alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32



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 on Form 10-Q of Arch Chemicals, Inc., a Virginia
corporation (the Company), for the period ending June 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of the undersigned officers of the Company certify pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to such officers knowledge, that:



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



2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of and for the periods presented in the Report.



The foregoing certification is provided solely for purposes of complying with the provisions of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and is not intended to be
used or relied upon for any other purpose.



|                      |  |                                            
|--------------------- |  | -------------------------------------------
|Dated: August 9, 2005 |  | /s/ Michael E. Campbell                    
|                      |  | Michael E. Campbell Chief Executive Officer
|                      | 
|Dated: August 9, 2005 |  | /s/ Louis S. Massimo                       
|                      |  | Louis S. Massimo Chief Financial Officer   



A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Arch Chemicals, Inc. and will be retained by Arch Chemicals, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
[Civ. No. 2074.

First Appellate District.

December 11, 1916.]

#### CATARINO GOMEZ, Petitioner, v. AMERICAN CAN COMPANY and INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Respondents.

Workmen's Compensation Act.—Petition for writ of review denied.

APPLICATION to review an award of the Industrial Accident Commission of the State of California.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

*804Oscar Hudson, for Petitioner.

Chickering & Gregory, for Respondent American Can Company.

Christopher M. Bradley, for Respondent Industrial Accident Commission.

THE COURT.

The petition herein is denied. We think that the finding of the Industrial Accident Commission that the applicant has failed to establish any sympathetic affection of his uninjured eye was justified by the evidence before it, and hence that the order of the commission denying the petition for a rehearing was properly made.
<PAGE>
                                                                      Exhibit 21

                        SUBSIDIARIES OF PENTON MEDIA INC.


1. Internet World Media, Inc., a Delaware corporation, and its wholly-owned
   subsidiaries:

   A. Penton Business Media London Limited, a United Kingdom corporation, and
      its wholly-owned subsidiary:

      a. Penton Media Ireland Limited, an Ireland corporation (75% owned by
      Penton Business Media London Limited);

2. Penton Media Australia Pty. Limited, an Australian corporation.

3. New Hope International Media Limited, a United Kingdom corporation.

4. Penton Media Holdings Limited, a United Kingdom corporation, and its
   wholly-owned subsidiaries:

   A. Service Exhibitions Limited, a United Kingdom corporation;

   B. Equity Information Exchange Limited, a United Kingdom corporation;

   C. Service Management Publications Ltd., a United Kingdom corporation;

   D. Penton Media Europe Limited, a United Kingdom corporation, and its
      wholly-owned subsidiaries:

      a. Lightspeed Integrated Media Limited, a United Kingdom corporation;

      b. Conarch IT Ltd., a United Kingdom corporation (50% owned by Penton
         Media Europe Limited);

      c. Hillgate Communications Limited, a United Kingdom corporation, and
         its wholly-owned subsidiary:

         (1) Hillgate Custom Publishing Limited, a United Kingdom corporation;

      d. Penton Media International Limited, a United Kingdom corporation,
         and its subsidiary, 60% owned by Penton Media International Limited:

         (1) Penton Media Spain S.A., a Spain corporation.


5. Duke Investments, Inc, a Colorado corporation, and its wholly-owned
   subsidiary:

   A. Duke Communications International, Inc., a Colorado corporation, and its
      wholly owned subsidiary:

      a. Penton Communications Europe Limited a United Kingdom corporation.

6. Penton Media, S. de R.L. de C.V. (99% Penton Media, Inc. and 1% Internet
   World Media, Inc.), a Mexico corporation.

7. Penton Media Asia Limited (65% Penton Media, Inc. and 35% Internet World
   Media, Inc.), a Hong Kong corporation.

8. Penton Media France (SAS), a France corporation (50% Penton Media, Inc.).
NUMBER 13-08-00503-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

RAYNALDO MENDEZ, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

On appeal from the 347th District Court of Nueces County, Texas.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Yañez and Benavides

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

Appellant, Raynaldo Mendez, filed a notice of appeal on August 22, 2008,

challenging his conviction for burglary of a habitation. By order signed October 15, 2008,

the trial court granted appellant's motion for new trial. 

When the trial court grants a motion for new trial, it restores the case to its position

before the former trial. See TEX. R. APP. P. 21.9(b). At the new trial, the defendant pled
2

guilty to robbery with a plea agreement. On December 3, 2008, the trial court certified that

this “is a plea-bargain case, and the defendant has NO right of appeal” and “the defendant

has waived the right of appeal.” See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2).

On January 21, 2009, this Court notified appellant’s counsel of the trial court’s

certification and ordered counsel to: (1) review the record; (2) determine whether appellant

has a right to appeal; and (3) forward to this Court, by letter, counsel’s findings as to

whether appellant has a right to appeal, or, alternatively, advise this Court as to the

existence of any amended certification.

On February 7, 2009, counsel filed a letter brief with this Court. Counsel’s response

establishes that the appeal became moot with the granting of a new trial. Counsel does

not establish that the certification currently on file with this Court is incorrect or that

appellant otherwise has a right to appeal. 

The Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure provide that an appeal must be dismissed

if the trial court’s certification does not show that the defendant has the right of appeal.

TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d); see TEX. R. APP. P. 37.1, 44.3, 44.4. Accordingly, this appeal is

DISMISSED. Any pending motions are denied as moot.

PER CURIAM

Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Memorandum Opinion delivered and

filed this the 26th day of February, 2009.
#### § 1410.10 Penalties.

Any person who knowingly and willfully requests or obtains any record concerning an individual from the Service under false pretenses shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and fined not more than $5,000.
§ 11.13 Public participation. ( a ) When an agency has determined that preparation of an environmental impact statement is required, the agency shall publish a notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement in the Federal Register and shall invite public participation in the agency's scoping process as required by 40 CFR 1501.7.
( b ) When the draft environmental impact statement has been prepared and filed with the EPA pursuant to § 11.11(f), comments on the document shall be solicited from appropriate Federal, State and local agencies, Indian tribes, and other persons or organizations who may be interested or affected, as required by 40 CFR 1503.1.
( c ) In the case of an action with effects primarily of local concern, agencies shall consider the use of clearinghouses, newspapers and other public media likely to generate local participation in the agency process as ways of supplementing the notices otherwise specified in this part. The use of such public media does not, however, require or authorized the use of paid advertising.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4474 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4474

To amend the Arms Export Control Act to prohibit the export of certain 
                       unmanned aircraft systems.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             August 6, 2020

Mr. Murphy (for himself, Mr. Lee, Mr. Sanders, Mr. Coons, and Mr. Paul) 
introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the 
                     Committee on Foreign Relations

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Arms Export Control Act to prohibit the export of certain 
                       unmanned aircraft systems.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON EXPORT OF CERTAIN UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS.

    Chapter 7 of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2797 et seq.) 
is amended by inserting after section 73B the following:

``SEC. 73C. PROHIBITION ON EXPORT OF CERTAIN UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS.

    ``(a) In General.--Except as provided by subsection (b), the 
export, transfer, or trade of covered unmanned aircraft systems, or 
equipment, assemblies, or components for such systems, is prohibited.
    ``(b) Exception.--The prohibition under subsection (a) does not 
apply to the export, transfer, or trade of systems, equipment, 
assemblies, or components described in that subsection to the 
government of any of the following:
            ``(1) A country that is a member of the North Atlantic 
        Treaty Organization.
            ``(2) Australia.
            ``(3) Israel.
            ``(4) Japan.
            ``(5) New Zealand.
            ``(6) South Korea.
    ``(c) Definitions.--In this section:
            ``(1) Covered unmanned aircraft system.--The term `covered 
        unmanned aircraft system' means an unmanned aircraft system--
                    ``(A) capable of delivering a payload of not less 
                than 500 kilograms over a range of not less than 300 
                kilometers; or
                    ``(B) described in item 1.A.2 of category I of the 
                MTCR Annex.
            ``(2) Payload.--The term `payload' means the total mass 
        that can be carried or delivered by an unmanned aircraft system 
        that is not used to maintain flight.
            ``(3) Range.--The term `range' means the maximum distance 
        that an unmanned aircraft system is capable of traveling in the 
        mode of stable flight as measured by the projection of its 
        trajectory over the surface of the Earth.''.
                                 <all>
```
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4684 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        S.4684

                     One Hundred Sixteenth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

           Begun and held at the City of Washington on Friday,
            the third day of January, two thousand and twenty

                                 An Act

 
To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 
 440 Arapahoe Street in Thermopolis, Wyoming, as the ``Robert L. Brown 
                             Post Office''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. ROBERT L. BROWN POST OFFICE.
    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 440 Arapahoe Street in Thermopolis, Wyoming, shall be known 
and designated as the ``Robert L. Brown Post Office''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Robert L. 
Brown Post Office''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1999
<CASH>                                              43
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       68
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   111
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     111
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           60,066
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     1,541,191
<OTHER-SE>                                 (1,633,577)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       111
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                73,501
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,212
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (77,713)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (77,713)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (77,713)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (0.007)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.007)


</TABLE>
#### ALVAREZ v METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY CONTROL BOARD

Case No. 90-158 AP

Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Dade County

June 11, 1991

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

Carolyn A. Pickard, Esquire, for appellant.

Peter S. Tell, Esquire, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee.

Before KAHN, GREEN, SHAPIRO, JJ.

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM.

Pablo Alvarez and Teresa Alvarez (Alvarez) appeal denial of a variance application. We affirm.

Without a variance from the Metropolitan Dade County Environ*57mental Quality Control Board (Board), Alvarez could not conduct certain specified automobile repair activities in conjunction with their tire business because of the potential damage to the underlying water wellfield.

Alvarez claims a failure of due process because a Firestone store was granted a request similar to the one denied them. We find no merit to that claim, if for no other reason than the location of the Alvarez property in a different (and more sensitive) protected area than that in which the Firestone store is located. It is not our function to second guess the Board or to substitute our judgment for that of the Board where there is a competent basis for its action.

Alvarez also claims denial of due process because the Board staff had two inspectors visit the property the day before the hearing, and surprised Alvarez at the hearing with evidence (including photographs) that not only was the business already conducting prohibited activities for which the variance was sought, but was also conducting activities that had been specifically prohibited in connection with a previous variance application addressed two years earlier.

Unannounced inspections are not only proper, they are necessary. What is of concern is what appears to be ambush-like tactics of the Board staff. The courts have adopted rules to avoid that type of conduct, and we find that there should be a full and fair opportunity to address all issues at hearings before the Board also. We suggest that it was a trifle highhanded to spring on Alvarez at the Board hearing, the damaging findings resulting from the inspection the day before. Certainly it would have been a better practice to conduct the inspection more in advance of the hearing, and to make the findings available to Alvarez.

Nevertheless, Alvarez, represented by experienced counsel, did not request that the hearing be conducted to permit an opportunity to contest more thoroughly the revelations occasioned by the inspection. It has long been established that there must be a timely objection to a practice irregularity, in order to raise it on appeal. *Jones v*Fox, 23 Fla. 454, 2Do. 700 (1887).

This is not to suggest that had a continuance request been made and granted, the outcome would have been any different. The hearing transcript reveals a complete discussion in which Alvarez’ counsel participated. It might have been a considered tactical decision to decline the opportunity to request a continuance. The appellate court is not the place to reconsider — two bites of the apple are not permitted.

Affirmed.
§ 93.353 East River Exclusion specific operating procedures. No person may operate an airplane in the East River Exclusion extending from the southwestern tip of Governors Island to the north tip of Roosevelt Island except: ( a ) Seaplanes landing on or taking off from the river; or
( b ) Airplanes authorized by ATC. Pilots must contact LaGuardia Airport Traffic Control Tower prior to Governors Island for authorization.
#### § 60.3 Definitions.

In addition to the definitions in part 1 of this chapter, other terms and definitions applicable to this part are found in appendix F of this part.
CERTIFIED MAIL- RRR Cert_ No, 7010 3090 0002 9111 7494 Mct.(t·W·--fi: SoT 1>!XCHUI-K REGULAR MAIL
Federal Aviation Administration Copy: A_ Lester Haizlip 800 Independence Avenue Washington, DC 20591 Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 WilburWright Building, Room 2014 Acting Regional Counsel 901Locust St. Room 506 Kansas City, MO 64106-2641 Complaint- Request for Hearing before an Administrative Law Judge RE: EIR 2014CE050039 -Final Notice of Proposed Penalty
To Whom It May Concern: April 6, 2015 

# RECEIVED APR 1 42015 HEARING DOCKET

Jet MidwestTechnik received the Final Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty (FNPCP) referenced above in the office ofthe Accountable Manager on April 8, 2015_ Jet MidwestTechnik reviewed ourdata again in light ofthe outdated materials brought to ourattention by the Local FSDO surveillanceteam as they continued to investigate the matterafter our initial response toACE-7 2014CE050039_ Since our last contact with our PMI concerned the inconsistency ofthe data your "FAA principals" were presenting we were under the impression there would be furtherdiscussion until all thefacts were certain. The take away from the last discussion/meetingwas tovalidate the technical data in question. After careful review ofourdata with the manufacturerand the lack ofoption for an informal conference with an FAA Attorney and pursuant to 14 C.F.R. 13.16(g)(2)(i) this is our notice of request for a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge. In summary we feel the proposed civil penalty is unjustified by factual evidence.

Cc: Patrick Kraus- PresidentJMT, A Haizlip- FAA Acting Regional Counsel MRR

9200 NW 112''Street, Kansas City, MO 64153 phone: 816.399.5096 fax: 816.527.8096 FAA Repair Station :#5JMR702B 

## www.jetmidwesttechnik.com
STATE OF MISSOURI FORM OGC-5

MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES 

GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PROGRAM 

WELL COMPLETION OR RECOMPLETION REPORT AND WELL LOG

NEW WELL WORKOVER DEEPEN PLUG BACK INJECTION SAME RESERVOIR DIFFERENT RESERVOIR OIL GAS DRY 

OWNER 

 

ADDRESS 

 LEASE NAME 

 

WELL NUMBER 

 LOCATION OF WELL SEC TWN RNG OR BLOCK AND SURVEY 

Sec. Twp North, Rng East West OR ft. from North South ft. from East West 

LATITUDE 

 

LONGITUDE 

 COUNTY 

 

PERMIT NUMBER (OGC-3 OR OGC-31) 

 DATE SPUDDED 

 

DATE TOTAL DEPTH REACHED 

 

DATE COMPLETED READY TO 

PRODUCE OR INJECT 

 

ELEVATION (DF, RKR, RT, OR Gr.) 

FEET 

 

ELEVATION OF CASING HD. 

FLANGE 

 FEET

TOTAL DEPTH 

 

PLUG BACK TOTAL DEPTH 

 PRODUCING OR INJECTION INTERVAL(S) FOR THIS COMPLETION 

 

ROTARY TOOLS USED (INTERVAL) 

 TO 

DRILLING FLUID USED 

CABLE TOOLS USED (INTERVAL) 

 WAS THIS WELL DIRECTIONALLY DRILLED? 

 Yes No 

WAS DIRECTIONAL SURVEY MADE? 

 Yes No 

WAS COPY OF DIRECTIONAL SURVEY FILED? 

 Yes No 

DATE FILED 

 TYPE OF ELECTRICAL OR OTHER LOGS RUN (JUST LOGS FILED WITH THE STATE GEOLOGIST) 

 

DATE FILED 

 

CASING RECORD 

CASING (REPORT ALL STRINGS SET IN WELL – CONDUCTOR, SURFACE, INTERMEDIATE, PRODUCING, ETC. 

PURPOSE SIZE HOLE DRILLED SIZE CASING SET WEIGHT (LB. FT) DEPTH SET SACKS CEMENT AMOUNT PULLED 

 

 

 

TUBING RECORD LINER RECORD 

SIZE 

 INCH 

DEPTH SET 

 FEET 

PACKER SET AT 

 FEET 

SIZE 

 INCH 

TOP 

 FEET 

BOTTOM 

 FEET 

SACKS CEMENT SCREEN 

 FEET 

PERFORATION RECORD ACID, SHOT, FRACTURE, CEMENT SQUEEZE RECORD 

NUMBER PER FEET SIZE AND TYPE DEPTH INTERVAL AMOUNT AND KIND OF 

MATERIAL USED 

DEPTH INTERVAL 

 

 

INITIAL PRODUCTION 

DATE OF FIRST PRODUCTION OR INJECTION 

 

PRODUCING METHOD (INDICATE IF FLOWING, GAS LIFT, OR PUMPING – IF PUMPING, SHOW SIZE AND TYPE OF PUMP.) 

 DATE OF TEST 

 

HOURS TESTED 

 

CHOKE SIZE 

 

OIL PRODUCED DURING 

TEST 

 BBLS 

GAS PRODUCED DURING TEST 

 MCF 

WATER PRODUCED DURING 

TEST 

 BBLS 

OIL GRAVITY 

 API (CORR.) 

TUBING PRESSURE 

 

CASING PRESSURE 

 

CALCULATED RATE OF 

PRODUCTION PER 24 HOURS 

 

OIL 

 BBLS 

GAS 

 MCF 

WATER 

 BBLS 

GAS OIL RATIO 

 

DISPOSITION OF GAS (STATE WHETHER VENTED, USED FOR FUEL OR SOLD) 

 

METHOD OF DISPOSAL OF MUD PIT CONTENTS 

 

CERTIFICATE: I, the Undersigned, state that I am the of the (Company), and that I am authorized by said company 

to make this report, and that this report was prepared under my supervision and direction and that the facts stated therein are true, 

correct and complete to the best of my knowledge. 

DATE 

 

SIGNATURE 

 MO 780-0215 (8-06) REMIT TWO (2) COPIES TO: GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PROGRAM, PO BOX 250, ROLLA, MO 65402 (573) 368-2143. (REV 8-06) 
ONE (1) COPY TO BE RETURNED. 

INSTRUCTIONS: Attach drillers log or other acceptable log of well. 

* Show all important zones of porosity, detail of all cores, and all drill-stem tests, including depth interval tested, cushion used, 

 time tool open, flowing and shut-in pressures, and recoveries. 

DETAIL OF FORMATIONS PENETRATED 

FORMATION TOP BOTTOM DESCRIPTION (SEE * ABOVE) 

 

MO 780-0215 (8-06)
§ 99.49 Hawaii ADIZ. ( a ) *Outer boundary.* The area included in the irregular octagonal figure formed by a line connecting 26°30′ N, 156°00′ W; 26°30′ N, 161°00′ W; 24°00′ N, 164°00′ W; 20°00′ N, 164°00′ W; 17°00′ N, 160°00′ W; 17°00′ N, 156°00′ W; 20°00′ N, 153°00′ W; 22°00′ N, 153°00′ W; to point of beginning.
( b ) *Inner boundary.* The inner boundary to follow a line connecting 22°30′ N, 157°00′ W; 22°30′ N, 160°00′ W; 22°00′ N, 161°00′ W; 21°00′ N, 161°00′ W; 20°00′ N, 160°00′ W; 20°00′ N, 156°30′ W; 21°00′ N, 155°30′ W; to point of beginning.
[Doc. No. 25113, 53 FR 18217, May 20, 1988. Redesignated at 69 FR 16756, Mar. 30, 2004]
#### § 1450.8 Omissions not a defense.

The failure of FMCS to comply with any provision in this regulation shall not serve as a defense to the debt.