alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit No.
32.1


Form
10-K


Eight
Dragons Company


File
No.  000-28453








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 Eight Dragons Company  (the
“Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
Timothy P. Halter, Chief Executive and Financial Officer 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, 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.







Date:
      February 6, 2009
                  By:
                  /s/
      Glenn A. LittleGlenn
      A. LittleChief
      Executive andChief
      Financial
Officer




A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
Eight Dragons Company and will be retained by Eight Dragons Company and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
### I N T H E S U P R EM E C O U R T STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

2024 ND 165 In the Interest of W.S., a Child Erica Raguse, L.S.W., Cass Human Services Zone, Petitioner and Appellee v. W.S., Child; M.S., Father, Respondents and H.S., Mother, Respondent and Appellant

No. 20240179 In the Interest of W.S., a Child Erica Raguse, L.S.W., Cass Human Services Zone, Petitioner and Appellee v. W.S., Child; M.S., Father, Respondents and H.S., Mother, Respondent and Appellant

No. 20240180 Appeal from the Juvenile Court of Cass County, East Central Judicial District, the Honorable Daniel E. Gast, Judicial Referee. AFFIRMED. Per Curiam.Rebecca R. Jund, Assistant State’s Attorney, Fargo, ND, for petitioner and appellee; on

brief. Kiara C. Kraus-Parr, Grand Forks, ND, for respondent and appellant; on brief.1 Interest of W.S. and W.S. Nos. 20240179 & 20240180 Per Curiam. [¶1] H.S. appeals from a juvenile court order terminating her parental rights to W.S. and W.S. She argues the court erred when it found the children were subjected to aggravated circumstances and when it found the conditions and causes creating the need for protection are likely to continue. We conclude the court’s findings are not clearly erroneous and the court did not abuse its discretion when it terminated H.S.’s parental rights. See Interest of A.C. , 2022 ND 123, ¶ 5, 975 N.W.2d 567 (stating the clearly erroneous standard of review applies to factual findings made in a termination of parental rights proceeding); see also Interest of A.P. , 2022 ND 131, ¶ 2, 976 N.W.2d 244 (stating the decision whether to terminate parental rights is left to the court’s discretion when the statutory requirements are proven by clear and convincing evidence). We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (4). [¶2] Jon J. Jensen, C.J. Daniel J. Crothers Lisa Fair McEvers Jerod E. Tufte Douglas A. Bahr
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                             123
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,701
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      2,052
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                15,922
<PP&E>                                          14,825
<DEPRECIATION>                                   9,373
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  21,374
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           16,237
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           880
<OTHER-SE>                                         900
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    21,374
<SALES>                                          6,396
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 6,396
<CGS>                                            5,435
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    5,435
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     6
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 203
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (468)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       (8)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (476)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.11)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        


</TABLE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

JESSICA L. JONES,

Petitioner

v.

MARIE H. PLUMER, ADMINISTRATRIX OF

THE ESTATE OF JAMES J. STOVER,

Respondent :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 48 WAL 2020

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 3rd day of August, 2020

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
# AVS

Quality Management System Trtle: Domestic NewAction Worksheet with 58 QPM# AIR-ANM-030-F7
Date: December 17, 2008 Revision 1


## Record ofContacts 

# 2-010-0377 FDMSDocketNo.FAA~
- With whom outside the FAA has this proposal been discussed (e.g., ATA, RAA, ALPA, etc.)?

Organization Person Contacted Date Boeing Norm Black osn6nOO9 ATA Joe White IO/29nOO9

UNCONTROLLED COPY WHEN DOWNLOADED Check the Master List to Verify Thai This is the Corred Revision Befure Use
Public Utilities Commission

No. 6789

#### Browning-Ferris Industries of New Hampshire, Inc. v. State of New Hampshire

April 30, 1975

*Devine, Millimet, Stahl*6? *Branch*and *Silas Little III (Mr. Little*orally) for the plaintiff.

*WarrenB. Rudman,*attorney general, *andJohnL. Ahlgren,*attorney *(Mr. Ahlgren*orally), for the State of New Hampshire.

Per curiam.

The key issue in this case on appeal from the public utilities commission (RSA ch. 541) is whether the plaintiff was denied due process of law when it was refused a permit to haul rubbish as a contract carrier throughout the town of Hooksett.

Earl’s Rubbish Disposal, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Browning-Ferris Industries, was denied a permit to transport rubbish in the town of Hooksett, with the exception of the rubbish of a college located on the Manchester-Hooksett line which had been a previous customer. Plaintiff was authorized to operate in Manchester as a common carrier. In denying this plaintiff’s broader application, the commission said that “ [w ]hile it is the desire of *191the carrier to add other patrons in the Town of Hooksett, no public support for this is shown on the record.” RSA ch. 375-B (Supp. 1973).

The commission has broad discretion to act in the public interest. *Waste Control Systems, Inc. v. State,*114 N.H. 21, 314 A.2d 659 (1974); *Vautier v. State,*112 N.H. 193, 291 A.2d 612 (1972); D’Ambruoso, *The New Hampshire Public Utilities Commission: Functions and Jurisdiction,*15 N.H.B.J. 177 (1974). Although there was evidence of need, there was also evidence that an existing carrier was capable of providing the needed service. The evidence did not require a finding favorable to the plaintiff and the denial of the application was not arbitrary.

The plaintiffs also claim that the commission’s refusal to grant an expanded permit created a monopoly situation in Hooksett which was against the public interest. *See*RSA 375-B:1 (Supp. 1973); RSA chs. 358-A (Supp. 1973), 356; N.H. Const, pt. II, art. 83. We need not reach this issue, since it was not raised on petition for rehearing before the commission. RSA 541:4.

We cannot agree with the plaintiff’s final argument that as a matter of law the failure of a public utilities commissioner to attend the hearing on this matter but at the same time participate in the decision on the license violates due process. Due process is not denied when an administrative examiner takes evidence, analyzes it, and makes recommendations on the basis of such evidence while the actual decision-maker reviews the evidence and makes a final determination based on the record and recommendations. RSA 363:16; *Morgan v. United States,*298 U.S. 468, 480-82 (1936); 18 A.L.R.2d 606 (1951, Supp. 1974); K. Davis, Administrative Law Text §§ 11.01-07 (1972).

We have also examined the expanded record ordered in *Harry K. Shepard, Inc.*and *Browning-Ferris Industries of New Hampshire, Inc. v. State,*114 N.H. 344, 320 A.2d 110 (1974), and find no such inconsistency as would require a remand.

Accordingly, this appeal is

*Dismissed.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1996
<CASH>                                       1,673,614
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,919,971
<ALLOWANCES>                                    14,000
<INVENTORY>                                     76,033
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,915,681
<PP&E>                                       2,484,007
<DEPRECIATION>                             (2,246,728)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,430,730
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,145,222
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                        1,500,000
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       488,183
<OTHER-SE>                                    (15,383)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,430,730
<SALES>                                      1,527,608
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,527,608
<CGS>                                          947,255
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  701,356
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             (150,655)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (1,144)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (136,822)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (136,822)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (136,822)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.03)
        

</TABLE>
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"ADR.gov","provider_url":"https:\/\/adr.gov","title":"Federal ADR Resources","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"z8hCmNMBtM\"><a href=\"https:\/\/adr.gov\/guidance\/adrguide-home\/6resources\/\">Federal ADR Resources<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/adr.gov\/guidance\/adrguide-home\/6resources\/embed\/#?secret=z8hCmNMBtM\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Federal ADR Resources” — ADR.gov\" data-secret=\"z8hCmNMBtM\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script type=\"text\/javascript\">\n\/* <![CDATA[ *\/\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n\/* ]]> *\/\n<\/script>\n"}
I

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4851

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make a technical correction

to the definition of hard cider for purposes of the excise tax on alcohol.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JULY 13, 2000

Mr. HILL of Montana introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Ways and Means

A BILL

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make

a technical correction to the definition of hard cider

for purposes of the excise tax on alcohol.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. TECHNICAL CORRECTION TO DEFINITION OF

4 HARD CIDER.

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Paragraph (6) of section 5041(b)

6 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to rates

7 of tax) is amended to read as follows:

8 ‘‘(6) 22.6 cents per wine gallon on hard cider

9 which is a still, carbonated, or sparkling wine—
2

•HR 4851 IH

1 ‘‘(A) which is prepared by fermenting

2 apple or pear juice, either fresh or diluted,

3 without at any time—

4 ‘‘(i) adding alcoholic liquors or for5 tifying with alcohol, or

6 ‘‘(ii) using any fruit product other

7 than apples and pears, except that fla8 voring may be added as provided in sub9 paragraph (C)(iii),

10 ‘‘(B) which contains at least one-half of 1

11 percent and less than 7 percent alcohol by vol12 ume, and

13 ‘‘(C) with respect to which, at any time be14 fore or after fermentation—

15 ‘‘(i) apple juice, pear juice, water, or

16 sugar, or any combination, may be added,

17 and

18 ‘‘(ii) the cider may be flavored using

19 natural flavorings or natural food products

20 other than apples or pears, but only if such

21 flavorings and products do not exceed 5

22 percent by volume of the finished cider.’’
3

•HR 4851 IH

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by

2 this section shall take effect as if included in section 908

3 of the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997.

Æ
EXHIBIT 32.1

             CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C., ss.1350 AS ADOPTED

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


         In connection with the annual report on Form 10-KSB of Magnum d'Or
Resources Inc. (the Company") for the year ended September 30, 2005, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
the undersigned Chief Executive Officer, President, Treasurer, and principal
financial and accounting officer of the Company, hereby certify pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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 Magnum d'Or
Resources Inc.

Date: December 29, 2005              /s/ Sun Xuguang
                                     -------------------------------------------
                                     Sun Xuguang, Chief Executive Officer,
                                     President and Treasurer

                                     /s/ Sun Shaojun
                                     -------------------------------------------
                                     Sun Shaojun, Vice President, Secretary and
                                     principal financial and accounting officer
**
**DUST OFF: ARMY AEROMEDICAL EVACUATION IN VIETNAM**
**
**
*by*
**
**
*Peter Dorlandand James Nanney*
**
**
*CENTER OF MILITARY HISTORY UNITED STATES ARMY WASHINGTON, D. C., 1982*
**
**
First Printing 
**
**
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S.Government Printing Office Washington, D.C. 20402
**
**
**Contents**
**

PREFACE

THE AUTHORS

I. THE EARLY YEARS

Early Medical Evacuation Early Aeromedical Evacuation The Korean War 

II. BIRTH OF A TRADITION

The Struggle Begins The First Air Ambulance Unit in VietnamDust Off Takes Form Relations with the South Vietnamese Kelly and the Dust Off Mystique A New Buildup The Crisis Deepens 

III. THE SYSTEM MATURES 

Origins of the Air Ambulance Platoon The Air Ambulance Platoon Goes to Work The Medical Company (Air Ambulance) The 436th Medical Company (Provisional) ATTLEBORO The 45th Medical CompanyThe Buildup of 1967 Riverine Operations Dak To The 54th and the Kelly Tradition Dust Off Wins Its First Medal of Honor Dust Off in the Saddle 

IV. THE PILOT AT WORK 

The UH-1 Iroquois ("Huey") The Hoist Evacuation Missions Evacuation Problems Enemy Fire A Turning Point 

V. FROM TET TO STAND-DOWN

TET - 1968 The Drawdown Begins A Second Medal of Honor VNAF Dust Off Cambodia A Medevac in Peril Laos Papa Whiskey Stand-Down and Ship Out

EPILOGUE

StatisticsDoctrine and Lessons Learned A Historical Perspective

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTE

ArticlesBooks and Studies

MAP
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-14-00554-CV

IN RE LIFECELL CORPORATION

Original Mandamus Proceeding1

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Delivered and Filed: August 13, 2014

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED

On August 5, 2014, relator LifeCell Corporation filed a petition for writ of mandamus and 

an emergency motion for temporary relief. The court has considered the petition for writ of 

mandamus and is of the opinion that relator is not entitled to the relief sought. Accordingly, the 

petition for writ of mandamus and the emergency motion for temporary relief are denied. See TEX.

R. APP. P. 52.8(a).

PER CURIAM

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2014CI10718, styled LifeCell Corporation v. Novadaq Technologies, Inc. 

and Novadaq Corp., pending in the 166th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Peter A. Sakai 

presiding.
#### § 181.703 Information pamphlet: Contents.

Unless otherwise specified in this subpart, each information pamphlet must contain the information specified in sections 33, 34 and 35 of UL 1123.

[CGD 93-055, 61 FR 13927, Mar. 28, 1996]
§ 230.25 Environmental review and consultation requirements. See 40 CFR 1502.25. ( a ) For Federal projects, NEPA documents shall be prepared concurrently with and utilize data from analyses required by other environmental laws and executive orders. A listing of environmental laws and orders is contained in table 3.4.3 of Economic and Environmental Principles and Guidelines for Water and Related Land Resources Implementation Studies. Reviews and consultation requirements, analyses, and status of coordination associated with applicable laws, executive orders and memoranda will be summarized in the draft document. The results of the coordination completed or underway pursuant to these authorities will be summarized in the final document. Where the results of the ongoing studies are not expected to materially affect the decision on the proposed action, the filing of the final EIS need not be delayed.
( b ) *Executive Order 12114, Environmental Effects Abroad of Major Federal Actions, 4 January 1979.* For general policy guidance, see Federal Register of April 12, 1979, 32 CFR part 197. Procedural requirements for Civil Works studies and projects are discussed below. ( 1 ) The district commander through the division commander will notify CECW-PE, PN, PS or PW as appropriate, of an impending action which may impact on another country and for which environmental studies may be necessary to determine the extent and significance of the impact. The district commander will inform CECW-P whether entry into the country is necessary to study the base condition.
( 2 ) CECW-P will notify the State Department, Office of Environment and Health (OES/ENH) of the district commander's concern, and whether a need exists at this point to notify officially the foreign nation of our intent to study potential impacts. Depending on expected extent and severity of impacts, or if entry is deemed necessary, the matter will be referred to the appropriate foreign desk for action.
( 3 ) As soon as it becomes evident that the impacts of the proposed actions are considered significant, CECW-P will notify the State Department. The State Department will determine whether the foreign embassy needs to be notified, and will do so if deemed appropriate, requesting formal discussions on the matter. When the International Joint Commission (IJC) or the International Boundary and Water Commission, United States and Mexico (IBWC) is involved in a study, the State Department should be consulted to determine the foreign policy implications of any action and the proper course of action for formal consultations.
( 4 ) Prior to public dissemination, press releases or reports dealing with impact assessments in foreign nations should be made available to the appropriate foreign desk at the State Department for clearance and coordination with the foreign embassy.
#### § 154.700 General.

No person may operate a facility unless the equipment, personnel, and operating procedures of that facility meet the requirements of this part.

[CGD 75-124, 45 FR 7173, Jan. 31, 1980]
§ 183.516 Cellular plastic used to encase fuel tanks. ( a ) Cellular plastic used to encase metallic fuel tanks must: ( 1 ) Not change volume by more than five percent or dissolve after being immersed in any of the following liquids for 24 hours at 29 °C: ( i ) Reference fuel B ASTM D 471 (incorporated by reference, see § 183.5).
( ii ) No. 2 reference oil of ASTM D 471 (incorporated by reference, see § 183.5).
( iii ) Five percent solution of trisodium phosphate in water; and
( 2 ) Not absorb more than 0.12 pound of water per square foot of cut surface, measure under Military Specification MIL P-21929B.
( b ) Non-polyurethane cellular plastic used to encase metallic fuel tanks must have a compressive strength of at least 60 pounds per square inch at ten percent deflection measured under ASTM D 1621 (incorporated by reference, see § 183.5), “Compressive Strength of Rigid Cellular Plastics”.
( c ) Polyurethane cellular plastic used to encase metallic fuel tanks must have a density of at least 2.0 pounds per cubic foot, measured under ASTM D 1622 (incorporated by reference, see § 183.5), “Apparent Density of Rigid Cellular Plastics.”
[CGD 74-209, 42 FR 5950, Jan. 31, 1977, as amended by CGD 77-98, 42 FR 36253, July 14, 1977; CGD 81-092, 48 FR 55737, Dec. 15, 1983; USCG-2000-7223, 65 FR 40059, June 29, 2000]
#### § 175.11 Applicability.

This subpart applies to all recreational vessels that are propelled or controlled by machinery, sails, oars, paddles, poles, or another vessel.

[CGD 92-045, 58 FR 41608, Aug. 4, 1993]