable.--All amounts appropriated to 
and expended by the Secretary for the LCR MSCP shall be nonreimbursable 
and nonreturnable.

            Passed the House of Representatives March 31, 2008.

            Attest:

                                            LORRAINE C. MILLER,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
#### Catherine Cunningham, Respondent, *v.*The Dry Dock, East Broadway & Battery R. R. Co., Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term,

May, 1900.)

Negligence — Erroneous charge as to liability to passenger injured while alighting from a street car, it being In dispulte whether the car had stopped.

Where the plaintiff alleges that she was injured because the defendant’s street car, after stopping, started suddenly while she was alighting, and the defendant alleges that she was injured by attempting to alight before the car stopped, it is erroneous for the court to refuse to charge that, if she alighted while the car was in motion, the defendant would not be liable.

Cunningham v. Dry Dock, 33. B. & B. It. K-. Co., 29 Mise. Rep. 772, reversed.

Appeal from an order and judgment of the General Term of the City Court of the city of Hew York, affirming a judgment of the City Court, entered upon a verdict of a jury.

*472Hoadly, Lauterbach *&*Johnson (Eugene Treadwell and Henry Siegrist, Jr., of counsel), for appellant.

A. *&*O. Steckler, for respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

The plaintiff alleged in her complaint, and on the trial offered evidence tending to show, that, as she was about to alight from one of the defendant’s cars, which had been stopped for the purpose of permitting the plaintiff to alight therefrom, said ear was suddenly started again through the negligence of the defendant, and plaintiff was thrown to the ground and received injuries. The testimony on the part of the defendant tended to show that the plaintiff received her injuries while attempting to get off the car while it was still in motion; that is to say, the defendant’s testimony contradicted that of the plaintiff. Under these circumstances it was error for the court to refuse to charge that, if the plaintiff stepped off the car while the same was in motion, the verdict of the jury should be for the defendant. Patterson v. Westchester El. R. Co., 26 App. Div. 336; Kuhlman v. Met. St. R. Co., 30 Misc. Rep. 417. Also see Savage v. Third Ave. R. R. Co., 29 App. Div. 556; Kelly v. Same, 25 id. 603, and Anderson v. Same, 36 id. 309.

The judgment and order appealed from are reversed with costs, and a new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event.

Present: Tbuax, P. J., Scott and Dtjgbo, JJ.

Judgment and order reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide event.
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 IR BioSciences  Holdings,  Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the three months ended June 30, 2005 as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
Michael Wilhelm, 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/ MICHAEL K. WILHELM
     ----------------------
     Chief Executive Officer
     August 12, 2005

A signed  original of this written  statement  required by Section 906, an 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 Company and will be retained by
the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.
I am addressing the Oil and Natural Gas Sector Leaks whitepaper.

The paper should emphasize that some equipment, such as condensate tanks, that are not 

designed to hold liquids and gasses under pressure cannot be made to stop leaking with simple 

fixes. Condensate tanks that hold liquids with dissolved gasses that flash when the pressure is 

lowered from the well pressure to the tank pressure are designed to vent these gasses to the 

atmosphere. The only way to stop this is to use multi-stage separators so that flashing occurs 

during separation, and to rout flash emissions to the gas collection system instead of the tank.

--

Dale Wells

Modeling, Meteorology, and Emission Inventory Unit

Technical Services Program

Air Pollution Control Division

Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment

APCD-TS-B1

4300 Cherry Creek Drive South

Denver, CO 80246-1530

303-692-3237| dale.wells@state.co.us