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


                                                                    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 Annual Report of Kellwood Company (the Company) on
Form 10-K for the period ended January 28, 2006 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of the
undersigned hereby individually certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 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)
     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 period covered in the Report.

   /s/ Robert C. Skinner, Jr.
   -----------------------------------------------------------------------
   Robert C. Skinner, Jr., Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer

   March 17, 2006



   /s/ W. Lee Capps III
   ---------------------------------------------------------------------
   W. Lee Capps III, Chief Operating Officer and Chief Financial Officer

   March 17, 2006

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 Kellwood
Company and will be retained by Kellwood Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

The foregoing certification is being furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission as an exhibit to the Form 10-K and shall not be
considered filed as part of the Form 10-K.
# EUR-Lex - 31999Y0609(01) - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31999Y0609(01)

**Council Resolution of 27 May 1999 on combating international crime with fuller cover of the routes used **

*
Official Journal C 162 , 09/06/1999 P. 0001 - 0001 *

COUNCIL RESOLUTION

of 27 May 1999

on combating international crime with fuller cover of the routes used

(1999/C 162/01)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

CONCERNED at cross-border crime, which is often linked to certain overland, waterway or air routes,

CONFIRMING its determination to make the European Union an area of freedom, security and justice,

ENDEAVOURING further to improve practical cooperation between police services in the Member States,

TAKING INTO ACCOUNT Joint Action 97/12/JHA of 20 December 1996 providing a common prgramme for the exchange and training of, and cooperation between, law-enforcement authorities "Oisin"(1) -

HAS ADOPTED THIS RESOLUTION:

1. Coordinated route-policing projects may be carried out on recognised routes, where appropriate with the support of Europol, by the Member States in line with national legal provisions and jurisdiction and with due respect for national sovereignty, deploying forces, methods and equipment appropriate to the situation, in order to combat a specific form of crime on the basis of a coordinated policy. The customs and other competent authorities will be involved in appropriate cases.

2. Route-policing projects may extend to the whole territory of the Union or to certain regions.

3. The purpose of such deployment on specific routes will be to ensure that the police achieve optimum results in the prevention and detection of offences, to improve coordination of joint police action and communication and to obtain additional intelligence on cirminal behaviour and methods of committing crimes.

4. Member States aparticipating in the route-policing project may, with the support of Europol, undertake a joint evaluation and will, in the case of regional measures, also inform the other Member States of the results. In this process their principal endeavour will be to develop measures designed further to improve route strategies. In so doing, they will in particular evaluate what new forms of prevention and detection of cross-border crime may be developed, taking account of freedom of movement within the European Union.

5. The provision of personal data will be governed by national law and by international conventions; Articles 126 to 128 of the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement will apply as appropriate.

(1) OJ L 7, 10.1.1997, p. 5.
Editorial Note on Part 1926
Editorial Notes: 1. At 44 FR 8577, Feb. 9, 1979, and corrected at 44 FR 20940, Apr. 6, 1979, OSHA reprinted without change the entire text of 29 CFR part 1926 together with certain General Industry Occupational Safety and Health Standards contained in 29 CFR part 1910, which have been identified as also applicable to construction work. This republication developed a single set of OSHA regulations for both labor and management forces within the construction industry. 2. Nomenclature changes to part 1926 appear at 84 FR 21597, May 14, 2019.

§ 1926.100 Head protection. ( a ) Employees working in areas where there is a possible danger of head injury from impact, or from falling or flying objects, or from electrical shock and burns, shall be protected by protective helmets.
( b ) *Criteria for head protection.* ( 1 ) The employer must provide each employee with head protection that meets the specifications contained in any of the following consensus standards: ( i ) American National Standards Institute (ANSI) Z89.1-2009, “American National Standard for Industrial Head Protection,” incorporated by reference in § 1926.6;
( ii ) American National Standards Institute (ANSI) Z89.1-2003, “American National Standard for Industrial Head Protection,” incorporated by reference in § 1926.6; or
( iii ) American National Standards Institute (ANSI) Z89.1-1997, “American National Standard for Personnel Protection—Protective Headwear for Industrial Workers—Requirements,” incorporated by reference in § 1926.6.
( 2 ) The employer must ensure that the head protection provided for each employee exposed to high-voltage electric shock and burns also meets the specifications contained in Section 9.7 (“Electrical Insulation”) of any of the consensus standards identified in paragraph (b)(1) of this section.
( 3 ) OSHA will deem any head protection device that the employer demonstrates is at least as effective as a head protection device constructed in accordance with one of the consensus standards identified in paragraph (b)(1) of this section to be in compliance with the requirements of this section.
[44 FR 8577, Feb. 9, 1979, as amended at 77 FR 37600, June 22, 2012; 77 FR 42988, July 23, 2012]
§ 18.613 Prior statements of witnesses. ( a ) *Examining witness concerning prior statement.* In examining a witness concerning a prior statement made by the witness, whether written or not, the statement need not be shown nor its contents disclosed to the witness at that time, but on request the same shall be shown or disclosed to opposing counsel.
( b ) *Extrinsic evidence of prior inconsistent statement of witness.* Extrinsic evidence of a prior inconsistent statement by a witness is not admissible unless the witness is afforded an opportunity to explain or deny the same and the opposite party is afforded an opportunity to interrogate the witness thereon, or the interests of justice otherwise require. This provision does not apply to admissions of a party-opponent as defined in § 18.801(d)(2).
Editorial Note on Part 1926
Editorial Notes: 1. At 44 FR 8577, Feb. 9, 1979, and corrected at 44 FR 20940, Apr. 6, 1979, OSHA reprinted without change the entire text of 29 CFR part 1926 together with certain General Industry Occupational Safety and Health Standards contained in 29 CFR part 1910, which have been identified as also applicable to construction work. This republication developed a single set of OSHA regulations for both labor and management forces within the construction industry. 2. Nomenclature changes to part 1926 appear at 84 FR 21597, May 14, 2019.

§ 1926.910 Inspection after blasting. ( a ) Immediately after the blast has been fired, the firing line shall be disconnected from the blasting machine, or where power switches are used, they shall be locked open or in the off position.
( b ) Sufficient time shall be allowed, not less than 15 minutes in tunnels, for the smoke and fumes to leave the blasted area before returning to the shot. An inspection of the area and the surrounding rubble shall be made by the blaster to determine if all charges have been exploded before employees are allowed to return to the operation, and in tunnels, after the muck pile has been wetted down.
#### DOTHARD v. THE STATE.

(Decided June 8, 1916.)

Appeal from Anniston City Court.

Heard before Hon. T. W. COLEMAN, Jr.

Merrill & Walker, for appellant. W. L. Martin, Attorney General, for the State.

Evans, J.

The appeal is on the record proper, and it appears in all things regular. The cause is affirmed.
SERVED: May 5, 2014 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

IN THE MATTERS OF 

REGENT AEROSPACE CORPORATION 

FAA DOCKET NO. [TO BE ASSIGNED] 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

FDMS NO. FAA 2013-0851 

AND 

REGENT AEROSPACE CORPORATION 

FAA DOCKET NO. [TO BE ASSIGNED] 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

FDMS NO. FAA 2013- 0852 

AMENDED PROCEDURAL ORDER 

Paragraphs #2 and #3 ofthe Procedural Order are amended as follows: 

WHEREFORE, the parties be and are hereby ORDERED to adhere to the following 

procedural schedule: 

1. Venue will be Chicago, IL; 

2. On or before August 1, 2014, the parties shall conclude all discovery 

including, but not limited to, depositions, document production, responses 

to production requests and/or interrogatories. If the parties cannot resolve 

a discovery dispute they shall submit the dispute to the undersigned for 

resolution ina timely manner; 

1 
3. The parties shall be prepared to present this case at a hearing on or after 

August 1, 2014, subject to the availability of courtroom facilities. The 

specific date and time for the hearing will be forthcoming in a separate 

Order. 

Richard C. Goodwin 

U.S. Administrative Law Judge 

Attachment - Service List 

2 
SERVICE LIST 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2Wl0001 

ONE COPY 

Reza Soltanian, Respondent's President 

Regent Aerospace Corporation and Airbase Services, Inc. 

28110 West Harrison Parkway 

Valencia, CA 91355-4109 

TEL: 661-257-3000 

FAX: 661-702-0241 

JohnS. Hoff 

Jeffrey Clement, Respondent's Counsel 

Hoff Law Group 

135 S. LaSalle Street, Suite 3300 

Chicago, IL 60603-4134 

TEL: 312-346-81 1 1 

FAX: 312-853-3924 

Chris G. Zurales, Complainant's Counsel 

Attorney, Office of Regional Counsel, Great Lakes Region, AGL-7K 

Federal Aviation Administration 

2300 East Devon Avenue 

Des Plaines, IL 60018 

TEL: 847-294-7713 

FAX: 847-294-7498 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (E11-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: . 202-366-5121 StaffAssistant 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

FDMS Nos. FAA-2013-0851 & 

FAA-2013-0852 

(Civil Penalty Action)· 

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal 

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1000, Washington, 

DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.
#### § 417.401 Scope.

This subpart contains public safety requirements that apply to launch processing and post-launch operations at a launch site in the United States. Ground safety requirements in this subpart apply to activities performed by, or on behalf of, a launch operator at a launch site in the United States. A licensed launch site operator must satisfy the requirements of part 420 of this chapter.
Exhibit 32.1

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

The undersigned, Daniel Dror, CEO and Chairman 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 ammended annual report filed pursuant to Section 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934: Quarterly  Report on Form 10-QSB/A for the period
ended September 30, 2005.

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

Date: February 14, 2006
Daniel Dror
CEO and Chairman/s/ Daniel Dror
§ 1915.163 Ship's piping systems. ( a ) Before work is performed on a valve, fitting, or section of piping in a piping system where employees may be subject to injury from the direct escape of steam, or water, oil, or other medium at a high temperature, the employer shall insure that the following steps are taken: ( 1 ) The isolation and shutoff valves connecting the dead system with the live system or systems shall be secured, blanked, and then locked or tagged, in accordance with § 1915.89, indicating that employees are working on the systems. The lock or tag shall not be removed or the valves unblanked until it is determined that this may be done without creating a hazard to the employees working on the system, or until the work on the system is completed, in accordance with § 1915.89. When valves are welded instead of bolted, at least two isolation and shutoff valves connecting the dead system with the live system or systems shall be secured, and then locked or tagged, in accordance with § 1915.89.
( 2 ) Drain connections to the atmosphere on all of the dead interconnecting systems shall be opened for visual observation of drainage.
[47 FR 16986, Apr. 20, 1982, as amended at 67 FR 44545, July 3, 2002; 76 FR 24711, May 2, 2011]
Nos. 04-15-00124-CR 

STATE OF TEXAS § IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

VS. § FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT 

HECTOR RAMIREZ GUTIERREZ § BEXAR COUNTY, TEXAS 

MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

TO FILE MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL

From the 226th District Court of Bexar County, Texas 

Trial Court No. 2013-CR-2894-W1

Hon. Kevin O’Connell, Judge Presiding 

 In accordance with Tex. R. App. P. 10.5(b), the undersigned submits the following: 

Appellant’s signed motion to dismiss was due to be filed on Wednesday September 30, 

2015. After receiving notification from this Court that Appellant did not need to have his motion 

to dismiss notarized, counsel notified Appellant’s wife, who had been facilitating contact between 

Appellant, who is in Mexico, and counsel. Since that time, counsel had been unable to contact 

Appellant or his wife, through either telephone or email. However, Counsel was able to contact 

Appellant’s wife this afternoon. She advised counsel that Appellant had mailed out the documents 

two to three weeks ago. Counsel is still hopeful he will receive the documents soon. 

 Counsel for Appellant respectfully requests, that he be granted an extension of fifteen (15) 

days to try to secure the required documents from Appellant. 

 WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Appellant respectfully requests that this 

Court grant the requested extension. 

 

 

ACCEPTED

04-15-00124-CR

FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS

SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS

10/13/2015 9:56:02 AM

KEITH HOTTLE

CLERK

 FILED IN 4th COURT OF APPEALS SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 10/13/15 9:56:02 AM KEITH E. HOTTLE Clerk
Respectfully submitted,

Robert A. Jimenez

De Mott, McChesney, Curtright & Armendariz, LLC.

800 Dolorosa Street, Suite 100

San Antonio, Texas 78207

210/354-1844

210/212-2116 - fax

By: /s/ Robert A. Jimenez

SBN: 24059125
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on this the 12th day of October, 2015 a copy of the foregoing “Motion 

for Extension of Time to File Appellant’s Opening Brief” has been electronically filed with this 

Court, and will be served to the Bexar County District Attorney’s Office on October 12, 2015.

 /s/ ROBERT A. JIMENEZ
# EUR-Lex - 32000D0742 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 32000D0742

**2000/742/EC: Council Decision of 16 November 2000 concerning the conclusion of the Agreement on cooperation in science and technology between the European Community and the Government of the Russian Federation **

*
Official Journal L 299 , 28/11/2000 P. 0014 - 0014 *

Council Decision

of 16 November 2000

concerning the conclusion of the Agreement on cooperation in science and technology between the European Community and the Government of the Russian Federation

(2000/742/EC)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 170, in conjunction with Article 300(2), first sentence of the first subparagraph, and Article 300(3), first subparagraph thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the Commission(1),

Having regard to the opinion of the European Parliament(2),

Whereas:

(1) The European Community and the Russian Federation are pursuing specific research programmes in areas of common interest.

(2) The Russian Federation, on the one hand, and the European Community and its Member States, on the other hand, have signed an Agreement on Partnership and Cooperation(3), wherein Article 62 provides for the negotiation of "specific arrangements" in the field of science and technology.

(3) By its Decision of 10 November 1997, the Council authorised the Commission to negotiate an agreement on cooperation in science and technology between the European Community and the Government of the Russian Federation for the duration of the fifth framework programme, established by Decision No 182/1999/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council(4).

(4) The Agreement on cooperation in science and technology between the European Community and the Government of the Russian Federation should be approved,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

The Agreement on cooperation in science and technology between the European Community and the Government of the Russian Federation is hereby approved on behalf of the Community.

The text of the Agreement is attached to this Decision.

Article 2

The President of the Council shall, on behalf of the Community, give the notification provided for in Article 12 of the Agreement(5).

Done at Brussels, 16 November 2000.

For the Council

The President

R. Schwartzenberg

(1) OJ C 370 E, 26.10.1999, p. 22.

(2) Not yet published in the Official Journal.

(3) OJ L 327, 28.11.1997, p. 3.

(4) OJ L 26, 1.2.1999, p. 1.

(5) The date of entry into force of the Agreement will be published in the Official Journal by the General Secretariat of the Council.
§ 102.53 Appeal of compliance determination to the General Counsel; General Counsel's action; request for review by the Board; Board action; opposition to appeal or request for review. ( a ) *Appeal of compliance determination to the General Counsel.* The Charging Party may appeal a compliance determination to the General Counsel in Washington, DC, within 14 days of the written statement of compliance determination as set forth in § 102.52. The appeal must contain a complete statement setting forth the facts and reasons upon which it is based and must identify with particularity the error claimed in the Regional Director's determination. The General Counsel may for good cause shown extend the time for filing an appeal.
( b ) *General Counsel's action.* The General Counsel may affirm or modify the Regional Director's determination or take such other action deemed appropriate, and must state the grounds for that decision.
( c ) *Request for review by Board.* Within 14 days after service of the General Counsel's decision, the Charging Party may file a request for review of that decision with the Board in Washington, DC. The request for review must contain a complete statement of the facts and reasons upon which it is based and must identify with particularity the error claimed in the General Counsel's decision. A copy of the request for review must be served simultaneously on all other parties and on the General Counsel and the Regional Director.
( d ) *Board action.* The Board may affirm or modify the General Counsel's decision, or otherwise dispose of the matter as it deems appropriate. The denial of the request for review will constitute an affirmance of the General Counsel's decision.
( e ) *Opposition to appeal or request for review.* Within 7 days of receipt of a compliance appeal or request for review, a party may file an opposition to the compliance appeal or request for review.
#### Agnes Parsons et al., Appellants, *v.*City of New York, Respondent.

Argued January 19, 1937;

decided March 9, 1937.

*548
      *Charles J. Buchner, John M. Wilson*and *Benjamin J. Murphy*for appellants.

*Paul Windels, Corporation Counsel (Frederick vP. Bryan*and *Paxton Blair*of counsel), for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, O’Brien, Hubbs, Lotjghran, Finch and Rippey, JJ.
**UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY** NATIONAL VEHICLE AND FUEL EMISSIONS LABORATORY

2000 TRAVERWOOD DRIVE ANN ARBOR, MI 48105 - 2498 OFFICE OF AIR AND RADIATION June 25, 2012 MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: Meeting with General Motors and NHTSA May 2, 2012 , to discuss large truck hy brid testing and definitions FROM: Don Kopinski , US EPA TO: EPA Docket # EPA - HQ - OAR - 2010 - 0799 EPA staff met with representatives of General Motors and NHTSA on May 2, 2012. The meeting was he ld at EPA’s NVFEL facility in Ann Arbor, to discuss potential EPA testing of GM’s hy brid Silverado 1500. The purpose of this testing would be to help EPA and NHTSA finalize key

metrics for the large hy

brid truck credit program, outlined in the EPA/NHTSA Proposed Rulemaking for Greenhouse Gas and CAFE Standards for Model Year 2017 - 2025 Li ght - Duty Vehicles . GM attendees were Barbara Kiss and Mike Miller. NHTSA attendees (b y phone) were Jim Tamm, John Whitefoot, and Greg Powell. EPA attendees were By

ungho Lee, Ben Ellies, Jeff C herry, Don Kopins ki, James Sanchez, and Joe McDonald.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-6837

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

MARY EDITH SAUNDERS MUSE,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Beckley. Elizabeth V. Hallanan, District

Judge. (CR-89-21-5-1)

Submitted: February 11, 1997 Decided: March 5, 1997

Before HAMILTON and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mary Edith Saunders Muse, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Michelle Lecocq,

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, West Virginia,

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's order denying her

Motion to Rescind Order Amending Sentence. We have reviewed the

record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district

court. United States v. Muse, No. CR-89-21-5-1 (S.D.W. Va. May 7,

1996). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED