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

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

I, Gregory T. Lucier, Chief Executive Officer of Invitrogen Corporation (the
Registrant), do hereby certify in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, based on my knowledge:

(1) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Registrant, to which this certification is attached as an exhibit (the Report), fully complies
with the requirements of section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); and

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



|            |  |  |  |                          |  |                                          
|----------- |  |  |  | ------------------------ |  | -----------------------------------------
|            |  | 
|May 7, 2007 |  |  |  | /s/    Gregory T. Lucier
|            |  |  |  |                          |  | Gregory T. Lucier Chief Executive
Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating,
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 Invitrogen and will be retained by Invitrogen and furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas**

January 25, 2023

No. 04

- 22

- 00792

- CV

IN RE THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO

Original Proceeding 1

ORDER

On November 21, 2022, relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus. Relator also filed a motion for stay seeking to stay portions of the underlying order at issue pending resolution of the petition for writ of mandamus, which this court granted in part on November 21, 2022. After considering the petition, real party in interest’s response, relator’s reply, and this record, this court concludes relator is not entitled to the relief sought. Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is DENIED

. See T EX

. R

. A PP

. P. 52.8(a). The stay imposed on November 28, 2022 is LIFTED

.

It is so ORDERED on January 25, 2023

.

_____________________________ Beth Watkins, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 25th day of January, 2023

.

_____________________________ Michael A. Cruz

, Clerk of Court

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2021

- CI

- 01482 , styled Maria Monsibais v. City of San Antonio , pending in the 408th Judicial District Court

, Bexar County, Texas, t he Honorable Mary Lou Alvarez presiding.
#### § 1919.25 Limitations on use of chains.

Chains forming a part of vessel's cargo gear shall not be used when, due to stretch, the increase of length of a measured section exceeds five percent, when a link is damaged, or when other external defects are evident. Chains shall not be shortened by bolting, wiring, or knotting.
#### ELWORTHY-HELWICK CO v LORIG

Ohio Appeals, 8th Dist, Cuyahoga Co

No. 10,125.

Decided October 7, 1929

~ Messrs. White, Hammond, Brewer & Curtiss, Cleveland, for Elworth-Helwick Co.

Mr. A. W._ Heinrich, Esq., Cleveland, for Lorig.

VICKERY, PJ.

Now there is nothing in this record to show that Mrs. Lorig consented or agreed that the balare of the money that was due her should be applied in that manner. It is true, as it was argued, that the papers were all signed in her presence, but if one reads her testimony, it will show that it was not explained to her what the transaction was, or what the papers that had been signed were, nor did Helwick anywhere claim that he informed her that the balance of this money was to be used up in lots that her husband had purchased or was to purchase, nor is there anything in the record to show that she had agreed that this money might be so used, and if it was used, according to this record, it was used without her knowledge or consent. But the record shows that the lots were sold to her husband by contract, after she Jaad demanded her money upon this deal. There was not much purpose in her making a sale of this property if the entire proceeds of it should go to Elworthy-Helwick Company by way of commissions or payments upon other lots which have since been re-claimed by the company because the payments were not made. As a matter of fact the contract was taken in the name of an employe of The Elworthy-Helwick Company.

There is nothing in this record which will show that the plaintiff below either consented to the use of her money in the way that it is claimed it was used, nor were the transactions under such circumstances that she would be estopped. It is very difficult to learn just what did take place. Apparently she signed one paper, the deed, because the title was in her. The record undoubtedly shows that at the time this transaction was completed and this note was turned over to The Elworthy-Helwick Company, the company owed the palintiff below $635.75, as was figured by them then and there.

This action was brought to make The Elworthy-Helwick Company account for the money and the^ claimed that they had accounted for it all in the manner that has already been outlined, by the purchaser’s assumption of the mortgage of $5000, by the commission that was paid' *619to the company, the costs of escrow, and so forth, and by the balance of the money being applied upon these lots that were purchased ..from The Elworthy-Helwick Company by John Lorig, the husband of this woman; bu£, as already stated, inasmuch as there was no evidence, either express or implied, that she consented to this sort of an arrangement, The Elworthy-Helwick Company could not appropriate her money to the payment of lots which her husband had bought of jhem, even though it had been done prior to her demanding the money.

We think the court below arrived at a correct and proper conclusion in this lawsuit. There being no errors in this record, the judgment will be affirmed.

Sullivan and Levine, JJ, concur.
§ 91.115 Right-of-way rules: Water operations. ( a ) *General.* Each person operating an aircraft on the water shall, insofar as possible, keep clear of all vessels and avoid impeding their navigation, and shall give way to any vessel or other aircraft that is given the right-of-way by any rule of this section.
( b ) *Crossing.* When aircraft, or an aircraft and a vessel, are on crossing courses, the aircraft or vessel to the other's right has the right-of-way.
( c ) *Approaching head-on.* When aircraft, or an aircraft and a vessel, are approaching head-on, or nearly so, each shall alter its course to the right to keep well clear.
( d ) *Overtaking.* Each aircraft or vessel that is being overtaken has the right-of-way, and the one overtaking shall alter course to keep well clear.
( e ) *Special circumstances.* When aircraft, or an aircraft and a vessel, approach so as to involve risk of collision, each aircraft or vessel shall proceed with careful regard to existing circumstances, including the limitations of the respective craft.
Promissory Note



 Exhibit 10.1 
 Promissory Note 
 On this date of June 1, 2009, in return for valuable consideration received, the
undersigned borrower promises to pay to Seatac Digital Resources, Inc., the “Lender”, the sum of One-Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000.00), together with interest thereon at the rate of five percent (5%) percent per annum.

 Payable On Demand: The entire unpaid principal and accrued interest thereon, if any, shall become immediately due and payable on demand by the
holder of this Note. 
 Default - In the event of default, the borrower agrees to pay all costs and expenses incurred by the Lender, including all
reasonable attorney fees (including both hourly and contingent attorney fees as permitted by law) for the collection of this Note upon default, and including reasonable collection charges (including, where consistent with industry practices, a
collection charge set as a percentage of the outstanding balance of this Note) should collection be referred to a collection agency. 
 Acceleration of
Debt - In the event that the borrower fails to make any payment due under the terms of this Note, or breach any condition relating to any security, security agreement, note, mortgage or lien granted as collateral security for this Note, seeks
relief under the Bankruptcy Code, or suffers an involuntary petition in bankruptcy or receivership not vacated within thirty (30) days, the entire balance of this Note and any interest accrued thereon shall be immediately due and payable to the
holder of this Note. 
 Modification - No modification or waiver of any of the terms of this Agreement shall be allowed unless by written agreement
signed by both parties. No waiver of any breach or default hereunder shall be deemed a waiver of any subsequent breach or default of the same or similar nature. 
 Transfer of the Note - The borrowers hereby waive any notice of the transfer of this Note by the Lender or by any subsequent holder of this Note, agree to remain bound by the terms of this Note subsequent to any transfer, and agree
that the terms of this Note may be fully enforced by any subsequent holder of this Note. 
 Severability of Provisions - In the event that any
portion of this Note is deemed unenforceable, all other provisions of this Note shall remain in full force and effect. 
 Choice of Law - All terms
and conditions of this Note shall be interpreted under the laws of The State of California. 
 Dated: June 1, 2009 
  

	
	 /s/ Donald R. Mastropietro

	 America’s Minority Health Network, Inc.
 Borrower
# EUR-Lex - 31998R1443 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31998R1443

**Commission Regulation (EC) No 1443/98 of 6 July 1998 establishing the supply balance for the Canary Islands in the rice products sector **

*
Official Journal L 191 , 07/07/1998 P. 0043 - 0044 *

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1443/98 of 6 July 1998 establishing the supply balance for the Canary Islands in the rice products sector

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 1601/92 of 15 June 1992 concerning specific measures for the Canary Islands with regard to certain agricultural products (1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2348/96 (2), and in particular Article 3(4) thereof,

Whereas the common detailed rules for the implementation of the specific arrangements for the supply of certain agricultural products to the Canary Islands are laid down in Commission Regulation (EC) No 2790/94 (3), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 825/98 (4);

Whereas in order to apply Article 2 of Regulation (EEC) No 1601/92 the forecast supply balance for the Canary Islands should be established for rice-sector products; whereas that balance must be established on the basis of the requirements of that region;

Whereas the measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Cereals,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

In application of Article 2 of Regulation (EEC) No 1601/92, the forecast supply balance quantities in the rice sector benefiting from the exemption from import duty or from Community aid for products coming from the rest of the Community shall be as set out in the Annex hereto.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.

It shall apply from 1 July 1998.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 6 July 1998.

For the Commission

Franz FISCHLER

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 173, 27. 6. 1992, p. 13.

(2) OJ L 320, 11. 12. 1996, p. 1.

(3) OJ L 296, 17. 11. 1994, p. 23.

(4) OJ L 117, 21. 4. 1998, p. 5.

ANNEX

>TABLE>
§ 1620.7 “Enterprise” coverage. ( a ) The terms “enterprise” and “enterprise engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce” are defined in subsections 3(r) and 3(s) of the FLSA. Under the enterprise concept, if a business is an “enterprise engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce,” every employee employed in such enterprise or by such enterprise is within the coverage of the EPA unless specifically exempted in the FLSA, regardless of whether the individual employee is actually engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce. The term “enterprise” is not synonymous with the terms “employer” or “establishment” although on occasion the three terms may apply to the same business entity. An enterprise may consist of a single establishment operated by one or more employers. (See definitions of “employer” and “establishment” in §§ 1620.8 and 1620.9.)
( b ) In order to constitute an enterprise, the activities sought to be aggregated must be related to each other, they must be performed under a unified operation or common control, and they must be performed for a common business purpose. Activities are related when they are the same or similar, or when they are auxiliary services necessary to the operation and maintenance of the particular business. Activities constitute a unified operation when the activities are operated as a single business unit or economic entity. Activities are performed under common control when the power to direct, restrict, regulate, govern or administer the performance of the activities resides in a single person or entity or when it is shared by a group of persons or entities. Activities are performed for a common business purpose when they are directed to the same or similar business objectives. A determination whether the statutory characteristics of an enterprise are present in any particular case must be made on a case-by-case basis. See generally, subpart C of 29 CFR part 779 for a detailed discussion of the term “enterprise” under the FLSA.
§ 91.867 Phased compliance for new entrants. ( a ) New entrant U.S. air carriers. ( 1 ) A new entrant initiating operations under part 121 of this chapter on or before December 31, 1994, may initiate service without regard to the percentage of its fleet composed of Stage 3 airplanes.
( 2 ) After December 31, 1994, at least 25 percent of the fleet of a new entrant must comply with Stage 3 noise levels.
( 3 ) After December 31, 1996, at least 50 percent of the fleet of a new entrant must comply with Stage 3 noise levels.
( 4 ) After December 31, 1998, at least 75 percent of the fleet of a new entrant must comply with Stage 3 noise levels.
( b ) New entrant foreign air carriers. ( 1 ) A new entrant foreign air carrier initiating part 129 operations on or before December 31, 1994, may initiate service without regard to the percentage of its fleet composed of Stage 3 airplanes.
( 2 ) After December 31, 1994, at least 25 percent of the fleet on U.S. operations specifications of a new entrant foreign air carrier must comply with Stage 3 noise levels.
( 3 ) After December 31, 1996, at least 50 percent of the fleet on U.S. operations specifications of a new entrant foreign air carrier must comply with Stage 3 noise levels.
( 4 ) After December 31, 1998, at least 75 percent of the fleet on U.S. operations specifications of a new entrant foreign air carrier must comply with Stage 3 noise levels.
( c ) Calculations resulting in fractions may be rounded to permit the continued operation of the next whole number of Stage 2 airplanes.
[Doc. No. 26433, 56 FR 48659, Sept. 25, 1991, as amended by Amdt. 91-252, 61 FR 66185, Dec. 16, 1996]
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4907 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4907

To nullify Executive Order 13957, entitled ``Creating Schedule F In The 
                          Excepted Service''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           November 18, 2020

 Mr. Peters (for himself, Mr. Cardin, Mr. Blumenthal, Mr. Van Hollen, 
Mr. Brown, Mr. Warner, Mr. Coons, Mr. Kaine, Mr. Reed, Mr. Markey, Mr. 
Schatz, Ms. Baldwin, Mrs. Gillibrand, Ms. Duckworth, Ms. Klobuchar, Mr. 
Whitehouse, Mrs. Murray, Ms. Smith, Mr. Carper, Ms. Warren, Mr. Bennet, 
   Mr. Sanders, Mr. Casey, Mr. Menendez, Mr. Jones, Ms. Hirono, Mr. 
Durbin, Mr. Wyden, Mr. Booker, Mrs. Feinstein, Ms. Sinema, Mr. Merkley, 
   Mrs. Shaheen, Ms. Rosen, Mr. Udall, Mr. Heinrich, Mr. Tester, Ms. 
    Hassan, Mr. Murphy, Mr. King, and Ms. Stabenow) introduced the 
 following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
               Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To nullify Executive Order 13957, entitled ``Creating Schedule F In The 
                          Excepted Service''.

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

SECTION 1. NULLIFICATION OF EXECUTIVE ORDER REGARDING SCHEDULE F.

    (a) Rescission.--
            (1) In general.--The provisions of Executive Order 13957, 
        entitled ``Creating Schedule F In The Excepted Service'' (85 
        Fed. Reg. 67631) are rescinded and shall have no force or 
        effect.
            (2) Effective date.--This subsection shall take effect as 
        if enacted on October 21, 2020.
    (b) Limitation on Funds.--None of the funds appropriated or 
otherwise made available by this or any other Act may be used to 
implement, administer, or otherwise carry out Executive Order 13957, 
entitled ``Creating Schedule F In The Excepted Service'' (85 Fed. Reg. 
67631), or any successor Executive order or regulation.
                                 <all>
```
#### Johnson *v.*The State.

(Decided January 9, 1917.

73 South. 748.)

Larceny.

Charge of Court; Cured by Withdrawal. — While it was error for the court to instruct that there was no direct evidence that a certain person was connoted with the crime, such error was cured by the court retracting instructions, and adding that it was for the jury to determine whether there was evidence connecting such other person with the offense, and by its specific directions to them not to pay any attention to the prior remarks of the court.

Appeal from Monroe Circuit Court.

Heard before Hon. Ben D. Turner.

Scott Johnson was convicted of larceny and he appeals.

Affirmed.

*381Hybart & Biggs, for appellant.

W. L. Martin, Attorney-General, and Harwell G. Davis, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

EVANS, J.

The bill of exceptions presents but a single exception. This challenges a portion of the court’s oral charge as being upon the effect of the evidence. The offending portion of the charge relates to a remark of the court that there was no direct evidence that one Hall was connected with the crime for which appellant was prosecuted. Immediately the court’s attention was called to this remark, and before the retirement of the jury, as the bill of exceptions informs us, the court “stated that he would take that back,” referring to the remark excepted to, and added “that is for you to say whether there is evidence connecting Mr. Hall with the commission of the offense.” The bill of exceptions further informs us that the court specifically instructed the jury as follows: “I charge you, gentlemen, that the statement of the court that there is no direct testimony that Mr. Hall was connected with the commission of this offense is not before you and should have no weight with you. It is for you to say whether there is evidence to connect Mr. Hall with it.”

While the oral charge is not set out as the statute requires (Acts 1915, p. 815), and may not be considered as a whole, as it should be, yet the data furnished by the bill of exceptions apprises us of the fact that the error complained of was also cured and rendered innocuous by the instructions above referred to.— *Henderson v. State,*11 Ala. App. 37, 44, 65 South. 721; *White v. State,*8 Ala. App. 43, 62 South. 454; *Mullens v. State,*12 Ala. App. 206, 68 South. 533.

An examination of the record proper discloses no reversible error, and the judgment of the trial court is accordingly affirmed.

Affirmed.
Exhibit 32.2

Statement Pursuant to Section
906 of Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

The undersigned, Gary D. Woerz, CFO of
American International Industries, Inc, a Nevada corporation, hereby makes the following
certification as required by Section 906(a) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, with
respect to the following report filed pursuant to Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934: Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2006.

The undersigned certifies that the above report
fully complies with the requirements of Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, and information contained in the above report fairly presents, in all respects, the
financial condition of American International Industries, Inc. and results of its
operations.

Date: May 22, 2006
Gary D. Woerz
Chief Financial Officer/s/ Gary D. Woerz
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> UT
<CIK> 0000055373
<NAME> KENTUCKY POWER COMPANY
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                      739,040
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                     20,416
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                         120,215
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                        10,671
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                  96,296
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 986,638
<COMMON>                                        50,450
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                      158,750
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                             67,110
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                 276,310
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                           260,782
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                                   0
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                  39,665
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                  105,000
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                     11,830
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                 3,311
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                 289,740
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                  986,638
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                      373,982
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                            15,942
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     303,365
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     319,307
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                         54,675
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                                (327)
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                  54,348
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        28,918
<NET-INCOME>                                    25,430
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                          0
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                   25,430
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                        29,772
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                       12,712
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                          46,934
<EPS-BASIC>                                        0<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0<F1>
<FN>
<F1> All common stock owned by parent company; no EPS required.
</FN>


</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Betty H. Washburn et al., Respondents, against H. E. Bunce et al., Appellants. State Industrial Board, Respondent.

(Submitted September 30,1936;

decided October 20, 1936.)

*548
      *Leo Waxman*for appellants.

*John J. Bennett, Jr., Attorney-General (Hector A. Robichon*of counsel), for State Industrial Board, respondent.

Order affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

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