alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 32.2


                            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 Annual Report of Bio-One Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2003 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby
certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his 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 operation of the
Company.

Date:    March 24, 2004                 By: /s/ Armand Dauplaise
                                           ---------------------
                                        Name:    Armand Dauplaise
                                        Title:   Chief Financial Officer


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authentications, 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 Bio-One Corporation and
will be retained by Bio-One Corporation and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
**CERTIFICATION**

|   | 1. | The                quarterly report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended                July 3,                2005 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 such Form 10-Q fairly presents, in accordance                with United States generally accepted accounting principles, in all                material respects, the financial condition and results of operations                of                the Company. |
|--------|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | /s/LARRY                W. SINGLETON Larry                W. SingletonPresident                andChief                Executive Officer/s/JOHN                B. DEVLIN John                B. DevlinVice                President, Treasurerand                Chief Financial Officer |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

----
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002







In connection with the quarterly report of Ecosphere Technologies, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending September 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, 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 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 results of operations of the Company.





|                                                                    
|--------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Dennis McGuire                                                  
|Dennis McGuire
Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)

Dated: November 12, 2009









In connection with the quarterly report of Ecosphere Technologies, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending September 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Adrian Goldfarb, 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, that to my knowledge:



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 results of operations of the Company.





|                                                                     
|---------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Adrian Goldfarb                                                  
|Adrian Goldfarb
Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer)

Dated: November 12, 2009
§ 417.411 Safety clear zones for hazardous operations. ( a ) A launch operator must define a safety clear zone that confines the adverse effects of each operation involving a public hazard or launch location hazard. A launch operator's safety clear zones must satisfy the following: ( 1 ) A launch operator must establish a safety clear zone that accounts for the potential blast, fragment, fire or heat, toxic and other hazardous energy or material potential of the associated systems and operations. A launch operator must base a safety clear zone on the following criteria: ( i ) For a possible explosive event, base a safety clear zone on the worst case event, regardless of the fault tolerance of the system;
( ii ) For a possible toxic event, base a safety clear zone on the worst case event. A launch operator must have procedures in place to maintain public safety in the event toxic releases reach beyond the safety clear zone; and
( iii ) For a material handling operation, base a safety clear zone on a worst case event for that operation.
( 2 ) A launch operator must establish a safety clear zone when the launch vehicle is in a launch command configuration with the flight safety systems fully operational and on internal power.
( b ) A launch operator must establish restrictions that prohibit public access to a safety clear zone during a hazardous operation. A safety clear zone may extend to areas beyond the launch location boundaries if local agreements provide for restricting public access to such areas and a launch operator verifies that the safety clear zone is clear of the public during the hazardous operation.
( c ) A launch operator's procedures must verify that the public is outside of a safety clear zone prior to a launch operator beginning a hazardous operation.
( d ) A launch operator must control a safety clear zone to ensure no public access during the hazardous operation. Safety clear zone controls include: ( 1 ) Use of security guards and equipment;
( 2 ) Physical barriers; and
( 3 ) Warning signs, and other types of warning devices.
§ 36.1103 Noise limits. ( a ) Compliance with the maximum noise levels prescribed in Appendix K of this part must be shown for a tiltrotor for which the application for the issuance of a type certificate is made on or after March 11, 2013.
( b ) To demonstrate compliance with this part, noise levels may not exceed the noise limits listed in Appendix K, Section K4, Noise Limits of this part. Appendix K of this part (or an approved equivalent procedure) must also be used to evaluate and demonstrate compliance with the approved test procedures, and at the applicable noise measurement points.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT

CHAMBERSBURG BOROUGH, Respondent

v.

PENNSYLVANIA LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner

Intervenor : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : No. 948 MAL 2014
Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Commonwealth Court

CHAMBERSBURG BOROUGH

v.

Intervenor

PETITION OF:

Intervenor : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : No. 15 MAL 2015
Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Commonwealth Court 37 MAP 2015 38 MAP 2015[948 MAL 2014, 949 MAL 2014, 15 MAL 2015 and 16 MAL 2015] - 2

CHAMBERSBURG BOROUGH, Respondent

v.

PENNSYLVANIA LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner

Intervenor : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : No. 949 MAL 2014
Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Commonwealth Court

CHAMBERSBURG BOROUGH

v.

Intervenor

PETITION OF:

Intervenor : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : No. 16 MAL 2015
Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Commonwealth Court[948 MAL 2014, 949 MAL 2014, 15 MAL 2015 and 16 MAL 2015] - 3 ORDER
PER CURIAM AND NOW , this 28 th day of April, 2015, the Petitions for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED

. The issues, as stated by the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board (PLRB) in the appeal at 948-49 MAL 2014, are:
(1) Did the Commonwealth Court exceed the scope and standard of appellate review by ignoring binding Pennsylvania Supreme Court precedent and reversing a PLRB final order where the PLRB did not clearly err in holding under the existing terms of the PLRA, that absent a cessation of work by employes of a neutral employer, there must be threats, intimidation, force, coercion or sabotage to find a violation of Section 6(2)(D) of the PLRA? (2) Did the Commonwealth Court exceed the scope and standard of appellate review where the PLRB did not err as a matter of law in concluding that the Borough violated Section 6(1)(a) and (c) of the PLRA by disciplining the union president because of his non-threatening, non-coercive letter to IAFF members concerning a labor dispute? The issues, as stated by International Association of Firefighters, Local 1813 in the appeal at 15-16 MAL 2015, are: (3) Did the Commonwealth Court err in reversing the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board’s final order by failing to give the Board’s interpretation of the PLRA controlling weight and thereby exceeding its standard of review? (4) Did the Commonwealth Court err in reversing the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board’s final order by failing to abide by prior, relevant precedent, overruling sub silentia a controlling decision of this Court, and effectively creating a new violation of the PLRA where this Court has determined one does not and cannot exist? (5) Did the Commonwealth Court err in reversing the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board’s final order when the Commonwealth Court erroneously concluded that the local [union] had violated Section 6(2)([D]) and therefore reversed the Board’s decision that the Borough had violated Section 6(1)(a) and (c) of the PLRA?
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:36 Filed:05/09/17 Entered:05/11/17 15:10:13 Desc: Main

Document Page 1 of 5
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:36 Filed:05/09/17 Entered:05/11/17 15:10:13 Desc: Main

Document Page 2 of 5
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:36 Filed:05/09/17 Entered:05/11/17 15:10:13 Desc: Main

Document Page 3 of 5
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:36 Filed:05/09/17 Entered:05/11/17 15:10:13 Desc: Main

Document Page 4 of 5
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:36 Filed:05/09/17 Entered:05/11/17 15:10:13 Desc: Main

Document Page 5 of 5
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 92 (Thursday, May 11, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30395-30396]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-11779]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP00-267-000]


ANR Pipeline Company; Notice of Proposed Change in FERC Gas 
Tariff

May 5, 2000.
    Take notice that on May 1, 2000, ANR Pipeline Company (ANR) 
tendered for filing as part of FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume 
No. 1, the following revised tariff sheets to be effective June 1, 
2000.

Primary Case

Twenty-Eighth Revised Sheet No. 17
Second Revised Sheet No. 141

[[Page 30396]]

Alternate Case

Alternate Twenty-Eight Revised Sheet No. 17

    ANR states that this filing includes both a primary and an 
alternative set of tariff sheets. In its primary case, ANR seeks to 
reduce its currently effective cashout surcharge applicable to all 
cashout activity to $0.000, and implement an interim cashout surcharge 
applicable to service under Rate Schedules PTSB1, PTS-2 and PTS-3 for 
the purpose of giving ANR an opportunity to recover its cumulative 
cashout imbalance. The interim change of $0.0120 per Dth is estimated 
to be in effect for a period of one year. In the alternative, if the 
primary case is not accepted by the Commission, ANR proposes to 
increase its currently effective cashout surcharge, from $0.1211 per 
Dth to $0.3344, pursuant to section 15.5 of the General Terms and 
Conditions of its tariff.
    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, NE., Washington, DC 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. 00-11779 Filed 5-10-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-10166 Conference Calendar

LEO DURDEN, II, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus GEORGE BUSH, JR., Governor of the State of Texas; TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 5:97-CV-53-C

- - - - - - - - - - August 18, 1997 Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and DUHÉ, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Leo Durden, II, Texas inmate #718598, fails to challenge the district court’s reason for dismissing his civil rights complaint. The district court dismissed the complaint as malicious. Therefore, any such challenge is deemed abandoned onNo. 97-10166 - 2 - appeal. See Yohey v. Collins , 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993). Thus, there is nothing for this court to review. This appeal is frivolous and is therefore DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR . R . 42.2. We caution Durden that any additional frivolous appeals filed by him will invite the imposition of sanctions. To avoid sanctions, Durden is further cautioned to review all pending appeals to ensure that they do not raise arguments that are frivolous because they have been previously decided by this
court. APPEAL DISMISSED. SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.
EXHIBIT 32.2

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                                   PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Jitu Banker, Chief Financial Officer of Gateway International Holdings, Inc.,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that this Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for
the fiscal quarter ended December 31, 2003, fully complies with the requirements
of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m
or 78o(d)) and that information contained in this Quarterly Report on Form
10-QSB for the fiscal quarter ended December 31, 2003, fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Gateway
International Holdings, Inc.


By: /s/Jitu Banker
      -----------------------------
Name:  Jitu Banker
Title: Chief Financial Officer
Date:  October 4, 2005
#### Helen Virano, Appellant, *v.*Robert Rodtz, Respondent, Impleaded with Another.

(Submitted June 5, 1936;

decided July 8, 1936.)

*490
      *Nicholas Reigi*and *Emil J. Reigi*for appellant.

*William A. Smith*for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, O’Brien, Hubbs, Crouch, Loughran and Finch, JJ.
EXHIBIT 32.1

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

     In  connection  with  the Quarterly Report of Allstates  WorldCargo,
Inc.  (the  "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period  ending March 31,
2006  as  filed  with  the  Securities and  Exchange  Commission  (the
"Report"), I, Sam DiGiralomo, 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)
         of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

    (2)  The information contained in the Report  fairly presents, in all
         material respects, the consolidated financial condition of the
         company as of the dates presented and the consolidated result of
         operations of the Company for the periods presented.


Dated: May 15, 2006

/s/ Sam DiGiralomo
President and Chief Executive Officer


This  certification has been furnished solely pursuant to Section  906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
§ 27.903 Engines. ( a ) *Engine type certification.* Each engine must have an approved type certificate. Reciprocating engines for use in helicopters must be qualified in accordance with § 33.49(d) of this chapter or be otherwise approved for the intended usage.
( b ) *Engine or drive system cooling fan blade protection.* ( 1 ) If an engine or rotor drive system cooling fan is installed, there must be a means to protect the rotorcraft and allow a safe landing if a fan blade fails. This must be shown by showing that— ( i ) The fan blades are contained in case of failure;
( ii ) Each fan is located so that a failure will not jeopardize safety; or
( iii ) Each fan blade can withstand an ultimate load of 1.5 times the centrifugal force resulting from operation limited by the following: ( A ) For fans driven directly by the engine— ( 1 ) The terminal engine r.p.m. under uncontrolled conditions; or
( 2 ) An overspeed limiting device.
( B ) For fans driven by the rotor drive system, the maximum rotor drive system rotational speed to be expected in service, including transients.
( 2 ) Unless a fatigue evaluation under § 27.571 is conducted, it must be shown that cooling fan blades are not operating at resonant conditions within the operating limits of the rotorcraft.
( c ) *Turbine engine installation.* For turbine engine installations, the powerplant systems associated with engine control devices, systems, and instrumentation must be designed to give reasonable assurance that those engine operating limitations that adversely affect turbine rotor structural integrity will not be exceeded in service.
( d ) *Restart capability.* ( 1 ) A means to restart any engine in flight must be provided.
( 2 ) Except for the in-flight shutdown of all engines, engine restart capability must be demonstrated throughout a flight envelope for the rotorcraft.
( 3 ) Following the in-flight shutdown of all engines, in-flight engine restart capability must be provided.
[Doc. No. 5074, 29 FR 15695, Nov. 24, 1964, as amended by Amdt. 27-11, 41 FR 55469, Dec. 20, 1976; Amdt. 27-23, 53 FR 34211, Sept. 2, 1988; Amdt. 27-44, 73 FR 11000, Feb. 29, 2008; Amdt. 27-51, 88 FR 8737, Feb. 10, 2023]
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:38 Filed:05/09/17 Entered:05/11/17 15:15:00 Desc: Main

Document Page 1 of 5
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:38 Filed:05/09/17 Entered:05/11/17 15:15:00 Desc: Main

Document Page 2 of 5
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:38 Filed:05/09/17 Entered:05/11/17 15:15:00 Desc: Main

Document Page 3 of 5
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:38 Filed:05/09/17 Entered:05/11/17 15:15:00 Desc: Main

Document Page 4 of 5
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:38 Filed:05/09/17 Entered:05/11/17 15:15:00 Desc: Main

Document Page 5 of 5
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1



                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS



We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in this Form 10-K of
BindView Development Corporation for the year ended December 31, 1998 of our
report dated January 28, 1999 which appears on page 27 relating to the financial
statements for the years ended December 31, 1998 and 1997 listed in the
accompanying index. We also hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of
said report in the Registration Statements of BindView Development Corporation
on Forms S-8 (File No. 333-59825, effective July 24, 1998, File No. 333-66331,
effective October 29, 1998, and Amendment No. 1 thereto dated February 22,
1999).

/s/ PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP     

PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP
Houston, Texas
February 22, 1999
#### [671] Smith *vs.*Rogers.

*Where*a plaintiff moves for judgment on *a frivolous demurrer,*he may accompany the notice of such motion, with a *provisional*notice of assessment or inquiry.

Frivolous demurrer and assessment of damages. The plaintiff gave notice that he would apply at the last May term for judgment, on the ground of the frivolousness of the demurrer, and at the same time served a separate notice of assessment of damages by the clerk, for the *eighth day of May.*Previous to the eighth day of May, the court adjudged the demurrer to be frivolous ; and on the day specified for the assessment, the damages were assessed. A motion was made to set aside the assessment, on the ground that notice of assessment could not regularly be given until after judgment on the demurrer.

*By the Court,*

Nelson, Ch. J.

It would have been better had the notice of assessment been *provisional;*but it was well enough. The defendant must have known it was intended as provisional. Motion denied.