alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit
      32.1




CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO 8 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 Element 21 Golf Company (formerly BRL
      Holdings, Inc.) (the "Registrant") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended December
      31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
      hereof, we, Nataliya Hearn, Ph.D., President and Chief Executive Officer, and
      John Grippo, Chief Financial Officer of the Registrant, certify, pursuant to
      18
      U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act of 2002, that, to the best of our knowledge and belief:





(1)
      The Quarterly 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 Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all
      material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
      Registrant.




Date:
                February 14, 2008
            
            By:  /s/
                Nataliya Hearn, Ph.D.President
                and DirectorDate:
                February 14, 2008
            
            By:  /s/
                John GrippoChief
                Financial Officer
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:3247 Filed:06/05/18 Entered:06/05/18 09:47:43 Desc: Main

Document Page 1 of 3
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:3247 Filed:06/05/18 Entered:06/05/18 09:47:43 Desc: Main

Document Page 2 of 3
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:3247 Filed:06/05/18 Entered:06/05/18 09:47:43 Desc: Main

Document Page 3 of 3
## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 03-3926

___________ Barker Sanitation, an Iowa * Corporation, * * Plaintiff-Appellant, * * v. * * Appeal from the United States City of Nebraska City, Nebraska, * District Court for the District * of Nebraska. Defendant-Appellee, * * [UNPUBLISHED] v. * * Waste Connections of Nebraska, Inc., * * Intervenor Defendant- * Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: June 17, 2004 Filed: June 25, 2004

___________ Before MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, FAGG, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Following an open request for proposals in which three out-of-state solid waste disposal entities submitted bids, the City of Nebraska City adopted an ordinance granting Waste Connections of Nebraska, Inc. an exclusive franchise to collect the* The Honorable Richard G. Kopf, United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska. -2- solid waste within the City’s limits. In conjunction with the ordinance, the City entered into a franchise agreement with Waste Connections. Later, Barker Sanitation, an Iowa corporation engaged in the business of refuse collection services, began serving waste collection customers in the City in violation of the ordinance. The City issued a cease and desist letter to Barker Sanitation, and Barker Sanitation appealed to the City Council, which decided to enforce the ordinance. In response, Barker Sanitation brought this civil rights action against the City asserting its adoption of the ordinance granting the exclusive franchise to Waste Connections violated the dormant Commerce Clause. Following a bench trial, the district court * held the City ordinance did not violate the dormant Commerce Clause. To prevail on its dormant Commerce Clause claim, Barker Sanitation had the burden to show that the ordinance discriminates against interstate commerce on its face or in its purpose or effects, or that the burden the ordinance imposes on interstate commerce is clearly excessive in relation to the asserted local benefits. South Dakota Farm Bureau, Inc. v. Hazeltine , 340 F.3d 583, 593 (8 thCir. 2003). The district court held the ordinance did not discriminate against out-of-state interests on its face, in effect, or in its purpose, and the numerous local benefits achieved were not outweighed by the incidental burdens on interstate commerce. On appeal, Barker Sanitation contends the ordinance discriminates against interstate commerce through its purpose of economic protectionism and through its effect of preventing out-of-state companies from being able to compete for the processing of solid waste in the City. Barker Sanitation also asserts the district court erroneously found the ordinance had numerous local benefits that only incidentally burdened interstate commerce. Having carefully reviewed Barker Sanitation’s arguments, the record, and the applicable law, we conclude the district court properly-3- analyzed the case. Because we have nothing to add to the district court’s analysis, we affirm without extended discussion. See 8 th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________
###### Editorial Note on Part 21

#### Editorial Notes:

1. For miscellaneous amendments to cross references in this 21 see Amdt. 21-10, 31 FR 9211, July 6, 1966.

2. Nomenclature changes to part 21 appear at 74 FR 53384, Oct. 16, 2009.

#### § 21.614 Transferability.

The holder of a TSO authorization or letter of TSO design approval may not transfer the TSO authorization or letter of TSO design approval.
##### 



Exhibit 21
 SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT




---



##### 



SUBSIDIARIES
 MIDLAND CAPITAL HOLDINGS CORPORATION
 Parent
    
    Subsidiary
    
    Ownership
    
    OrganizationMidland Capital Holdings Corporation
    
    Midland Federal Savings
and Loan Association
    
    
    100
    %
    
    FederalMidland Federal Savings and Loan
Association
    
    Midland FederalService
Corporation
    
    
    100
    %
    
    IllinoisMidland Federal Service Corporation
    
    Midland Insurance
Services, Inc.
    
    
    100
    %
    
    IllinoisMidland Federal Service Corporation
    
    Bridgeview
Development
Company, Inc.
    
    
    100
    %
    
    Illinois
§ 27.1419 Ice protection. ( a ) To obtain certification for flight into icing conditions, compliance with this section must be shown.
( b ) It must be demonstrated that the rotorcraft can be safely operated in the continuous maximum and intermittent maximum icing conditions determined under appendix C of Part 29 of this chapter within the rotorcraft altitude envelope. An analysis must be performed to establish, on the basis of the rotorcraft's operational needs, the adequacy of the ice protection system for the various components of the rotorcraft.
( c ) In addition to the analysis and physical evaluation prescribed in paragraph (b) of this section, the effectiveness of the ice protection system and its components must be shown by flight tests of the rotorcraft or its components in measured natural atmospheric icing conditions and by one or more of the following tests as found necessary to determine the adequacy of the ice protection system: ( 1 ) Laboratory dry air or simulated icing tests, or a combination of both, of the components or models of the components.
( 2 ) Flight dry air tests of the ice protection system as a whole, or its individual components.
( 3 ) Flight tests of the rotorcraft or its components in measured simulated icing conditions.
( d ) The ice protection provisions of this section are considered to be applicable primarily to the airframe. Powerplant installation requirements are contained in Subpart E of this part.
( e ) A means must be indentified or provided for determining the formation of ice on critical parts of the rotorcraft. Unless otherwise restricted, the means must be available for nighttime as well as daytime operation. The rotorcraft flight manual must describe the means of determining ice formation and must contain information necessary for safe operation of the rotorcraft in icing conditions.
[Amdt. 27-19, 48 FR 4389, Jan. 31, 1983]
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 Quartely Report of UltraStrip Systems, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I Dennis McGuire, 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 to my knowledge:



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/ DENNISMCGUIRE                                                    
| |  | Dennis McGuire,
Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)



Date:  May 15, 2006



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### § 1221.111 Use of the NASA Logotype.

The NASA Logotype which was retired from 1992-2020 can be used only in an authentic historical context, on merchandise in accordance with § 1221.110, paragraph (c), in the NASA graphics standards/style guide or with prior written approval of the NASA Administrator.

[85 FR 71831, Nov. 12, 2020]
Editorial Note on Part 21
Editorial Notes: 1. For miscellaneous amendments to cross references in this 21 see Amdt. 21-10, 31 FR 9211, July 6, 1966. 2. Nomenclature changes to part 21 appear at 74 FR 53384, Oct. 16, 2009.

§ 21.71 Applicability. This subpart prescribes— ( a ) Procedural requirements for the issue of provisional type certificates, amendments to provisional type certificates, and provisional amendments to type certificates; and
( b ) Rules governing the holders of those certificates.
# C_2008146EN.01S00301.xml

| 12.6.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 146/s3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.6.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 146/s3

---

NOTICE

NOTICE

On 12 June 2008, in Official Journal of the European Union C 146 A, the ‘Common catalogue of varieties of agricultural plant species — Fifth supplement to the 26th complete edition’ will be published.

Official Journal of the European Union

Subscribers to the Official Journal may obtain free of charge the same number of copies and language versions of this Official Journal as those to which they subscribe. They are requested to return the attached order form, duly completed and bearing their subscription registration number (code appearing on the left of each label and beginning with: O/...). This Official Journal will remain available free of charge for one year from the date of its publication.

Non-subscribers can order this Official Journal against payment from one of our sales offices (see: http://publications.europa.eu/others/agents/index_en.htm).

This Official Journal — like all Official Journals (L, C, CA, CE) — can be consulted free of charge online at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu.

Image

---
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-10-00069-CV

The State of Texas, Appellant

v.

7KX Investments, Appellee

FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 1 OF BELL COUNTY

NO. 50,896, HONORABLE EDWARD S. JOHNSON, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

The parties have filed a joint motion to dismiss appeal. They represent that they have

reached an agreement to settle this matter and request that we set aside the trial court’s judgment

without regard to the merits and remand the case to the trial court for rendition of judgment in

accordance with the parties’ agreement. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(2)(B). We grant the motion,

set aside the trial court’s judgment without regard to the merits, and remand this cause to the trial

court for rendition of judgment in accordance with the parties’ agreement.
__________________________________________

Melissa Goodwin, Justice

Before Chief Justice Jones, Justices Henson and Goodwin

Vacated and Remanded on Joint Motion

Filed: May 3, 2011

2
§ 27.2 Special retroactive requirements. ( a ) For each rotorcraft manufactured after September 16, 1992, each applicant must show that each occupant's seat is equipped with a safety belt and shoulder harness that meets the requirements of paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) of this section. ( 1 ) Each occupant's seat must have a combined safety belt and shoulder harness with a single-point release. Each pilot's combined safety belt and shoulder harness must allow each pilot, when seated with safety belt and shoulder harness fastened, to perform all functions necessary for flight operations. There must be a means to secure belts and harnesses, when not in use, to prevent interference with the operation of the rotorcraft and with rapid egress in an emergency.
( 2 ) Each occupant must be protected from serious head injury by a safety belt plus a shoulder harness that will prevent the head from contacting any injurious object.
( 3 ) The safety belt and shoulder harness must meet the static and dynamic strength requirements, if applicable, specified by the rotorcraft type certification basis.
( 4 ) For purposes of this section, the date of manufacture is either— ( i ) The date the inspection acceptance records, or equivalent, reflect that the rotorcraft is complete and meets the FAA-Approved Type Design Data; or
( ii ) The date the foreign civil airworthiness authority certifies that the rotorcraft is complete and issues an original standard airworthiness certificate, or equivalent, in that country.
( b ) For rotorcraft with a certification basis established prior to October 18, 1999— ( 1 ) The maximum passenger seat capacity may be increased to eight or nine provided the applicant shows compliance with all the airworthiness requirements of this part in effect on October 18, 1999.
( 2 ) The maximum weight may be increased to greater than 6,000 pounds provided— ( i ) The number of passenger seats is not increased above the maximum number certificated on October 18, 1999, or
( ii ) The applicant shows compliance with all of the airworthiness requirements of this part in effect on October 18, 1999.
[Doc. No. 26078, 56 FR 41051, Aug. 16, 1991, as amended by Amdt. 27-37, 64 FR 45094, Aug. 18, 1999]
EXHIBIT C 

COMPENSATION BY PROJECT CATEGORY 

Matter 

Total 

Billed 

Hours 

Total Fees 

ADV. 17-155, 17-156, 17-159 – ASSURED; AMBAC 14.50 $5,437.50

ADV. 17-213 – ERS v. ALTAIR 70.00 $21,162.50

ADV. 17-228, 17-229 – UTIER 3.50 $1,250.00

ADV. 17-257 – UCC v. WHYTE 88.90 $27,342.50

CASE ADMINISTRATION/MISCELLANEOUS 72.80 $19,052.50

CHALLENGES TO PROMESA .30 $112.50

CLAIMS ISSUES .30 $112.50

COMMITTEE GOVERNANCE AND MEETINGS 219.70 $66,387.50

COMMUNICATIONS WITH RETIREES 103.20 $30,800.00

COURT HEARINGS 10.80 $4,050.00

EMPLOYMENT OF PROFESSIONALS/FEE APPLICATIONS 5.50 $1,537.50

ERS BONDS ISSUES 17.90 $3,722.50

FISCAL PLAN/PLAN OF ADJUSTMENT 74.90 $26,582.50

GO BONDS ISSUES 23.40 $4,725.00

CONTESTED MATTERS-GO/COFINA 9.20 $3,400.00

MEDIATION 227.20 $74,545.00

PENSION ANALYSIS 96.10 $29,617.50

RULE 2004 INVESTIGATION 7.60 $2,850.00

PREPA 13.60 $4,512.50

NON-WORKING TRAVEL TIME (50% hourly rate) 155.20 $25,381.25

Total 1,214.60 $352,581.25 

 

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:3539-3 Filed:07/16/18 Entered:07/16/18 16:03:19 Desc:

Exhibit C Page 1 of 1
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

In connection with the Annual Report of Graham Packaging Holdings Company on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Mark S. Burgess, 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 results of operations of Graham Packaging Holdings Company. |
|--------|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

Date: April 2, 2007

 

 

| By:    | /s/ Mark S. Burgess     |   |
|--------|-------------------------|--------|
|   | Mark S. Burgess         |   |
|   | Chief Financial Officer |   |

 

 

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
EXHIBIT A

Schedule of Claims Subject to the Five Hundred Fifty-Eighth Omnibus Objection 

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:24101-1 Filed:05/02/23 Entered:05/02/23 11:27:54 Desc:

Exhibit A - Schedule of Claims Subject to the Five Hundred Fifty-Eighth Omnibus Page 1 of 2
NAME

FIVE HUNDRED FIFTY EIGHTH OMNIBUS OBJECTION

Exhibit A – Duplicate Liabilities

CLAIM # CLAIM AMOUNT

CASE NUMBER/

 DEBTOR

DATE 

FILED

CLAIMS TO BE DISALLOWED REMAINING CLAIMS

NAME CLAIM # CLAIM AMOUNT

CASE NUMBER/

 DEBTOR

DATE 

FILED

BANKRUPTCY ESTATE OF PMC 

MARKETING CORP. BANK. 

CASE NO. 09-02048

NOREEN WISCOVITCHRENTAS, CHAPTER 7 TRUSTEE

PMB 136 400 CALLE JUAN 

CALAF

SAN JUAN, PR 00918

1 PUERTO RICO 10198

ELECTRIC 

POWER 

AUTHORITY

5/2/2018

17-03283

$1,154,734.06 PMC MARKETING CORP.

ATTN: RAFAEL A. GONZALEZ 

VALIENTE

GODREAU & GONZALEZ LAW

P.O. BOX 9024176

SAN JUAN, PR 00902-4176

PUERTO RICO 166452

ELECTRIC 

POWER 

AUTHORITY

5/24/2018 $1,154,734.06

17-03283

Reason: Proof of Claim asserts liabilities which are duplicative of another filed Proof of Claim.

BLUE BEETLE III, LLC C/O 

ELAM LLC

C/O ISMAEL H. HERRERO III, 

ESQ.

P.O. BOX 362159

SAN JUAN, PR 00936

2 PUERTO RICO 180510

ELECTRIC 

POWER 

AUTHORITY

8/31/2022

17-03283

$160,121,820.08 BLUUE BEETLE III, LLC C/O 

ELAM LLC

C/O ISMAEL H. HERRERO III, 

ESQ.

P.O. BOX 362159

SAN JUAN, PR 00936

PUERTO RICO 180509

ELECTRIC 

POWER 

AUTHORITY

8/31/2022 $160,121,820.08

17-03283

Reason: Proof of Claim asserts liabilities which are duplicative of another filed Proof of Claim.

RODRIGUEZ LABOY, ANDRES

HC-65 BOX 6395

PATILLAS, PR 00723

3 PUERTO RICO 10752

ELECTRIC 

POWER 

AUTHORITY

5/11/2018

17-03283

$10,000.00 LABOY, ANDRES RODRIGUEZ

PO BOX 201

ARROYO, PR 00714

PUERTO RICO 60575

ELECTRIC 

POWER 

AUTHORITY

6/6/2018 $10,000.00

17-03283

Reason: Proof of Claim asserts liabilities which are duplicative of another filed Proof of Claim.

YFN YABUCOA SOLAR LLC

C/O ISMAEL H. HERRERO III, 

ESQ.

P.O. BOX 362159

SAN JUAN, PR 00936

4 PUERTO RICO 179661

ELECTRIC 

POWER 

AUTHORITY

10/20/2021

17-03283

$155,814,657.86 YFN YABUCOA SOLAR LLC

C/O ISMAEL H. HERRERO III, 

ESQ.

P.O. BOX 362159

SAN JUAN, PR 00936

PUERTO RICO 179660

ELECTRIC 

POWER 

AUTHORITY

10/20/2021 $155,814,657.86

17-03283

Reason: Proof of Claim asserts liabilities which are duplicative of another filed Proof of Claim.

Page 1 of 1

* - Indicates claim contains unliquidated and/or undetermined amounts.

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:24101-1 Filed:05/02/23 Entered:05/02/23 11:27:54 Desc:

Exhibit A - Schedule of Claims Subject to the Five Hundred Fifty-Eighth Omnibus Page 2 of 2
#### § 19-8.7 Submission of data.

(a) *Period of coverage by submission.* Reporting carriers must file data for each calendar month as shown in Table 1 to paragraph (a).

Table 1 to Paragraph (a)

| Data report | Time period covered |
| --- | --- |
| January | Jan 1 through Jan 31. |
| February | Feb 1 through Feb 28/29. |
| March | Mar 1 through Mar 31. |
| April | Apr 1 through Apr 30. |
| May | May 1 through May 31. |
| June | Jun 1 through Jun 30. |
| July | Jul 1 through Jul 29. |
| August | Aug 1 through Aug 31. |
| September | Sep 1 through Sep 30. |
| October | Oct 1 through Oct 31. |
| November | Nov 1 through Nov 30. |
| December | Dec 1 through Dec 31. |

(b) *Filing date for data.* Reporting carriers must file data with the Department on or before the dates listed below, 45 days after the end of each reporting period. Reporting carriers must file all data through BTS approved channels as specified in accounting and reporting directives issued by BTS/OAI.

Table 2 to Paragraph (b)

| Report | Due date1 |
| --- | --- |
| January | March 17. |
| February | April 15. |
| March | May 16. |
| April | June 15. |
| May | July 16. |
| June | August 15. |
| July | September 15. |
| August | October 16. |
| September | November 15. |
| October | December 16. |
| November | January 15. |
| December | February 15. |
| | |
| --- | --- |
| 1 Due dates falling on Saturday, Sunday or national holiday will become effective the first following workday. | |

(c) *Waiver requests.* Requests for permission to depart from the required O&D Survey procedures should include a procedural statement describing the process the carrier proposes to employ in examining, selecting, and editing the data from reportable flight coupons for the O&D Survey, as well as a flow chart diagramming the proposed procedures.

(d) *Quantity and quality controls.* Carriers are expected to establish and maintain continuous quantity and quality controls on the flow of all lifted flight coupons through their system processes to determine the total number of coupons handled and the number of reportable coupons selected. Such data controls and tests have not been specified by the Department, and necessarily must be developed by each carrier. Each participating carrier shall develop and use on a continuous basis such control tests as are necessary to ensure that all reportable coupons are being selected, recorded, and reported as intended by these regulations, the *Instructions to Air Carriers for Collecting and Reporting Passenger Origin—Destination Survey Data,* and any related accounting and reporting directives. (Instructions and accounting and reporting directives are available from the Bureau of Transportation Statistics Office of Airline Information. Please visit *<https://www.bts.gov/>* or call 800-853-1351 for more information.) Such controls should extend over all ADP processing, both in-house and that from third-party service providers.
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION

I, Richard A. Hunt, certify that:

1.     I
have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of GB&T Bancshares, Inc.;

2.     Based
on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in
light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.     Based
on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,
results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.     The
registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:



5.     The
registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's
auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



Date:
March 15, 2004

| | /s/ Richard A. HuntRichard A. Hunt, Chief Executive Officer
| | -----------------------------------------------------------

---

QuickLinks