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

                                  EXHIBIT 32.1

                          SECTION 906 CEO CERTIFICATION

                Form of Certification Pursuant to Section 1350 of
                Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code

      I, John E. Elliott, II, the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of
Arcadia Resources, Inc., certify that, to the best of my knowledge, (i) the
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2006 fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and (ii) the information contained in such Form 10-Q fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
Arcadia Resources, Inc.

                                        /s/ John E. Elliott, II
                                        --------------------------------------
                                        Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

Dated: August 10, 2006

      A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to Arcadia Resources, Inc. The statement will be retained by
Arcadia Resources, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
or its staff upon request.
§ 313.2 Policy. ( a ) *General.* It is the policy of DOT to view the conservation of energy and the energy efficiency improvement goals of Chapter 77 of Title 42 as part of DOT's overall mandate, to be considered along with the several public interest and public convenience and necessity factors enumerated in section 40101 of 49 U.S.C. Subtitle VII. To the extent practicable and consistent with DOT's authority under the Statute and other law, energy conservation and efficiency are to be weighed in the decisionmaking process just as are DOT's traditional policies and missions.
( b ) *Implementation.* Implementation of this policy is through the integration of energy findings and conclusions into decisions, opinions, or orders in proceedings involving a major regulatory action, as defined in this part.
( c ) *Proceedings in progress.* The provisions of this part are intended primarily for prospective application. Proceedings in progress on the effective date of this part, in which an application has been docketed but no final decision made public, shall adhere to § 313.6(a) of this part, provided that the fair, efficient, and timely administration of DOT's regulatory activities is not compromised thereby. Nothing herein shall imply a requirement for new or additional hearings, a reopening of the record, or any other procedures which would tend to delay a timely decision in proceedings in progress.
( d ) *Hearings.* Public hearings will not normally be held for the purpose of implementing 42 U.S.C. 6362, particularly in connection with proposed actions which do not require notice and hearing as a prerequisite to decision under the Statute. Hearings may be ordered in exceptional circumstances where the proposed action is of great magnitude or widespread public interest and, in addition, presents complex issues peculiarly subject to resolution through evidentiary hearings and the process of cross-examination.
[Doc. No. 82, 50 FR 2425, Jan. 16, 1985, as amended at 60 FR 43528, 43529, Aug. 22, 1995, as amended by Doc. No. DOT-OST-2014-0140, 84 FR 15938, Apr. 16, 2019]
Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-12-0000744

27-JUL-2015

07:46 AM
Editorial Note on Part 380
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 380 appear at 84 FR 15940, Apr. 16, 2019.

§ 380.12 Cancellation by charter operator and notice to participants. ( a ) The charter operator may not cancel a charter for any reason (including insufficient participation), except for circumstances that make it physically impossible to perform the charter trip, less than 10 days before the scheduled date of departure of the outbound trip.
( b ) If the charter operator cancels 10 or more days before the scheduled date of departure, the operator must so notify each participant in writing within 7 days after the cancellation but in any event not less than 10 days before the scheduled departure date of the outbound trip. If a charter is canceled less than 10 days before scheduled departure (*i.e.*, for circumstances that make it physically impossible to perform the charter trip), the operator must get the message to each participant as soon as possible.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 91 (Wednesday, May 10, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 30104]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-11630]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP96-200-053]


Reliant Energy Gas Transmission Company; Notice of Proposed 
Changes in FERC Gas Tariff

May 4, 2000.
    Take notice that on April 28, 2000, Reliant Energy Gas Transmission 
Company (REGT) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, 
Fifth Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets to be effective 
May 1, 2000.

Second Revised Sheet No. 8C
Fourth Revised Sheet No. 8F

    REGT states that the purpose of this filing is to reflect a change 
to an existing negotiated rate contract and the addition of a new 
negotiated rate contract.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, 
in accordance with Sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's 
Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in 
accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. 
Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the 
appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants 
parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must 
file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public 
Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc. fed.us/online/ rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance).

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-11630 Filed 5-9-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
§ 60.33 Applications, logbooks, reports, and records: Fraud, falsification, or incorrect statements. ( a ) No person may make, or cause to be made, any of the following: ( 1 ) A fraudulent or intentionally false statement in any application or any amendment thereto, or any other report or test result required by this part.
( 2 ) A fraudulent or intentionally false statement in or a known omission from any record or report that is kept, made, or used to show compliance with this part, or to exercise any privileges under this chapter.
( 3 ) Any reproduction or alteration, for fraudulent purpose, of any report, record, or test result required under this part.
( b ) The commission by any person of any act prohibited under paragraph (a) of this section is a basis for any one or any combination of the following: ( 1 ) A civil penalty.
( 2 ) Suspension or revocation of any certificate held by that person that was issued under this chapter.
( 3 ) The removal of FSTD qualification and approval for use in a training program.
( c ) The following may serve as a basis for removal of qualification of an FSTD including the withdrawal of approval for use of an FSTD; or denying an application for a qualification: ( 1 ) An incorrect statement, upon which the FAA relied or could have relied, made in support of an application for a qualification or a request for approval for use.
( 2 ) An incorrect entry, upon which the FAA relied or could have relied, made in any logbook, record, or report that is kept, made, or used to show compliance with any requirement for an FSTD qualification or an approval for use.
**EXHIBIT 21.1**

 

 

**SUBSIDIARIES OF REGISTRANT**

 
|   | **Name of  entity**                                |   |          | **Jurisdiction  of Information** |   |
|--------|----------------------------------------------------|--------|---------------|----------------------------------|--------|
|   | NERC SPE Inc.                                      |   | Delaware      |
|   | NERC Limited Partnership                           | (1)    | Delaware      |
|   | NERC SPE II Inc.                                   |   | Delaware      |
|   | NERC Limited Partnership                           | (2)    | Delaware      |
|   | Bertucci’s, Inc.                              |   | Massachusetts |
|   | Bertucci’s Restaurant  Corp.                  | (3)    | Massachusetts |
|   | Bertucci’s Franchise Corp.                    |   | Delaware      |
|   | Berestco, Inc.                                     | (4)    | Massachusetts |
|   | Sal & Vinnie’s  Sicilian Steakhouse, Inc. | (4)    | Massachusetts |
|   | Bertucci’s of Anne Arundel  County, Inc.      | (4)    | Maryland      |
|   | Bertucci’s of Columbia,  Inc.                 | (4)    | Maryland      |
|   | Bertucci’s of Baltimore  County, Inc.         | (4)    | Maryland      |
|   | Bertucci’s of Bel Air,  Inc.                  | (4)    | Maryland      |
|   | Bertucci’s of White Marsh,  Inc.              | (4)    | Maryland      |
|   | Bertucci’s of Montgomery  County, Inc.        | (4)    | Maryland      |
|   |                                               |   |          |

 

----

| (1) | NERC SPE Inc. is the  general partner of this limited partnership and Registrant is a limited  partner.    |
|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| (2) | NERC SPE II Inc. is the  general partner of this limited partnership and Registrant is a limited  partner. |
| (3) | Subsidiary of Bertucci’s,  Inc.                                                                       |
| (4) | Subsidiary of Bertucci’s  Restaurant Corp.                                                            |

 

----
§ 431.51 General. ( a ) A payload reentry review is conducted to examine the policy and safety issues related to the proposed reentry of a payload, other than a U.S. Government payload or a payload whose reentry is subject to regulation by another Federal agency, to determine whether the FAA will approve reentry of the payload.
( b ) A payload reentry review may be conducted as part of an RLV mission license application review or may be requested by a payload owner or operator in advance of or separate from an RLV mission license application.
( c ) A payload reentry determination will be made part of the licensing record on which the FAA's licensing determination is based.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-6925

ALFRED MILTON RIVERA,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

T. O’BRIEN, Warden,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle

District of North Carolina, at Durham. James A. Beaty, Jr.,

District Judge. (1:06-cv-00211-JAB)

Submitted: October 4, 2006 Decided: October 17, 2006

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Alfred Milton Rivera, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Alfred Milton Rivera seeks to appeal the district court’s

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and

denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. 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 Rivera has not

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny

Rivera’s motion to substitute party, 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
§ 406.3 Submissions; oral presentation in license, permit, and payload actions. ( a ) The FAA will make decisions about license, permit, and payload actions under this subpart based on written submissions unless the administrative law judge requires an oral presentation.
( b ) Submissions must include a detailed exposition of the evidence or arguments supporting the petition. Where an applicant must demonstrate an equivalent level of safety or fidelity, the applicant must make a clear and convincing demonstration.
( c ) Petitions shall be filed as soon as practicable, but in no event more than 30 days after issuance of decision or finding under § 406.1.
[Doc. No. FAA-2001-8607, 66 FR 2180, Jan. 10, 2001, as amended by Amdt. 406-3, 71 FR 50530, Aug. 25, 2006; Amdt. 406-4, 72 FR 17017, Apr. 6, 2007]
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

 

**Consentof Independent Auditors**

 

We consent to theincorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos.333-67085, 333-79269, 333-36680, 333-47026, 333-53332, 333-69036, 333-101759,333-105864) and the Registration Statements on Form S-3 (Nos. 333-81626 and333-85996) of our report dated January 29, 2004, with respect to theconsolidated financial statements of Digital River, Inc. and subsidiariesincluded in this Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2003.

 

Our audits also included the financial statementschedule listed in Item 15 (a)(2).  Thisschedule is the responsibility of the Company’s management.  Our responsibility is to express an opinionbased on our audits.  In our opinion,the financial statement schedule referred to above, when considered in relationto the basic financial statements taken as a whole, presents fairly, in allmaterial respects, the information set forth therein.

 

 
| /s/ Ernst &  Young LLP |   |
|---------------------------------|--------|
|                            |
| Minneapolis,  Minnesota         |
| March  9, 2004                  |

 

----
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Daniel Rodriguez, Appellant.

[699 NYS2d 279]

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Peter Benitez, J.), rendered April 14, 1997, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 3V2 to 7 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s sufficiency claim is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find that the verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence. There was ample evidence, including defendant’s admission that he did not live there, that the apartment from which the gun was recovered was not defendant’s home *(see,*Penal Law § 265.02 [4]). We further find that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence. We see no reason to disturb the jury’s credibility determinations. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Tom, Rubin, Andrias and Buckley, JJ.
#### CHIPPEWA INDIANS OF MINNESOTA v. UNITED STATES

[80 C. Cls. 410; 296 U. S. 576]

Petition for writ of certiorari *denied*by the Supreme Court October 14, 1935.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markm an Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

, 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 December 26, 2012

d1217 

# Order

December 26, 2012

144274(56)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 144274

COA: 298780

Oakland CC: 2010

- 230802

- FH

CHRISTOPHER MICHAEL MEISSNER,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s June 20, 2012

order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was

entered erroneously.

C AVANAGH

, M ARILYN K ELLY

, and H ATHAWAY , J J., would grant reconsideration

and, on reconsideration, would grant leave to appeal.
#### § 437.81 Public safety responsibility.

A permittee must ensure that a launch or reentry conducted under an experimental permit is safe, and must protect public health and safety and the safety of property.
§ 413.15 Review period. ( a ) *Review period duration.* Unless otherwise specified in this chapter, the FAA reviews and makes a license or permit determination on an accepted application in accordance with the time frame specified in 51 U.S.C. 50905(a)(1). The FAA will establish the time frame for any incremental review and determination with an applicant on a case-by-case basis during pre-application consultation.
( b ) *Review period tolled.* If an accepted application does not provide sufficient information to continue or complete the reviews or evaluations required by this chapter for a license, permit, or incremental determination, or an issue exists that would affect a determination, the FAA notifies the applicant, in writing, and informs the applicant of any information required to complete the application. If the FAA cannot review an accepted application because of lack of information or for any other reason, the FAA will toll the review period until the FAA receives the information it needs or the applicant resolves the issue.
( c ) *Notice.* Except for applications under incremental review and determination in accordance with § 450.33, if the FAA does not make a decision in accordance with the time frame specified in 51 U.S.C. 50905(a)(1) for an accepted license application or 51 U.S.C. 50906(a) for an accepted permit application, the FAA informs the applicant, in writing, of any outstanding information needed to complete the review, or of any issues that would affect the decision.
[Doc. No. FAA-2019-0229, Amdt. 413-12, 85 FR 79711, Dec. 10, 2020]
First Amendment to CAH 2007 Nonemployee Directors Equity Incentive Plan



 Exhibit 10.2.1 
 FIRST AMENDMENT TO 
 CARDINAL HEALTH, INC.

 2007 NONEMPLOYEE DIRECTORS EQUITY INCENTIVE PLAN 
 This First Amendment to the Cardinal Health, Inc. 2007 Nonemployee Directors Equity Incentive Plan (the “Plan”), is effective as of November 4, 2009, pursuant to resolutions of the Board of
Directors of Cardinal Health, Inc., an Ohio corporation, adopted at a meeting held on November 4, 2009. 
  

	1.	The first paragraph of Section 4 of the Plan is hereby deleted in its entirety and in replacement thereof shall be the following: 

 “The total number of the common shares of the Company, without par value (“Shares”), reserved and available for issuance
pursuant to awards hereunder (“Available Shares”) shall be 1,024,278. The Available Shares may consist of authorized but unissued Shares or treasury Shares, including Shares purchased on the open market. For purposes of this
Section 4, the aggregate number of Available Shares under the Plan at any time shall not be reduced by Shares subject to awards that have been cancelled, expired or forfeited. Shares granted under the Plan shall not be counted as used unless
and until they are actually issued and delivered to a Nonemployee Director. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained herein, the following Shares shall not become available for awards under the Plan: (i) Shares subject to awards that
have been retained by the Company in payment or satisfaction of the exercise price of an award, or (ii) Shares that have been delivered (either actually or constructively by attestation) to the Company in payment or satisfaction of the exercise
price of an award.”
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****Final environmental impactstatement : Eden Ridge timber sales, Powers Ranger District, RogueRiver-Siskiyou National Forest, Coos County, Oregon.**
 
Final Environmental Impact Statement | Appendices
 
Draft Record of Decision
 
SuDoc Number:A 13.92:ED 2 | A 13.92:ED2/RECORD/DRAFT
Item Number:0080-F (online)
CGP systemNumber:000924624
 
January 12, 2018
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302  OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I,
David J. Moore, certify that:

1.     I
have reviewed this amended Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of 24/7 Real Media, 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 does 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)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f))
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 function):



Date:
April 12, 2005

| |  | /s/DAVID J. MOOREChairman and Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)
| |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---



QuickLinks