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





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO 18 USC, SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906


OF
THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Quarterly Report
of Gateway International Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the
quarter ended December 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on or about the date hereof (the “Report”), I, George Colin, Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:





(1)           The
Report fully complies with the requirements of Sections 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





(2)           Information
contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.





Dated:  February
      16, 2009
              /s/  George ColinBy:  George ColinIts:  Chief Executive
Officer





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
Gateway International Holdings, Inc. and will be retained by Gateway
International Holdings, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
§ 414.25 Terms and conditions for issuing a safety element approval; duration of a safety element approval. ( a ) The FAA will issue a safety element approval to an applicant that meets all the requirements under this part.
( b ) The scope of the safety element approval will be limited by the scope of the safety demonstration contained in the application on which the FAA based the decision to grant the safety element approval.
( c ) The FAA will determine specific terms and conditions of a safety element approval individually, limiting the safety element approval to the scope for which it was approved. The terms and conditions will include reporting requirements tailored to the individual safety element approval.
( d ) A safety element approval is valid for five years and may be renewed.
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02-23-00464-CV

IN THE MATTER OF J.S. §

§

§

§

On Appeal from the 323rd District Court

of Tarrant County (323-122045-23)

March 7, 2024

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Kerr

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that the 

appeal should be dismissed. It is ordered that the appeal is dismissed for want of 

jurisdiction.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By _/s/ Elizabeth Kerr__________________

 Justice Elizabeth Kerr
# EUR-Lex - 31996D0348 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31996D0348

**96/348/EC: Commission Decision of 24 May 1996 approving the plan relating to the examination for residues submitted by Sweden (Only the Swedish text is authentic) (Text with EEA relevance) **

*
Official Journal L 135 , 06/06/1996 P. 0030 - 0030 *

COMMISSION DECISION of 24 May 1996 approving the plan relating to the examination for residues submitted by Sweden (Only the Swedish text is authentic) (Text with EEA relevance) (96/348/EC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Directive 86/469/EEC of 16 September 1986 concerning examination of animals and fresh meat for the presence of residues (1), as last amended by the Act of Accession of Austria, Finland and Sweden, and in particular Article 4 thereof,

Whereas, by document of 6 December 1995 Sweden sent the Commission a plan setting out the national measures taken on the examination for residues of the substances referred to in Annex I to Directive 86/469/EEC;

Whereas examination of this plan has shown that it conforms to the provisions laid down in Directive 86/469/EEC, and in particular Article 4 (1) thereof;

Whereas the measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Veterinary Committee,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The plan relating to the examination for residues of the substances referred to in Annex I to Directive 86/469/EEC submitted by Sweden is hereby approved.

Article 2

Sweden shall adopt the necessary laws, regulations and administrative provisions for the implementation of the plan referred to in Article 1.

Article 3

This Decision shall apply to the Kingdom of Sweden.

Done at Brussels, 24 May 1996.

For the Commission

Franz FISCHLER

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ No L 275, 26. 9. 1986, p. 36.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>     5


<CAPTION>

Article 5 Fin. Data Schedule for 1st Qtr 10-Q

<S>                               <C>

<PERIOD-TYPE>                     6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                 DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                    JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                      JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                     0
<SECURITIES>                               0
<RECEIVABLES>                              0
<ALLOWANCES>                               0
<INVENTORY>                                0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           0
<PP&E>                                     0
<DEPRECIATION>                        (3,675)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                  7,725
<BONDS>                                    0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                      0
<PREFERRED>                                0
<COMMON>                               4,200
<OTHER-SE>                                 0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>           3,675
<SALES>                                    0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           0
<CGS>                                      0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                       3,675
<LOSS-PROVISION>                      (3,675)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            0
<INCOME-TAX>                          (3,675)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        0
<DISCONTINUED>                             0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                            0
<CHANGES>                                  0
<NET-INCOME>                          (3,675)
<EPS-BASIC>                           (.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                           (.00)




</TABLE>
Template Title Criteria Field changed Original Value Revised Value Importance Date of Change Comm

PM2.5 Filter Based Local

Conditions Validation

Template

Collocated Samples Information/ Action App A Sec 2.3.1.3 App A Sec 2.3.1.1 Low Initial re

PM10‐2

PM2.5.

Pb High Volume TSPValidation Template

Template Title Pb High Volume TSP

Validation Template

Pb High Volume TSP LocalConditions Validation

Template

Low

NO2, NOx, NO ValidationTemplate

Zero/span check Acceptance criteria

Zero drift < + 1.5 ppb 

Zero drift < + 3.0 ppb (24 hr) 

< + 5.0 ppb (>24hr-14 day) 

High

6/3/2014

See Techttp://w

O3 Validation Template Zero/span check Acceptance criteria

Zero drift < + 1.5 ppb 

Zero drift < + 3.0 ppb (24 hr) 

< + 5.0 ppb (>24hr-14 day) 

High

6/3/2014

See Techttp://w

SO2 Validation Template Zero/span check Acceptance criteria Zero drift < + 1.5 ppb Zero drift < + 3.0 ppb (24 hr) < + 5.0 ppb (>24hr-14 day) High 6/3/2014 See Tec

http://w

CO Validation Template Zero/span check Acceptance criteria Zero drift < + 0.03 ppm Zero drift < + 0.4ppm (24 hr) < + 0.6 ppm (>24hr-14 day) High 6/3/2014 See Tec

http://w

Continuos PM10 STPConditions Validation

Template

Template Title Continuos PM10 STP

Conditions Validation

Template

Continuous PM10 STP

Conditions Validation

Template

Low misspel

Number of Low Volume PM In Comment #1 sections Comment about < 80 Revised comment to use Low Bottom 

Suggested and Implemented Changes to the Validation Template. Posted on AMTIC 7/2014
Exhibit 31.1

                        CERTIFICATION

     I, Sam DiGiralomo, certify that:

1.    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q  of
Allstates WorldCargo,  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:

  (a)  Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
       disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our
       supervision,  to  ensure  that  material information relating to
       the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is
       made  known to us by others within those  entities, particularly
       during  the  period  in  which  this  report  is  being prepared;

  (b)  Evaluated  the  effectiveness  of  the  registrant's disclosure
       controls and procedures and presented in this report our
       conclusions  about the effectiveness of the  disclosure controls
       and procedures, as of the end of the period covered  by this
       report based on such evaluation; and

  (c)  Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal
       control  over financial reporting that occurred  during the
       registrant's   most   recent  fiscal  quarter  (the registrant's
       fourth  fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that
       has  materially  affected, or is reasonably likely to materially
       affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

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):

  (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design
      or   operation  of  internal  control  over  financial reporting
      which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the
      registrant's ability to record, process, summarize  and report
      financial information; and

  (b) Any  fraud,  whether  or not material,  that  involves management or
      other employees who have a significant role in the
      registrant's internal control over financial reporting.



August 14, 2007

/s/ Sam DiGiralomo
President and Chief Executive Officer
§ 27.733 Tires. ( a ) Each landing gear wheel must have a tire— ( 1 ) That is a proper fit on the rim of the wheel; and
( 2 ) Of the proper rating.
( b ) The maximum static load rating of each tire must equal or exceed the static ground reaction obtained at its wheel, assuming— ( 1 ) The design maximum weight; and
( 2 ) The most unfavorable center of gravity.
( c ) Each tire installed on a retractable landing gear system must, at the maximum size of the tire type expected in service, have a clearance to surrounding structure and systems that is adequate to prevent contact between the tire and any part of the structure or systems.
[Doc. No. 5074, 29 FR 15695, Nov. 24, 1964, as amended by Amdt. 27-11, 41 FR 55469, Dec. 20, 1976]
###### Editorial Note on Part 211

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 211 appear at 61 FR 34725, July 3, 1996.

#### § 211.12 Filing and service.

All types of applications for foreign air carrier permits (initial, renewal, amendment, or transfer) are filed as of the date the applications are received at the Department's Docket Facility. Each applicant shall serve those persons as required in part 302, subpart B, of this chapter.

(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 3024-0068)

[ER-1386, 49 FR 33439, Aug. 23, 1984, as amended by ER-1397, 49 FR 50027, Dec. 26, 1984; 65 FR 6456, Feb. 9, 2000]
### Uranium resources of the San Rafael district, Emery County, Utah - a regional synthesis

By: Henry S. Johnson Jr.

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/b1046D

#### Links

- More information:  **National Geologic Map Database Index Page**                            (html)
-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plate:  **Plate 1**                            (pdf)
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
Editorial Note on Part 380
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 380 appear at 84 FR 15940, Apr. 16, 2019.

§ 380.65 Notification of change of operations or ownership. ( a ) Not later than 30 days before any change in its name or address or before a temporary or permanent cessation of operations, each foreign charter operator registered under this subpart shall notify the Office of International Aviation , U.S. Air Carrier Licensing/Special Authorities Division, of the change by resubmitting OST Form 4530.
( b ) A foreign charter operator registered under this subpart shall apply for an amendment to that registration not later than 30 days after either of the following events: ( 1 ) A person listed on its existing registration as owning or holding beneficial interest in at least 10 percent of the operator or of the operator's stock reduces its holding to below 10 percent;
( 2 ) A person not listed on the existing registration as owning or holding beneficial interest in at least 10 percent of the operator or of the operator's stock becomes an owner or holder of 10 percent or more of the company or of its stock.
( c ) An application for an amendment shall be made by resubmitting OST Form 4530. The existing registration shall remain valid pending Department action on the amendment.
IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

IN RE: THE FINANCIAL OVERSIGHT AND 

MANAGEMENT BOARD FOR PUERTO 

RICO

AS REPRESENTATIVE OF THE 

COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO et al

Debtor

PROMESA title III

No. 17 BK 3283-LTS

(Jointly Administered)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS ATTORNEY AND TO CEASE 

NOTIFICATIONS

This matter is before the court on attorney María Fernanda Vélez Pastrana’s Motion to 

Withdraw as Attorney and Requesting Order to Cease Notifications. Finding good cause for the 

requested relief, this Court GRANTS the Motion. Accordingly:

1. Attorney María Fernanda Vélez Pastrana is allowed to withdraw as counsel for 

creditor 65 INFANTERIA.

2. Attorney María Fernanda Vélez Pastrana will be removed from the list of persons 

to be notified of all documents electronically filed in this case.

This Order resolves Dkt. No. ________.

Dated: September _____, 2018

__________________________________

 HON. LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:3875-1 Filed:09/06/18 Entered:09/06/18 17:39:20 Desc:

Proposed Order Page 1 of 1
#### [656] Lockwood *vs.*McLean.

An admission by an *agent*of due service of notice of motion is not enough, if it be shown that full notice was not given.

This was a motion to set aside an inquest. The defendant produced an admission of *due service*of notice, signed by the *agent*of the plaintiff’s attorney. The plaintiff read an affidavit of the agent that short notice was given.

*By the Court,*

Bronson, J.

This case is distinguishable from *Talman*v. *Barnes,*(12 *Wendell,*227,) where an admission of *due service*was held sufficient, though it was shown that short notice was given. The admission there was by. the *attorney;*here it is by the *agent,*who had no power to dispense with the full notice. The motion is denied with costs.
§ 435.7 Payload reentry determination. ( a ) A payload reentry determination is required to transport a payload to Earth on a reentry vehicle unless the proposed payload is exempt from payload review.
( b ) A payload reentry determination made under a previous license application under this subchapter may satisfy the requirements of paragraph (a) of this section.
( c ) The FAA conducts a review, as described in subpart D of this part, to make a payload reentry determination. Either a reentry license applicant or a payload owner or operator may request a review of the proposed payload using the application procedures contained in part 413 of this subchapter. Upon receipt of an application, the FAA may conduct a payload reentry review independently of a reentry license application.
§ 65.11 Application and issue. ( a ) Application for a certificate and appropriate class rating, or for an additional rating, under this part must be made on a form and in a manner prescribed by the Administrator. Each person who applies for airmen certification services to be administered outside the United States or for any certificate or rating issued under this part must show evidence that the fee prescribed in appendix A of part 187 of this chapter has been paid.
( b ) Except for FAA Credential holders with tower ratings, an applicant who meets the requirements of this part is entitled to an appropriate certificate and rating.
( c ) Unless authorized by the Administrator, a person whose air traffic control tower operator, mechanic, or parachute rigger certificate is suspended may not apply for any rating to be added to that certificate during the period of suspension.
( d ) Unless the order of revocation provides otherwise— ( 1 ) A person whose air traffic control tower operator, aircraft dispatcher, or parachute rigger certificate is revoked may not apply for the same kind of certificate for 1 year after the date of revocation; and
( 2 ) A person whose mechanic or repairman certificate is revoked may not apply for either of those kinds of certificates for 1 year after the date of revocation.
[Doc. No. 1179, 27 FR 7973, Aug. 10, 1962, as amended by Amdt. 65-9, 31 FR 13524, Oct. 20, 1966; Amdt. 65-28, 47 FR 35693, Aug. 16, 1982; Amdt. 65-49, 72 FR 18559, Apr. 12, 2007; Amdt. 65-56, 79 FR 74611, Dec. 16, 2014]
§ 440.7 Determination of maximum probable loss. ( a ) The FAA will determine the maximum probable loss (MPL) from covered claims by a third party for bodily injury or property damage, and the United States, its agencies, and its contractors and subcontractors for covered property damage or loss, resulting from a permitted or licensed activity. The maximum probable loss determination forms the basis for financial responsibility requirements issued in a license or permit order.
( b ) The FAA issues its determination of maximum probable loss no later than ninety days after a licensee or permittee has requested a determination and submitted all information required by the FAA to make the determination. The FAA will consult with Federal agencies that are involved in, or whose personnel or property are exposed to risk of damage or loss as a result of, a licensed or permitted activity before issuing a license or permit order prescribing financial responsibility requirements, and shall notify the licensee, or permittee, if interagency consultation may delay issuance of the MPL determination.
( c ) Appendix A of this part contains information requirements for obtaining a maximum probable loss determination. Any person requesting a determination of maximum probable loss must submit the information required by Appendix A, unless the FAA has waived a requirement. In lieu of submitting required information, a person requesting a maximum probable loss determination may designate and certify certain information previously submitted for a prior determination as complete, valid, and equally applicable to its current request. The requester is responsible for the continuing accuracy and completeness of information submitted under this part and must promptly report any changes in writing.
( d ) The FAA will amend a determination of maximum probable loss required under this section at any time prior to completion of licensed or permitted activities as warranted by supplementary information provided to or obtained by the FAA after the MPL determination is issued. Any change in financial responsibility requirements as a result of an amended MPL determination shall be set forth in a license or permit order.
( e ) The FAA may make a determination of maximum probable loss at any time other than as set forth in paragraph (b) of this section upon request by any person.
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.



## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2009-5115

CASEY HOCRAFFER (also known as Casey Howell),

Petitioner-Appellant,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,

Respondent-Appellee.

Paul S. Dannenberg , Law Offices of Paul S. Dannenberg, of Huntington,

Vermont, argued for petitioner-appellant.

Michael P. Milmoe , Senior Trial Attorney, Torts Branch, Civil Division, United

States Department of Justic e, of Washington, DC, ar gued for respondent-appellee.

With him on the brief were Tony West , Assistant Attorney General, Timothy P. Garren

, Director, Mark W. Rogers , Deputy Director, and Catharine E. Reeves , Assistant

Director.

Appealed from: United States Court of Federal Claims

Judge Nancy B. FirestoneNOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.



## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2009-5115

CASEY HOCRAFFER (also known as Casey Howell),

Petitioner-Appellant,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,

Respondent-Appellee.



## Judgment

ON APPEAL from the UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS

in CASE NO(S). 99-VV-533

This CAUSE having been hear d and considered, it is

ORDERED and ADJUDGED:

Per Curiam (LOURIE, RADER, and SCHALL, Circuit Judges ).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

DATED February 16, 2010 /s/ Jan Horbaly

Jan Horbaly, Clerk
#### § 23.2155 Ground and water handling characteristics.

For airplanes intended for operation on land or water, the airplane must have controllable longitudinal and directional handling characteristics during taxi, takeoff, and landing operations.
LABARFIELD BRYANT

,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 14

- 2499

______ _______________________/

Opinion filed February 19, 2015.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County

. J. Bradford Stetson , Judge

.

Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and M. J. Lord, Assistant Public Defender,

Tallahassee , for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Virginia Chester Harris and David

Campbell, Assistant Attorneys General, Tallahassee , for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

RAY

, MAKAR

, and BILBREY, J J

. , CONCUR.