alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>

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


I,  Stephen  Wittington, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant  to  Section  906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly
Report on Form 10-QSB of Green Fusion Corporation for the quarterly period ended
October 31, 2002  fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the
Quarterly  Report  on  Form  10-QSB fairly presents in all material respects the
financial  condition  and  results  of  operations  of  Green Fusion Corporation


                                     By:      /s/ Stephen Whittington
                                              ----------------------------------

                                     Name:    STEPHEN WHITTINGTON

                                     Title:   Chief Executive Officer

                                     Date:    December 16, 2002
EXHIBIT 32.1

CONTANGO OIL & GAS COMPANY

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 Contango Oil & Gas Company (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending December 31, 2007 (the Report), as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Kenneth R. Peak, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
to the best of my knowledge, that:



| | 1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dated: February 11, 2008



|                   
|-------------------
|                   
|                   
|/s/ KENNETH R. PEAK
|Kenneth R. Peak    

Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
ALBECCA, INC. CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE YEAR ENDED AUGUST 29,
1999 AND THE CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AS OF AUGUST 29, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          AUG-29-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               AUG-29-1999
<CASH>                                          35,058
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   52,488
<ALLOWANCES>                                     5,190
<INVENTORY>                                     67,620
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               155,033
<PP&E>                                          78,397
<DEPRECIATION>                                  24,912
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 266,558
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           79,343
<BONDS>                                        188,750
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           170
<OTHER-SE>                                     (34,103)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   266,558
<SALES>                                        384,183
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               384,183
<CGS>                                          220,565
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  358,217
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 5,627
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              26,163
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (3,888)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,204
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             24,475
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  1,331
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (4,761)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4257 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4257

  To repeal the temporary exemption to the certification requirement 
   under section 5323 of title 49, United States Code, for contracts 
between public transportation agencies and rolling stock manufacturers.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 21, 2020

  Ms. McSally introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
    referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To repeal the temporary exemption to the certification requirement 
   under section 5323 of title 49, United States Code, for contracts 
between public transportation agencies and rolling stock manufacturers.

    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 ``Secure Our Transit Systems from 
Chinese Interference Act''.

SEC. 2. LIMITATION ON CERTAIN ROLLING STOCK PROCUREMENTS.

    Section 5323(u)(5) of title 49, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) by striking ``(A) Parties to executed contracts.--''; 
        and
            (2) by striking subparagraphs (B) and (C).
                                 <all>
```
Order entered Decem ber 4 , 2014

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas** No. 05 - 14 - 00770 - CR No. 05 - 14 - 00771 - CR STEVEN DWAYNE FERREL L, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 5 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No s . F12 - 72590 - L , F14 - 54495 - L 

### O RDER The Court REINSTATE S the appeals. On October 29, 2014, we ordered the trial court to make findings regarding why the clerk’s and reporter’s record s have not been filed. On November 24, 2014, appellant filed motions to dismiss the appeals. Therefore, we conclude findings are no longer necessary and VACATE the October 29, 2014 order requiring findings. The motions to dismiss will be disposed of in due course.

/s/ ADA BROWN JUSTICE
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-6798

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

CARLOS VANCE REID,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, District

Judge. (2:99-cr-00460-PMD; 2:06-cv-00202-PMD)

Submitted: August 24, 2006 Decided: August 31, 2006

Before KING, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Carlos Vance Reid, Appellant Pro Se. Brent Alan Gray, OFFICE OF

THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, South Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Carlos Vance Reid seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. 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 any

assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is

debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by

the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell,

537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484

(2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Reid has not

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Reid’s motion for

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
§ 29.801 Ditching. ( a ) If certification with ditching provisions is requested, the rotorcraft must meet the requirements of this section and §§ 29.807(d), 29.1411 and 29.1415.
( b ) Each practicable design measure, compatible with the general characteristics of the rotorcraft, must be taken to minimize the probability that in an emergency landing on water, the behavior of the rotorcraft would cause immediate injury to the occupants or would make it impossible for them to escape.
( c ) The probable behavior of the rotorcraft in a water landing must be investigated by model tests or by comparison with rotorcraft of similar configuration for which the ditching characteristics are known. Scoops, flaps, projections, and any other factors likely to affect the hydrodynamic characteristics of the rotorcraft must be considered.
( d ) It must be shown that, under reasonably probable water conditions, the flotation time and trim of the rotorcraft will allow the occupants to leave the rotorcraft and enter the liferafts required by § 29.1415. If compliance with this provision is shown by bouyancy and trim computations, appropriate allowances must be made for probable structural damage and leakage. If the rotorcraft has fuel tanks (with fuel jettisoning provisions) that can reasonably be expected to withstand a ditching without leakage, the jettisonable volume of fuel may be considered as bouyancy volume.
( e ) Unless the effects of the collapse of external doors and windows are accounted for in the investigation of the probable behavior of the rotorcraft in a water landing (as prescribed in paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section), the external doors and windows must be designed to withstand the probable maximum local pressures.
[Amdt. 29-12, 41 FR 55472, Dec. 20, 1976]
§ 145.213 Inspection of maintenance, preventive maintenance, or alterations. ( a ) A certificated repair station must inspect each article upon which it has performed maintenance, preventive maintenance, or alterations as described in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section before approving that article for return to service.
( b ) A certificated repair station must certify on an article's maintenance release that the article is airworthy with respect to the maintenance, preventive maintenance, or alterations performed after— ( 1 ) The repair station performs work on the article; and
( 2 ) An inspector inspects the article on which the repair station has performed work and determines it to be airworthy with respect to the work performed.
( c ) For the purposes of paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, an inspector must meet the requirements of § 145.155.
( d ) Except for individuals employed by a repair station located outside the United States, only an employee appropriately certificated as a mechanic or repairman under part 65 is authorized to sign off on final inspections and maintenance releases for the repair station.
[Doc. No. FAA-1999-5836, 66 FR 41117, Aug. 6, 2001, as amended by Amdt. 145-30, 79 FR 46985, Aug. 12, 2014]
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-1556

MOHAMED OSMAN,

Petitioner,

versus

JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration

Appeals. (A78-617-055)

Submitted: December 13, 2004 Decided: January 6, 2005

Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ivan Yacub, LAW OFFICE OF IVAN YACUB, Falls Church, Virginia, for

Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General,

Douglas E. Ginsburg, Senior Litigation Counsel, Jonathan F. Potter,

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for

Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Mohamed Osman, a native and citizen of Somalia, petitions

for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board).

The Board order affirmed without opinion the results of the

immigration judge’s decision. We deny the petition for review. 

Osman concedes that his asylum application was untimely,

with no showing of changed or extraordinary circumstances excusing

the late filing. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B), (D) (2000); 8

C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(4), (5) (2004). In any case, we lack

jurisdiction to review the immigration judge’s finding that Osman’s

asylum application was untimely filed pursuant to 8 U.S.C.

§ 1158(a)(3). See Zaidi v. Ashcroft, 377 F.3d 678, 680-81 (7th

Cir. 2004) (collecting cases). Osman’s claim that this Court can

review the timeliness ruling as a habeas corpus claim, 28 U.S.C.

§ 2241 (2000), lacks merit, as Osman has not applied for habeas

corpus relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 2242 (2000). Further, this court

does not have jurisdiction to entertain a § 2241 application.

Dragenice v. Ridge, 389 F.3d 92, 100 (4th Cir. 2004) (holding

§ 2241 does not confer authority on the court of appeals to

entertain a habeas petition). Therefore, we lack jurisdiction to

review the merits of Osman’s asylum claim.

We do, however, retain jurisdiction to consider the

denial of Osman’s request for withholding of removal. See 8 C.F.R.

§ 1208.4(a) (2004). To be eligible for withholding of removal
- 3 -

under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A) (2000), an alien must show that it

is more likely than not that, if he is removed to his native

country, his life or freedom would be threatened. Camara v.

Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 361, 370 (4th Cir. 2004). Based on our review

of the record, we find substantial evidence to support the

immigration judge’s finding that Osman has failed to meet this

standard.

Accordingly, we deny Osman’s petition for review. 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
EXECUTORS AND ADMINISTRATORS.

[Hamilton Circuit Court.]

Cox, Smith and Swing, JJ.

#### Gausen et al. v. Moormann.

Administrators ¡of Assignee of Leasehold not Personally Liable for Rents.

The administrator of the assignee of a perpetual leasehold is not personally liable to the owners of the fee for payment of the rents and taxes covenanted in the lease.

Error to the Court of Common Please of Hamilton county.

*397
      *M. F. Galvin*and *E. P.*Bradstreet, for plaintiffs in error.

*Wm. L. Avery*and *F. J.*Moormann, *contra.*

Smith, J.

The plaintiffs in error are the owners of the fee to the property-known as the Germania Hotel, which is under a perpetual lease containing covenants to pay rents and taxes, binding upon the lessee, his heirs, executors, administrators and assigns. This lease was assigned to one Wm. Pape, who carried on the hotel business until his death, when he was succeeded in the business by his widow, as administratrix', and subsequently under authority'of the Probate Court by F. J. Moormann, the present defendant, as administrator *de bonus*non, who carried on the hotel business for a period of seven months, during which time rents accrued to the amount of $1,225 and $305 taxes. Suit was brought by the owners of the fee against Moormann as administrator *de bomis*non, and Moormann individually, the election being subsequently made to proceed against Moormann individually.

The question thus presented was as to the individual liability of the administrator of a deceased assignee of a perpetual leasehold containing covenants to pay rents and taxes.

Judge Hollister’s holding, was that there was no personal liability on the part of the defendant to the plaintiffs. This, for the reason that the estate, divested by the statute of its chattel qualities, was no louger an asset in the hands of the administrator. The title was in the heir of the deceased, William Pape, subject to the dower rights of his widow, and from the heir the administrator could not take it except for the sole purpose of selling it in the manner prescribed by law to pay the decedent’s debts; and he could take the title for this purpose, not as one having any interest in it, but as a convenient instrument or conduit by whom and through whom the title could be passed from the heir to the purchaser. In this view of the matter the liability to the plaintiffs for rent and taxes attaches to the dowress and the heir as assignees of the lease by operation oflaw;andfor rents collected by the defendant from portions of the property not used for hotel purposes, he is liable to the heir and dowress, as their agent, or if such agency is disaffirmed by the minor, then as their tenant.

We think that the finding made in this case by Judge Hollister on the facts and the law was correct, and on the ground stated in his opinion submitted to us the judgment will be affirmed. .
###### Editorial Note on Part 294

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 294 appear at 84 FR 15934, Apr. 16, 2019.

#### § 294.1 Applicability and purpose.

This part establishes a classification of foreign air carriers known as “Canadian charter air taxi operators,” and establishes registration procedures for these carriers operating or seeking to operate transborder services between Canada and the United States. This part also exempts Canadian charter air taxi operators from certain provisions of the Subtitle VII of Title 49 of the United States Code (Transportation), and establishes rules applicable to their operations in the United States. This part does not provide exemption from the safety regulatory provisions of 49 U.S.C. Subtitle VII that are administered by the U.S. Department of Transportation through the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), and Canadian charter air taxi operators in the conduct of their operations must observe all applicable safety standards and requirements.

[ER-1257, 46 FR 52591, Oct. 27, 1981, as amended at 60 FR 43526, Aug. 22, 1995]
**Exhibit 32(a)****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 Delphi Corporation(the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period endedSeptember 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the“Report”), I, J. T. Battenberg III, ChiefExecutive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to18 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 ofsection 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents,in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company.       June 30, 2005     /s/ J. T.    Battenberg III             J. T. Battenberg III
#### In the Matter of the Probate of the Will of Christian Carstens, Deceased. Harriet McDermott et al., Appellants; Martha Brauner, Respondent.

(Submitted September 28, 1936;

decided September 30, 1936.)

*Harry Lesser*for motion.

*David M. Neuberger*opposed.

Motion denied, with ten dollars costs.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4330 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4330

  To provide for the collection of death information from States for 
     purposes of the Do Not Pay Initiative, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 27, 2020

  Mr. Kennedy introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To provide for the collection of death information from States for 
     purposes of the Do Not Pay Initiative, 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. COLLECTION OF DEATH INFORMATION FROM STATES.

    Not later than January 1, 2023, the head of the agency operating 
the Do Not Pay working system described in section 3354(c) of title 31, 
United States Code, shall establish a program under which--
            (1) States (or political subdivisions thereof) voluntarily 
        contract with the head of such agency to furnish such agency 
        head periodically with information (in a form established by 
        such agency head in consultation with the States) concerning 
        individuals with respect to whom death certificates (or 
        equivalent documents maintained by the States or subdivisions) 
        have been officially filed with them;
            (2) such information, and access for its use, shall be 
        included through the Do Not Pay Initiative under such section; 
        and
            (3) each State (or political subdivision thereof) which 
        furnishes the head of such agency with such information may be 
        paid by such agency head from amounts available for 
        administration of this Act the reasonable costs (established by 
        such agency head in consultations with the States) for 
        transcribing and transmitting such information to such agency 
        head.
                                 <all>
```